HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Patriotism (was Re: alt.politics.clinton)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:52:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.033301.7789@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>
>	Well, to be fair, this guy just did get out of the Marines.
>While the USM may be the sharpest spearpoint in the world, they don't
>train their men in critical political thought, and I don't blame
>them.  Also, there's a certain high, I'm sure, to being in combat,
>doing the job, and getting out safe.  A couple of guys I knew who were
>in the Marines definitely did some thought recalibration when they got
>out, but it took a few years.  All said, I've still got to give the
>D.S. troops credit for a sharp job.  Too bad they were reined back.

No complaint here.  I'm just questioning the "Didn't fight in a war
ergo bad leader" syllogism.  As noted, we may be better off with a
President who doesn't get into "wars" like Panama and Greneda.  I tend
to accept Clausewitz's notion that war is very, very bad, and we
should seriously consider what we're getting into before committing
our forces.  Again, following Clausewitz, we shouldn't impose
artifical constraints on the military in the middle of battle, such as
Bush's 100 hour cease-fire for the sake of a round number on the
covers of the newsweeklies. (let them do their job, but make sure they
and we know what that job is)


--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5632 tx.politics:5289
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:18:36 GMT
Reply-To: nobody
Distribution: usa
Organization: not very organized


>We tried before, and failed.  Why are we going to succeed this time?

We tried Bush before, and failed.  Why are we going to succeed this time?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:59:23 GMT

jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>> > 
>> How can the Republicans say that they are fiscally conservative when
>> they have given us the largest deficit in this country's history.

>They haven't had the power (i.e. the House of Representatives) to stop the
>Democrats from spending us into bigger and bigger deficits.  You seem to believe

But why has the deficit soared since 1981 at a rate never seen before.
We hear that democrats have been in control of Congress for the last
thirty some years and are the fault of all this spending.  However, since
WWII, the federal debt in relation to GDP has fallen pretty much steadily
even during periods of a democratic president.  But in 1981, it started
this immmense growth upward.  Why?  We keep being told that congress
hasn't changed.  They've always been this big spending entity.  Could it
be that we've had weak presidents since then who can't handle their job
of trying to control this?  Reagan seemed to work with Congress on
some things before he fell asleep on the job and couldn't remember
anything anymore.  George Bush admits that he can't do his job (work
with Congress).  Why has deficit and debt soared since 1981 if Congress
hasn't changed?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:20:04 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson

pn> I don't understand why some people seem to have a problem with journalists,
pn> editors, and newspapers and TV stations having opinions which are expressed
pn> in their reporting.  The idea of "objective journalism" is naive nonsense
pn> anyway and we should all grow up and stop demanding or expecting it.

  What's your opinion, then, on the constant bleating by journalists that they
  *are* being objective? Perhaps they've fallen into the trap of believing 
  their own propaganda, a common fault of libertarians, as you often say. 

  I don't think it's out of line to demand objectivity, since we as consumers
  of the media have the power to force it to accomodate our wishes. Also, as
  powerful as the media is, with regards to the political system in this coun-
  try, I believe that they *do* have some degree of obligation towards objec-
  tivity. In a way, your attitude is like asking a jury to ignore the facts of
  the case (ie, forget being objective) and concentrate on irrelevant factors
  when making their decision. We *can* demand *and* expect more from the media.
  We're doing ourselves a disservice if we don't.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Campaign final few days' conservative slide
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:32:19 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
: kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing) writes:

: >I.e., how far does Bill have to be ahead in the last polls in order for us
: >to sleep on Monday night?
: 
: Well, going by the 1988 Gallup poll, Clinton may not even need to be
: ahead in the last poll of this election season.
: 
:    last Gallup poll before 1988 election: Bush 54%  Dukakis 41%
:                    1988 election results: Bush 53%  Dukakis 46%
: 
: So Bush's plurality actually shrunk from 13% to 7%. Obviously, there
: were many people who just couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for
: Bush after all. [More campaign rhetoric elided.]

Ever hear of something called a "margin of error" on polls like this?
They are provided to give you some indication of how far off the results
might be.  Most of these polls have margin of errors of 3-4%.  The
figures above seem to indicate that the last Gallup poll of the '88
season was fairly accurate.  You also have the "undecided" folks --
most of the 5% missing in the poll results (54+41=95) -- making up their
minds in time of the election.

The  "undecided" factor can play a bigger role in elections than you
might realize.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I'll tell you one person who
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			doesn't think we've wasted our
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			money on $600 toilet seats --
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		Saddam Hussein."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Content of Recycled Paper (Was Re: A Dearth of Jobs)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:44:44 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Sep10.175943.4971@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.080701.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> I would not recommend Gore's book to anyone with a weak stomach.... it's
>> printed on recycled paper, or in layperson's terms, it's printed on other
>> people's old garbage.  
>> ... it is quite possible that the pages in Gore's book are made from old
>> toilet paper.  
>
>What kind of a person would say such a thing?

Oh, cdpert01 thinks s/he's a comedian.  S/he went to great lengths the other
day to inform me that s/he had intended to amuse.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		----------------------+
| "She loves to laugh, and when she smiles you just see teeth for miles and   |
| miles, and tonsils, and spare ribs, and things too fierce to mention."      |
+---------------------------- from  "A Horse Named Bill", children's folksong-+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:34:07 GMT

In <lb1ivgINNns0@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>You mean the Maria Shriver that is a member of the Kennedy clan and
>the wife of Democratic VP candidate?  

	Since when is Arnold Schwarzenegger a Democrat, much less a
Democratic VP Candidate?  I would think being married to him should cancel
things out :-).

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mike Cummings VP, PNOAD			|  "Now take two forkfuls
cummings@u.washington.edu		|   of cooking oil..."
cummings@mailhost.hsas.washington.edu	|   - Julia Child
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:39:48 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  I should have added that it is also "the truth" that economists have a 
>  truly lousy track record at making any predictions and that, in any case, 
>  economists disagree on NAFTA, other experts disagree on the noneconomic
>  social side-effects.   What would constitute an "objective" treatment
>  of a topic like NAFTA, especially when operating on a time or space 
>  constraint?   If you try to present "all" points of view how do you
>  decide what's a relevant point of view?   How do you decide what weight
>  to give different claims, or different sides of an issue?   Should you
>  give everything equal weight or try to give more emphasis to those
>  views with more following?  In the recent balanced budget amendment
>  vote over a hundred leading economists including a number (I think 6)
>  of Nobel laureates signed an open letter opposing the amendment.  Did
>  this represent the majority view among economists, or merely that of
>  a vocal minority?  How should this be "objectively" reported?  Should
>  the press have actively sought out enough leading economists who 
>  supported the amendment to provide "balance"?   

I for one, don't expect the media to trot out the only economist that 
doesn't believe in some plan.  It's enough for me to know who is 
saying what.  I'd like to know if there are experts in disagreement--
that gives me a clue as to the complexity of the issue.  I don't need
to hear 10 minutes from each side, no matter how small a faction one
or the other is--that just gives the false inpression that there are
just as many "experts" opposed, as for, some topic (something I think
the media does all to often).  Being objective doesn't mean giving
equal time to each side of a debate--I'll settle for knowing that there
*is* another side in most cases.  

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:21:13 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
:fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:

:>By federal law (USC Title X) the militia includes all males age 17 to 45, and
:>all members of state militias (many states have more inclusive militia laws,
:>that include women in this age range as well.) By Supreme COurt ruling
:>in US v. Miller, the militia includes everyone "physically capable of
:>acting in concert for the common defense." Since I fit both of these legal
:>definintions of "militia", do you agree that my right to keep and bear
:>arms can not constitutionally be infringed by the goverment?
: 
:You forgot the "well-regulated" part. And the "necessary to the security of a
:free state" part. You also forget that USC Title X does NOT override the 
:Constitution, and is therefore irrelevant, since the 2nd Amendment does not
:empower Congress to modify the operative definition of "militia" at will.

Funny.  Whenever I looked at the Second Amendment, I always interpreted it
in this way: because of X, Y will be the rule, where X = "A well-regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and Y = "the
right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [Emphasis
mine]  In other words, IMO if you get rid of the 'X' part of the Second
Amendment, and keep the 'Y' part, you have not changed the apparent meaning
of the Amendment.

I have trouble figuring out how people can read the Amendment and interpret
it to mean "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for people
in the militia."  That 'people' in the text of the amendment, IMO, should
make this interpretation illogical.

In other words, regardless of whether or not a person fits the legal definition
of "militia member," they have the right to keep and bear arms, IMO.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(The Persian Gulf War was)
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			"a stirring victory for the 
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			forces of aggression against
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		lawlessness."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle		

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:41:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.223806.19712@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> tom@arthur.jsc.nasa.gov (Tom Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>> (Argument asserting Clinton's health care plan would trigger depression
>>  deleted for brevity.)
>> 
>>   When has the government ever done something efficient?
>> 
>>   NEVER!!!!
>> 
>
>I think you mean _efficiently_.  The word _efficient_ is an adjective and,
>thus, can only modify a noun or a pronoun.  Certainly you did not mean for
>_efficient_ to modify _government_ (a noun) or _something_ (a pronoun), did
>you?  The word _efficiently_ is an adverb and, thus, can only modify a verb,
>an adjective, or another adverb.  Did you not intend for your modifier to
>apply to the verb _has_done_?  Here's what your sentence would look like if
>you has used the proper part of speech:
>
>When has the government ever done something efficiently?
>
>Incidently, your argument is hopelessly vague.  Your lack of cogency belies
>a lack of understanding of just what it is that Clinton does propose.
>
>I leave _you_ with this thought:
>There is no such word as _reprocussions_.  (Buy a dictionary.)

Auughhh!  It's the dreaded GRAMMAR FLAMER!  Don your asbestos suits,
here they come!

Take out a loan and buy a clue.

Jim Hulsey
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:24:18 EST
 <1992Sep4.155744.29434@tamsun.tamu.edu> <18dduoINNp6a@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <18dduoINNp6a@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.155744.29434@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
> 
>>Congress has shown that regardless of revenue they will spend more.
> 
> Please explain, then, why the deficit throughout the Reagan Bush years
> has been almost exactly what was in the President's budget proposal,
> and in some years the Congresionally-approved budget had a smaller
> deficit.
> 

	Political games.

	But what does that have to do with Congress' spending addiction?  That
somehow the presidents since 1969 have been pushers?

	If you want an example of how congress spends *more* than what the prez
may want:

	Extending jobless benefits.  Where did this money come from?  It
didn't.  They (congress) simply added it directly to the debt.  Nice, eh?  Sure
the president could not sign the bill (yeah, right.  In an election year?) but
then again, congress can over ride the veto.

	Plus, if that sort of nonesense isn't enough, let's take the opposite
example, where the prez tries to spend less than what congress authorizes:

	President loses due to impoundment ruling.  In this ruling the supreme
court ruled that the prez can not spend less than what congress authorizes. 
The ruling was actually about a technical matter of the procedure, but the
affect has been that no president has tried it since Nixon was spanked by this.

	But wait, there's more!  If congress *isn't* addicted to spending, why
don't they give the prez the line-item veto?  Obviously he's the one who will
take the flak if things go bad because of any vetos.  Could it be that their
pork will be subject to public scrutiny?  Of course it is.

	Now if you *really* want to get congress' attention, instead of
mandating spending cuts for every year the budget is not balanced, mandate
*salary* cuts.
:)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4812 alt.news-media:1228 talk.politics.misc:44653
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 10 Sep 1992 21:32:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep10.181107.7909@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.190004.20879@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> >mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> 
> [article deleted]
> 
> A small contribution to this debate: a magazine column I was reading last night
> opens with the lines: "I have listened to NPR for many years; in reach and
> scope it is far and away the best news radio operation. However, I am sometimes
> driven to distraction by its persistent leftist bias..." (somewhat paraphrased)
> 
> The columnist: Morton Kondracke
> The magazine:  The New Republic
> 
> 
> Don Pajerek
> 
> 
> 
> 

I'm sorry to interrupt but the use odf one biased source to prove the bias
of another source is bogus. Everything is relative.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: sex-ed
Keywords: huh?
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:42:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Sep11.185121.799@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>	I would like to request that only people with children
>enrolled in U.S. public schools, who are near the age at which
>theyt are expected to study sex-ed, should publish.
>	Everyone else has at best their own agenda.
>	So post if you have kids of age in public school in the U.S.
>
>				J. Wagner



I definitly fit into this catergory. Now do you have a question or want
some comment? I can tell you that TWICE I have asked for anyone with teen
childern that is opposed to condom handouts at schools to come forth. No
responces at all.

Stan Knight
|When it comes to spelling flames I say let ye who is without sin cast the|
|first stoone!                                                            | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:30:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.052412.508@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

|> Are you saying that these Nobel winners got together and developed a
|> plan that Clinton has since adopted?  While this is laudable, it is far
|> different from his campaign ads that claim that these Nobel winners
|> are supporting *his* plan.  Subtle, but very important difference.

	I don't see why. I suppose that calling it "his plan" could imply
that he thought it up, but at worst he is suggesting that he diserves
credit for something that he only recognized as being a good thing.

	I doubt that Clinton would deny that he has economic advisors,
and I doubt that he accepted a plan verbatim from somewhere else. My guess
is that he heard what these guys said, and applied it to his plan, or
maybe based his plan on it. If he belives it and supports it, it's still
his plan, and the people who dreamed it up presumably support it, so
why shopuld it matter if he didn't author it from scratch?

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5013 talk.politics.misc:44957 alt.politics.bush:4799
From: boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 12:58:14 CDT
Organization: Consultant
Reply-To: "Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu>
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <lb1ivgINNns0@spim.mips.com> (alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush), mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> Jason Nadrowski) writes:
> |> Chris you miss the point.  The liberal bias in media refers to Maria (I know
> |> this one is totally misspelled) Shribert asking one of economic advisors
> |> "how are you going to pay for this stupid plan!!!  There is no way!!!  HOW!!!"  and
> |> then asking Clinton or Democrats..."This excelent plan of yours how did
> |> you ever come up with it?"
> 
> You mean the Maria Shriver that is a member of the Kennedy clan and
> the wife of Democratic VP candidate?  

Maria Shriver is married to Arnold "Terminator" Schwartzenegger (definitely
misspelled that one).

> 
> That's like expecting Buchannon to be impartial.
> 
> -- 
> _________________________________________
> These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
> dog's, never my employer's.
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria L Boyd PhD

boyd@vax.anes.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh