HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:02:27 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

: I believe it because is true. Hillary Clinton trusts lawyers more than
: parents; I think she has it exactly backwards.

Well, is it a surprise to you that Hillary trusts lawyers more than parents,
considering that she is a lawyer, and that there are far too many examples
of parents not doing their "jobs:"  too many cases of child abuse and
neglect, too many violent childeren committing crimes and injuring people,
and too many cases of truancy.  

[...]

: But ...  my view: I support the elimination, yes,  *ELIMINATION*, of
: contingincy fees, except when the plantiff is indigent.  I
: support plaintiffs paying the defendent's court costs if the
: plaintiffs are wrong or are instigating a frivolous law suit.
: Appalled?

Granted, I am no fan of the monstrosity of a legal system we currently
have, but I have a problem with your proposal.  How do you define
"indigent," and what happens to those people just above the line
of "indigency" who have a justifiable claim against, say a major
corporation, who cannot afford the fees of a "non-contingency" lawyer?

I do like the bit about plaintiffs paying the defendant's court costs
under the circumstances you list, though.  :)  It sounds like a
very good idea.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I deserve respect for the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 things I did not do."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Family Leave (was Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:35:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.205821.3652@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> ujwb@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jeff Beer) writes:
>
>And such is an example of the shortsightedness of American business.
>They view their workforce as reusable, replaceable, and ultimately
>meaningless entities, merely chess pieces in the equation producing the
>Almighty bottom line.
>
>Jeff


companies need to wake up and learn that their most valuable asset is the
*people* that work for them.  not the plant or equipment or whatever.
companies that now empower the worker and push decision-making down to the 
lowest levels(where workers know what is going on) and have a flat(er) 
management structure will do well.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 04:52:47 GMT

    It's not the fact that Clinton was reluctant to serve that will turn
some voters against him, but instead will be what he did while not serving.
In Clinton you have a man who boasts proudly that he already had as a goal
becoming President while in his teens, a man who claims to have more
qualities of leadership than Bush, a man who says he firmly believes in his
principles, and a man who eloquently wrote of how he could not morally justify
fighting in the Vietnam war.  If all these things are true, wouldn't such a
man have thrown himself into the forefront of the anti-war movement and
demonstrated what a great leader he was?  All great leaders have been
willing to sacrifice personally when fighting for what they believe in.  I
have yet to hear of any event in Clinton's life so far in which he has
stood fast for what he believes, but at great personal expense.  If Clinton
was of presidential stock, he would have stayed in the US and worked his
way into the leadership of the anti-war movement, instead of worrying about
future 'political viability'.
 
-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:04:31 GMT

In article <cortez.716066230@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.111518.26548@sinix.UUCP> ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:
>>>like this, they don't think, they act.  Hang out with some of your less
>>>successfully friends and watch how they think.  They _are_ in most cases,
>>>the ones that get unintentionally preggers.
>
>>Reality in the US, at least among the young pregnant (7th-9th grade,
>>with some high school), is different.
>
>>I used to hang out with them.  Most knew what they were doing; they
>>were TRYING to get pregnant.  The others didn't care whether or not
>>they got pregnant.
>
>>The ones who wanted to get pregnant thought that having a kid would
>>make their lives better.
>
>You hung out with 7th  grade girls who wanted to get pregnant because
>they thought it would make their lives better?
>
>Is this, strictly speaking, honest?

Yes.  It's an eye opener.  It took me a while to learn how to get them
to talk without just returning what they thought would help them get
along.  (They're pregnant/teen-mothers, not stupid.)

>You honestly believe that education is not a factor in the difference
>between teen pregancy rates in urban Chicago and the suburbs of Seattle?
>What is the reason for the huge disparity?

It certainly depends on what we mean by education.  Obviously sex
education is irrelevant because they knew how to get pregnant and
wanted to.  (Voluntary birth control is also irrelevant.)

Some of these kids were quite bright.  It isn't obvious that they made
the wrong decision for someone in their situation.  After all, they
weren't going to be in a rich family whether or not they got pregnant.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5204 alt.politics.clinton:5517
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "We don't want a draft dodging administration!"
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:14:54 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep14.211232.23967@den.mmc.com>, sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John
Sims) says:
>
>As a member of the military, and having had a draft number of 97, I
>definitely consider Clinton's response to this "non-issue" very
>relevant.
>
>John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com

Comments about the draft issue:

-Clinton:  possibly avoided being drafted for a year.  Gave up his
-ROTC status on Oct. 30, 1969 and entered the lottery.  Received
-No. 311 in the lottery on December 1, 1969.  "The guy at the draft
-board then said they were going to call me in January.  Then when
-this lottery came in and I got a high number, I asked what does this
-mean and they said we're still going to call everybody but you'll be
-called in May.  I said, O.K., I'll be there in May.  ...that was
-the year Nixon de-escalated the war so they never got to that number.
-It was just a fluke.

-Quayle:  definitely avoided being drafted by entering ROTC.  His
-comments on his action:  "I did not know in 1969 that I would be
-in this room today, I'll confess...I (did) what any normal person
-would do at that age.  You call home to mother and father and say,
-'I'd like to get in the National Guard.'" (August, 1988).

-George Bush, Jr.:  "has acknowledged that he wasn't keen on the
-service but didn't want to go to Canada - and felt his father's
-career was a consideration." (Washington Post, Sept. 13).  Avoided
-the draft by joining the Texas Air National Guard.

-Dick Cheney:  completely avoided the draft by getting continual
-draft deferments.  "...as one who did not serve in the military,"
-he doesn't think military service should be a requirement "for
-anybody who serves in higher office."

-Newt Gingrich:  completely avoided the draft.

-Pat Buchanan:  bum knee kept him out of Vietnam.  Describes himself
-as a "compulsive jogger" today.

Enough said.

Jeff Luck                          *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University         "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU               -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:04:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.191233.5330@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>I suggest you read some non-American newspapers about collateral
>damage...the claims about how smart a fair number of the American bombs were
>are about as true as the incubator scam perpertrated by Hill and
>Knowlton for the Kuwaiti Royal family.

When you are carpet bombing troops in the desert, smart bombs are a waste
of money, but you'll never see a discussion of that in the media.

-- 
My opinions are my own.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5045 alt.politics.elections:13071 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3703 talk.politics.guns:20921 talk.politics.misc:45340
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Welfare - The Truth Finally Revealed! was Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: Tree huggers, Bud-chugging-hairy-backed-red-necked-conservatives
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:18:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:


>|> and the path to success for women is to become a welfare mother.  She hasn't
>|> been installed with the middle class values of responsibility to support 
>|> herself, etc.  For her, there is essentially no downside to having a bunch
>|> of kids and living off the welfare system.

>Doesn't work. Do the math. You get less for each kid than it costs to feed,
>clothe, and house him/her. Each additional kid puts the family deeper into
>the hole. Like you said, the kids aren't stupid. They can do the math.
>Moreover, they have eyes to see how deep a hole the so-called "welfare mothers"
>find themselves in.

Who said they are spending the money on the kid?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:05:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.033239.8769@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.175342.11514@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>>In a *very* tasteful piece of journalism on Nightline last night, Ted
>>Koppel talked with Senators Sam Nunn and James (?) Danforth about the
>>country's possibly most important problem: the deficit. 
>
>According to most polls, the deficit ranks DEAD LAST among the issues that
>concern the average voter. The number one issue is the economy. Even that
>tired old liberal standby, "homelessness", ranks above the deficit in
>importance.
>
>An increasing federal deficit is just the economy's way of saying that the
>federal welfare state is living on borrowed time. Now I can see why senators
>like Sam Nunn and James Danforth would consider that a grave concern. But
>why that should rank in importance above other issues to Americans not
>employed or subsized the uncle sam is totally unclear.
>
>The reality is that the deficit will continue to increase until the role of the
>federal government is reduced. For once, Bush is on the right track.
>
 
Under Bush, the percentage of federal spending as a percentage of GDP
is larger than under any president in recent history...

Nunn and Danforth's were "concerned" about the deficit when Perot was
a threat to the Incumbancy Party...now that Perot is out of the race,
both are back to arguing that Bush and Clinton have realistic policies
when it comes to the deficit.  Both Clinton's and Bush's policies when
it comes to the deficit are frauds...

To seriously address the US deficit problem, 

1) Social Security has to be overhauled...at a minimum, the benefits
have to become taxable, and FICA has to be eliminated as a part of
comprehensive tax reform.

2) Real Health Care Reform to bring in line US private/public spending
on health care in line with other Western capitilist democracies.  This
means the equivalent of NHI in a public or pseudo-privatized form.

3) Comprehensive tax reform...the US has to move to a VAT, eliminate
FICA, significant lowering and flattening of income and corporate and
capital gains taxes with the elimination of loopholes.  

Gerald

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4512 talk.politics.misc:44401
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Teen Pregnancy (Was: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Date: 9 Sep 1992 16:02:35 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com
Summary: It's true (I suppose...)

In article <cortez.716066230@milton>, cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> 
> >I used to hang out with them.  Most knew what they were doing; they
> >were TRYING to get pregnant.  The others didn't care whether or not
> >they got pregnant.
> 
> You hung out with
> 7th  grade girls who wanted to get pregnant because they thought it would
> make their lives better?
> 
> Is this, strictly speaking, honest?
> 
> You honestly believe that education is not a factor in the difference
> between teen pregancy rates in urban Chicago and the suburbs of Seattle?
> What is the reason for the huge disparity?

I watched one of those "newsie" programs the other night (Street
Stories?) that said exactly what Andy says. A great many of these
girls have a very lonely and loveless existence, and they decide
to have a baby because "It's mine, and it can never leave me.".
Others do it for the love of a boyfriend, etc., but there are
alot that do it so they'll have someone.

Of course, after reality sets in, they regret it (for the most
part), and advised that others not follow their course.

My personal belief is that alot of these girls come from pretty
bad, sometimes abusive homes, and their sense of self-worth is
probably pretty bad to begin with. So, they reach out for some-
thing to hold on to in the only way they know.

This may also be partially education-related, but I tend to be-
lieve that it is more rooted in one's upbringing, especially if
that upbringing was in some way deficient.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion - It in no way reflects the views of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:13:27 GMT

In article <T3FwqB5w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
>> In article <0FPuqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
>> >
>> >Besides, Bush is spending so much time bashing Hillary that his campaign 
>> >for First Lady wouldn't be complete without a face-to-face showdown.
>> 
>> One prime time speaker during the Republican convention mentions Hillary,
>> and the press calls the whole convention a week of Hillary bashing.  
>> 
>> Well, now, it seems you don't have to say a thing about Hillary, and you're
>> still bashing her.  Has Bush even uttered Hillary's name?
>> 
>
>One primetime speaker?  How about Bond, Buchanan, and indirectly, Barbara 
>Bush and Marilyn Quayle.  You've got Bush surrogates going around the 
>country completely distorting her published works.  

Let's stick to the accusation.  You've claimed that Bush is spending "so
much time bashing Hillary".  He hasn't.  You've now claimed that Barbara
Bush bashed Hillary. She hasn't.  You've claimed that Marilyn Quayle
bashed Hillary.  She hasn't.  In response to my post, you've implied 
that Rich Bond gave a primetime speech at the convention.  He didn't.
>
>
>
>>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:25:28 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>%anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:

>institutions specifically designed to safegaurd their positions. Along
>with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include
>marriage, slavery and the Indian reservation system."

>A family is an institution that DEPRIVES children of RIGHTS?

>While she may not have "compared" marriage and slavery per se, she most
>certainly expressed a commonality, in as much as two branches of a tree
>depend on the same roots and trunk for their existence.

She said "*past* and present examples".  Now, I admit that it
is unclear whether she means that her examples are both past and present,
or that some are past and others, are present.  But, in an interview
with Jane Pauley the other evening, she made it clear that she was
referring to the insistute of marriage as it stood until about 100 years
ago.  Up until that time the wife and children were considered the 
property of the husband to do with as he pleased.  They had absolutely
no rights whatsoever.  I think that sort of a marriage and family
can accurately be equated with slavery.

>It is outrageous that Hilary believes ( she has not yet publicly disavowed
>these opinions ) that parents are so inept at making responsible judgments
>that the courts need to step in to review every kind of decision they make
>regarding their children. 

You obviously didn't read what you are responding to.  She did not
advocate that the courts step in and review "every kind of decision they
make regarding their children".  I think you are getting a bit carried
away.  She is referring to irrevocable decisions that will affect
the rest of the child's life.

And believe it or not, parents are human and are capable of making 
bad decisions.   When these bad decisions could ruin their childrens's
lives, then I think the courts should be involved for the protection
of the children.

Don't the kids have rights too?

>Nobody should tell anyone how to deal with their
>children. Nobody.

Oh no?  Do you think your child (assuming you have one) is your
property to do with as you please?  You seem to be just the type
of parent (or potential parent) that Hillary is trying to protect children 
from.  


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:50:12 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <3#4y6dc@rpi.edu> blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.164731.8994@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>|> [lots of good stuff deleted]
>|> 
>|> >	So what should we do in the meantime? Discriminate against
>|> >people with AIDS?
>|> >
>|> >				J. Wagner
>|> 
>|> How 'bout treating them like anyone else who has a deadly infectious
>|> disease. Naw can't do that.
>|> 
>|> 				mike
>
>BZZT.
>
>Infectious implies that by standing next to someone with a disease, I can
>contract it from them. In the case of AIDS this is FALSE. 

Wrong, also.  Infectious simply indicates that it is a disease that can
pass from one organism to another.  Not much different from
communicable, really.

Syphilis is an infectious disease -- but you'd be hard pressed to catch
it standing next to a person.  However, there are infectious diseases
that can be spread by casual contact or "standing next" to the person so
infected.

AIDS is the final stage of HIV infection -- check the Walter Reed
Hospital charts, please!  They show the six stages of HIV infection.  It
is HIV infection that we are concerned about.  Once you have HIV, you
will come down with AIDS.

Regards,

Gene



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4324 alt.politics.clinton:4329 alt.politics.elections:12593
From: Ariel.A.Vitali@dartmouth.edu (Ariel A. Vitali)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: This Republican says: Bush is a babbling idiot!
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:49:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Good ol' George Herbert Hoover Bush was in Chicago yesterday addressing
a large group of people, Polish-Americans, I think.  He had the extreme
gall to plagiarize Senator Tsongas, calling Governor Clinton a "pander
bear."  Wait a minute, after a week of throwing money around to farmers
and every other little interest group, promising to rebuild Homestead
AFB for no apparent reason, etc.  We're talking pure unadulterated
hypocrisy!
Also in his speech, Bush resorted to his shrill, idiotic "blame
-the-Congress" BS:
"We made a lot of progress, but in others we've got a ways to go.  And
you ask me why, and why I should. and I would say three words:  the
gridlocked Congress.  ...There are certain numbers that mean something.
 Number 40, Gayle Sayers.  Number 8, Carl Yastrzemski.  Number 23, a
certain basketball player in baggy shorts.  Here's one you may not
know.  Number 38.  That's how long the same party, the same crowd has
been running the United States House of Representatives , 38 years. 
Ask Millie, our dog, and she'll tell you that's 266 in a dog life."

WHAT?!?!?  Vote this guy out - Please!!

Thanks for listening!
Ariel Vitali
Republican for Clinton/Gore

Internet: ariel.a.vitali@dartmouth.edu

"Endive!  Endive!  I'll say it again!  Endive!  Endive!  Endive!  
Endive!"
- Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4537 alt.politics.clinton:4622 alt.politics.elections:12708