HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman)
Subject: Re: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:44:35 GMT

In article <168566C28.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>Whose son or husband or brother died while Slick Willie was laughing
>at the system?  Do you want this coward and liar to protect you?

Protect me from what?

From the Evil Empire?  Yep, I think that even Dan Quayle could
	protect me from them (the Empire has dissappeared,
	remember).  All Bush does is rebuild
	hurricane-destroyed airports just so he will get votes
	instead of taking the opportunity to turn it back to
	civilian use (according to NPR, the justification for
	the airbase is drugs and Cuba -- come on!).  I think
	Clinton has a far better plan (any plan's better than
	no plan) to get people off of military budget welfare.

	On military matters, I trust a man who opposed what the
	US was doing in Vietnam and whose biggest mistake was
	writing a letter being honest about his struggle with
	the draft.  Somehow Panama and Iraq just don't make me
	feel more protected.

From overseas competition?  Yep, I think Clinton could do a much
	better job of protecting us from our real overseas
	threats, namely the economic ones.  George (Toys R Us) Bush
	don't have a clue.

From our own government?  From a national security apparatus gone
	wild?  From a court system that has ceased to recognize 
	much of the Bill of Rights?  Yep, no question.

From blathering Internet idiots?  Nope.  Hafta do that myself.

##########################################################################
#  George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org)                  			 #
#  MCNC Center for Microelectronics					 #
#  P.O. Box 12889                           Dan Quayle is more stupid    #
#  Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2889    than Ronald Reagan put       #
#  919/248-1953 (voice)                     together. - Matt Groening    #
##########################################################################
-- 

			  George

##########################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Subject: re: Clinton's Connections
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 20:33:59 GMT


>Bwaahahahahahahaha!  Boy this is true justice!  I always thought that this
>endless badgering of Quayle might come back to haunt the Demogogues.
>Now as it just so happens, as reported in the LA Times today, what
>Slick Willie did was have his uncle pull some strings to save his
>quaking, quivering, wet pants from going to Viet Nam.

>Now, the honorable Demogogues will be sure to stick to their moral
>posturing on Quayle and throw Clinton off the ticket, won't they? Uh-huh.
>After all, what has been said of Quayle and used as evidence that
>Quayle shouldn't be on the ticket (pulling strings) is even truer of
>Corporal Clinton.  I think consistency and fairness here demands
>that Clinton be publically ridculed as Quayle has been for 4 years on
>this issue.  Right!  It will be cute to see the Demogogues slip and
>slide their way out of this one.

Why are you guys leaving out the fact that Bill Clinton turned down the
arrangement that someone claims his dead uncle set up for him? You don't
seem to care what the facts are as long as you can try to blame Clinton
for some wrong doing. Typical Republican strategy. If you hadn't had the 
Long-term-memory-removal operation that seems to be required of all good
republicans, you might remember that when we were approaching draft age we
were almost expected to find a way to avoid the draft. Now people try to 
turn it into a character flaw. The reason it is held against Little Danny,
is that he seems to have loved the Vietnam war and any other war for that
matter. 

Face it. Bush sucks! We're in serious trouble. Clinton has many very
good ideas. People that stick to the issues instead of going off on crap
that happened 20 years ago will agree that we have to give Bill Clinton's
plan a chance. Bush obviously has nothing to offer.
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 01 Sep 92 22:26 PDT
Subject: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1588800008:000:1293
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Sep  1 22:26:00 1992


From: <jlohrmann>
Subject: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3

To: Clinton Team <clinton-org@ai.mit.edu>

Updated Schedule


SCHEDULE FOR GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON 
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992

Macon, Georgia

11:30 am EDT    GOVERNOR CLINTON ADDRESSES SENIOR
                CITIZENS OF MACON, Tattnall Park
                outside of Macon-Bibb Senior Center,
                Tattnall and Oglethorpe Streets

This speech will be available via satellite on SBS
6, Transponder 7 Full, Downlink frequency 11.872,
Audio 6.2/6.8                   

Greensboro, North Carolina

4:10 pm EDT     GOVERNOR CLINTON ADDRESSES SENIOR
                CITIZENS OF GREENSBORO, Village
                Green Retirement Community, 310 W.
                Meadowview Rd. 

BALTIMORE, MD


8:50 pm EDT     GOVERNOR CLINTON ARRIVES FOR
                SOFTBALL GAME, Randazzo Park, Upton
                Rd., Glen Burnie



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER, 2, 1992

10:30 am EDT    GOVERNOR CLINTON ARRIVES FOR ADDRESS
                TO COLLEGE COMMUNITY, Montgomery
                College, Outdoor Amphitheater


                
Thursday, September 3, 1992

Washington, D.C.

11:00 pm EDT    GOVERNOR CLINTON ADDRESSES AFL-CIO,
                Sheraton Washington Hotel,
                Washington, DC


TBA\PM          Florida
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:02:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.180929.9909@dbsun.uucp> 
hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> Aha! let's go back to the original post where Mr. Holtsinger made his
> "complete nonsense" statement.
>
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes
>>> One of the TV news programs did a segment on the need for fetal tissue
>>> research.  A preacher in Florida, who is anti-abortion, had a child die
>>> of a genetics disease.  Their 2nd pregnancy was determined to carry the
>>> same genetic flaw and the preacher spent his resources to get fetal tissue
>>> to correct the flaw in utero.

>> This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the
>> experimental stage.

> I deleted stuff which I am sure Mr. Holtsinger will flame me for, but the
> point is that where he put his "complete nonsense" response was after a
> statement about a "60 Minutes" story.  It appears as if he dismisses the
> story as "complete nonsense".  

Ms. Kendall seemed to be implying that the preacher could not obtain
assistance from the government because of the policies of the Bush
administration (i.e. "spent his resources to get fetal tissue").
That is complete nonsense because fetal tissue research is still
in the experimental stage.  There is no widespread program of
fetal tissue transplants.    
 

Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:14:35 GMT

rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) writes:

>In article <mykes.0da8@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>Ironic, isn't it, that Bush spends his days whining about government
>bureaucracy and how much he wants to eliminate it, but he's perfectly 
>willing to hold out Federal aid for people who desperately need it
>until protocol is observed, or "bureaucracy" is followed, in the 
>form of a letter from the Governor.

Do you *really* think it went down like that, or are you just trying
to be as difficult as you can?  Can any sane person believe that either
Bush or Chiles did any less than he could have?   This bullshit about
either of them holding off while people suffered, just for political
one-upsmanship, is so completely assinine as to make me think these
posters have a screw loose.

Maybe we can comprehend a less hideous unfolding of events?  How about:
Bush offers Chiles the services of the military when it looks like the
hurricane has done some tremendous damage.  The military is not
*usually* called in on these things, but there is a precedent when
things are really bad (Hugo, the LA riots...).  Chiles says thanks, and
he will keep the offer in mind, but he thinks the state can handle it
with National Guard troops alone.  So after a couple of days, he changes
his mind and calls Bush.  Bush immediately sends the military in.  He
says within four hours of the call--I believe him.

Before you accuse somebody of something that's so inhumane, how about
really thinking about it first.  
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Why I won't vote for Clinton
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:28:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.153116.28827@meaddata.com> joeg@meaddata.com writes:
>Clinton has placed himself in to many comprimising positions.  Whether
>he inhaled or not, he tried drugs.  Whether he dodged the draft or
>not, he received his notice and didn't comply.  I am not clear what
>truth lies in the allegations of his affairs.  I try not to let the
>allegations cloud my judgement, but given his other personal failures,
>I'm not sure what to believe.  These are the problems I have with the
>character of Bill Clinton.  Why should I look any farther?  He doesn't
>have the qualities I want in a leader.
>

    He tried drugs!@#!@  Oh NO#@!@  At least we know he is human, and
makes mistakes, and not some machine built for one purpose - politics.
Golly jeepers, I guess you think alcohol isn't a drug too...Lesse,
alcohol is MUCH worse for you then marijuana, but it is legal, and
most people consider it 'acceptable'....Bush has an occasional drink,
but are you condemning him for that? Let's also look at the parachute
that saved Bush's life during the war...it was made from HEMP, aka, pot.
About him dodging the draft, all I have to say is big fu*king deal.
I damn sure would have done it too...I don't take to kindly to being
forced by my country to go over and tromp around in swamps and jungles
shooting at people. If you think the Vietnam war was a good cause,
and worth the meaningless loss of life, then I feel sorry for you.

A question for you...do you drink? if the answer is yes, then all 
I have to say is that you are a worthless druggie....If you don't 
think so, prove to me that alcohol is NOT a mind and mood altering 
substance....

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:07:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175008.21615@sequent.com> 
bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:

> The government says "sure do your
> research on rats, guinea pigs, and monkeys, and we'll give you money
> for it.  But don't do any research using humans or we'll cut you off."

I've seen no evidence for this accusation.  Substantiate it or retract it.

The Bush administration fully supports fetal tissue research.

> I'm willing to bet that were Barbara Bush (or anyone of Bush's relatives)
> to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or Breast Cancer, good
> ol' George would lift the tissue ban in a second.  

Fetal tissue research is still in the experimental stage.  There is no
widespread program of tissue transplants.


Doug Holtsinger
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: NPTN
Date: 28 Aug 1992 14:16:10 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Could someone post the net address for NPTN.

thanks,
tim


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Originator: patrick@mozart.convex.com
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:31:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <fjQBr*+V0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>  The quickest and best way to reduce health care costs is to do these
>things:
... some interesting ideas

on the malpractice issue, how about 4:
delicense incompetent doctors (losing too many malpractice suits
relative to others with similar caseloads should be enough evidence for a
serious investigation).  Get serious about it.  Doctors should do this one
in self defense.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Clinton Blunder
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 14:23:23 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.037 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

>In article <1992Aug26.222301.4269@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>>~
>>
>>Remember how the media made a minor fuss about Reagan's mis-quote
>>of Lincoln.  Well, consider the following:
>>
>>
>>According to the USA Today (8-26-92)
>>
>>"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
>>presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
>>but still led the nation to war".
>>
>>
>>It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
>>reads:
>>
>>"In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
>>effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
>>Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
>>company."
>>  ~
>>
>>
>>Hmmm.  If Quayl had made such a mistake, don't you think the media
>>would have been parading it?  But since the media is at work trying
>>to get Clinton elected, they passed over this faux pas!
>>
>>Then again, given the typical liberal revisionism that predominates
>>today, why not rewrite the history of a great president to help
>>Clinton's personal political cause, right?
>>
>>Send Bill back to school!
>>
>>--
>>Michael
>>
>
>        Good work.
>                                J. Wagner

In  <92240.201310MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>  MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> What Clinton blunder?  I read the Washington Post account of Clinton's
> speech to the Amercian Legion.  It said that he said that Lincoln,although
> he did not serve in the United States army, did serve in the state militia,
> during the Black Hawk wars.  He did not see combat; infact the only blood
> shed was to mosquitos.  Which I am sure is Lincoln humor not Clinton's.
> Meaning that Clinton or some able staff member read a source on Lincoln.
>                                     Melissa Brown


        Good work.

Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,alt.religion.kibology
From: tankgirl@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Tank Girl)
Subject: Re: Kibo's Final Decision on VP, Cabinet, etc.
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:31:48 GMT

but you forget.

i have the Power of Kibology(tm) on my side.

-tank girl
"and don't you forget it, buddy boy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.kibo:64 alt.religion.kibology:3655
From: cudep@warwick.ac.uk (Ian Dickinson)
Subject: Re: Kibo's Final Decision on VP, Cabinet, etc.
Organization: Team Limpid's Meathead With Aptitude - Kunst und Wahnsinn
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:02:57 GMT

In article <Btw291.9u6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> tankgirl@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Tank Girl) writes:
>i have the Power of Kibology(tm) on my side.

No doubt plugged into your Black&Decker home trepanning kit -
"For Easy Squicking Anywhere(TM)"

Let me try it out on the Camp Koala.

<Whirrrr>,
-- 
\/ato - Ian Dickinson - NIC handle: ID17                   No-one is to molest
vato@csv.warwick.ac.uk  ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!vato           the wombat when
/I=I/S=Dickinson/OU=CSV/O=Warwick/PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/            anyone is
@c=GB@o=University of Warwick@ou=Computing Services@cn=Ian Dickinson  watching.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.kibo:59 talk.bizarre:27404 alt.conspiracy:10286
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu ("[*] The Number Miner")
Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,talk.bizarre,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kibo's Final Decision on VP, Cabinet, etc.
Date: 26 Aug 92 02:42:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.kibo
Organization: Eaters of Wisdom
In-reply-to: kibo@world.std.com's message of 19 Aug 92 04:50:08 GMT

In article <Bt7s3L.773@world.std.com> kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>   I'll also be the
>   first President to be able to afford repainting the White House to a
>   more "hip" color than that Sherwin-Williams Oyster White Primer Semigloss.

    Alas!  Mighty KIBO has fallen into the spell of the evil
Sherwin-Willliams PAINT EMPIRE.  Who, after seeing the Sherwin-Williams
logo, could possibly doubt that Sherwin-Williams is conspiring, together
with everyone they can get to help them, to control and dominate the
ENTIRE WORLD?  The Sherwin-Williams logo is a the PLANET EARTH, and a
bucket of Sherwin-Williams paint, and the paint is being POURED OVER THE
EARTH, and, as if that weren't BLATANT ENOUGH, there is a motto on the
Earth that says

                      COVER THE EARTH

AND, as if THAt weren't blatant enough, the paint is RED.

WELL, Mr. Kibo, SOME of us happen to think that your attempt to sell us
out to the Communist Paint Conspiracy is wicked and UN-AMERICAN, and
we'll do everything in our power to stop you.

Love,
	M.H., D.B., J.F.M.
--

                And for to see, and eke for to be seye
Mark-Jason Dominus 	  			    mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,alt.religion.kibology
From: csquared@coos.dartmouth.edu (C Squared)
Subject: Re: Kibo's Final Decision on VP, Cabinet, etc.
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 10:53:48 GMT

In article <Btw291.9u6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> tankgirl@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Tank Girl) writes:
>but you forget.
>
>i have the Power of Kibology(tm) on my side.
>
>-tank girl
>"and don't you forget it, buddy boy

Who the fuck cares

C Squared              |        Anxiously awaiting his holiness's new sig

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Jury Nullification/Duties of a Juror
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:40:50 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University



In Message-ID: <adams.714754026@cobra.Stanford.EDU>

   Mr. Adams passes along the views of others (which
   DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT HIS own VIEWS):

>Point 1:  When one becomes a juror on a case, they are sworn to uphold the
>law, whether they agree with the law or not.  This is very tough to do, as
>a couple of respondents have said below.  If one does not agree with a law,
>they are to see their representative (in this case State of California),
>and have their legislature change the law (this is what the judge in the
>case told us).  Also, it is up to the judge to decide sentencing, not the
>jury.  So the jury's main job is to decide guilt or innocence as it applies
>to the law in question.

  I heartily agree with this statement: not only is it morally
  unassailable in my view but it also conforms to my impression
  of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence: the judge decides issues of
  the law, the jury decides issues of fact. However I have
  heard of late of something called "jury nullification" . . . 




>I would have said, privately, that he was guilty of violating
>the vehicle code.  I also would have judged in his favor.  I think it's a
>jury's duty to keep the State in check in this way.  If I'm ever called to
>jury duty and get a drug case, or some other victimless crime, I'll always
>vote to acquit, no matter what the facts say: this is because I would not
>consider the defendant guilty, even though he might have "broken the
>law"...">]

      The above passage seems to me to be jury nullification. Frankly,it
      terrifies me! In late 19th century America, and even in at least one
      case as late as 1959 (Poplarville, Mississippi-- the Parker case) ,
      jurors refused to indict/convict members of a lynch mob because
      "they" needed to be "kept in line" and "taught a lesson" regardless
      of what the law said. The most vocal Negrophobe of that era,
      Senator Benjamin Tillmann of South Carolina, said that if the 
      Constitution prevented [his notion of] justice from being
      done in a rape case, then "to hell with the Constitution."
      Obviously the above speaker is not a racist like Senator 
      Tillmann, but the rationale seems to be the same: the law
      is subordinate to the beliefs of the individual who happens
      to wield power at the moment, whether the power is the power
      of a juror or the power of a Senator to shape public
      opinion.

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: "The Rule of Law vs. Nazi Germany"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:42:59 GMT


In Message-ID: <adams.714754026@cobra.Stanford.EDU>

  Mr. Adams quotes from a response he received to an earlier posting
  (which may or may not reflect Mr. Adam's own views):
>[<"What Mr. Green did was definitely "illegal", but this is a case were the
>philosophical meaning of that term comes into play.  In the old USSR,
>simply running a profitable business was considered "illegal", too--and 
>heavily punished.  It could be said that in NAZI-controlled Germany, 
>being Jewish was illegal...
   
    It *could* be said that in NAZI-controlled Germany being Jewish
    was illegal, but it would be incorrect. It was "illegal" to be
    Jewish only in the sense that it is "illegal" today to wear
    the jacket of one street gang while walking through the "turf"
    of a rival gang: it was quite dangerous, and indeed fatal 
    but not because of any "law" but only because of what powerful,
    violent individuals believed.

    This point is a very important one, for surprisingly few people
    realize that the atrocities of the Nazi era vindicate rather
    than condemn the principle of rule by law
       FOR THE NAZI REGIME ITSELF WAS ILLEGAL!
    For instance, the very title of "Fuehrer" was illegal under the
    Weimar Republican constitution [which also provided for the
    legal equality of all Germans]. Ironically, Adolf Hitler did
    during the 1920's receive judicial leniency that apparently
    contravened the Constitution (his attempt to overthrow
    the Republic in 1923 ought to have earned him a life sentence).
    Had the German people (and especially the civil service and
    the Army) been willing to adhere strictly to the Weimar
    Republican Constitution, Adolf Hitler would probably never
    have become Chancellor (he would have been languishing in prison)
    and had he become Chancellor the Constitution would have
    prevented him from committing the horrifying crimes he did.

    The rule of law is in my view the best defence against
    totalitarianism and injustice. Law is often assumed to
    restrict freedom, but the quote from the late Senator
    Taft [below] better reflects historical reality.

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct