HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Robert Bork
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:25:26 GMT
	<1992Nov22.145725.41121@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
	<1eqee8INN44b@agate.berkeley.edu> <bill.722541213@castor>
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: bill@cognet.ucla.edu's message of 23 Nov 92 13:53:33 -0400

In article <bill.722541213@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M.
Eldridge) writes:
>I may have my names confused, but wasn't Bork the guy who dismissed
>the Watergate special prosecuter at Nixon's bequest?

I think you meant "behest."

And, no, he did not dismiss the SP at Nixon's behest, request or
otherwise.  The AG (Archibald Cox?  I can't remember) resigned in
protest rather than fire the SP, and explicitly requested Bork to stay
on and carry out the president's instruction.  Bork did the firing,
but not for Nixon.

Bork's role in this "Saturday Night Massacre" has been grossly
misrepresented by the Left over and over again in his confirmation
hearings and the aftermath thereof.  It's one of the more odious of a
large body of lies they have spread about him.  It's one thing to
disagree with his conduct in the "Massacre" (and even to question his
character on that basis, which would be eminently fair), it's another
thing entirely to misrepresent his role therein.

BTW, I have one small data point on this.  My liberal friends who
watched Bork's confirmation hearings and heard what he actually said
(as opposed to what Dan Rather et al *told* them he said) had no
serious problem with him and in fact were rather confused at what all
the fuss was about.  (Though they were glad to see him go, seeing as
it embarrassed Reagan and all . . .)
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17243 alt.politics.democrats.d:568 alt.politics.elections:23903 ba.politics:7146 co.politics:2061 ne.politics:2998 nj.politics:733 or.politics:642 ny.politics:253 talk.politics.misc:60353
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:08:55 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

rlcarr@animato.network23.com (Rich Carreiro) writes:

>In article <adams.721495890@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> 
>> >	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.
>> Let's not.  The most basic fundamental right I have is to reproduce in the
>> manner and quantity that I chose.  This includes every number from 0 to the
>> maxiumum physically possible.  Reproductive freedom MUST be guaranteed.
>
>Yes, it must be guaranteed.  However, DON'T YOU DARE expect ME to pay for
>YOUR decision to have more kids than you can afford.  

Never...I will have no more than I can afford...and would certainly never
ask you to pay for it in any event...

 -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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: My, what pompous netters (Was: FUCK CLINTON ....)
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:23:34 GMT

>	Report him? Nahh, lets try something a little more down to earth.
>How about trying to have his cookies tossed off this net.

My, aren't we a bunch of hysterical censorship freaks, and
goodie, goodie two-shoes?  If all the people who wrote stupid
postings were tossed off the net, it'd be a pretty sparse net.
If all the people who wrote "string the bastard up by the balls"
in regards to various political celebreties were locked up,
we'd have pretty full prisons.

Aesthetically, I'd say the guy who threatened Bush at least
had nicer imagery than this guy (appealing to my subconscious
instead of going through the difficult process of coming up
with the gory images himself) threatening Clinton.  

Why not everyone post their own threats to the net, to see
what a voluminous orgy of thought-crimes we can come up with,
rather than chastizing the less creative?

LET'S HOLD CLINTON DOWN, SHAVE OFF HIS UGLY HAIR-DO, AND
TICKLE HIS FEET!!!

I'm going to start baking my Secret Service cookies right
now - coconut-raisin delights, anyone?

What a stodgy old country this is.




-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: gst@chinet.chi.il.us (George S. Thurman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR CLINTON
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:40:51 GMT
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

Will someone post, or send me the e-mail address foPresident Elect
Clinto  I misplaced it..I think that it was a CoCompuserve address.

THANKS  !!
-- 
                           George S. Thurman
             gst@chinet.chi.il.us    Voicemail: 312-509-6308
                US Snail: POB 1538, Chicago, IL 60690-1538
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: wstuartj@lucky.ecn.purdue.edu (W Stuart Jones)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:20:00 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <treilly.722130963@vincent2.iastate.edu> treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
>>In <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
>>
>>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>>>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>>>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>>>Appealing to your subconcious.
>>
>>
>>     Well, there's a good way to get the secret service mointoring the
>>network.  So thoughful of you.  hope you get a visit from them.
>>
>For the record, I didn't vote for Clinton, but I still want this idiot arrested
>for posting this trash.  And I hope no one thinks all Republicans think this
>way.  Heck, I'd be the first one to report him if I could!


You can report him!!!!!! send mail about him to postmaster@eos.ncsu.edu
If enough people send the postmaster mail he might do something to this idiot!
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%  Wesley Stuart Jones         jonesw@hasbro.wes.mot.com               %%
%%                              wstuartj@ecn.purdue.edu                 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: M23231@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:36:06 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu>
mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
 
>
>
>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>
>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>
>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>
>Appealing to your subconcious.
 
************
Does anyone know the title and publisher of a study of net flame psychology?
I have heard there is such a study. It is supposed to address why we seem to
have such intense flame fests on networks, but in person many of the keepers
of the flame are rather mild, calm, reasonable people. I have a tendency to
do it myself, so please don't flame me for asking :-). Please respond by net
mail.
 
Thanks,
 
JJ
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Not Even Inaugurated, Breaking Promises Already
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:03:38 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov20.144311.28934@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> In article <bill.722222324@castor> William M. Eldridge,
> bill@cognet.ucla.edu writes:
>>Campaign messages are simple platitudes designed to make simple
>>people feel good about complex issues.  Ideally they reflect
>>an iota of the truth, but I don't take Kevin Costner so seriously,
>>and politics are a very similar form of entertainment.
>>
>>If you were just voting your pocket-book, you deserved to be
>>fooled.  [...]

> I couldn't agree more with Bill. This mess took years to develop.
> Anyone who thinks it will be painless or fixed quickly ought to
> be sold a bridge. Clinton should not be judged on content of his
> proposals, but the general philosophy of them... [etc]

Huh?  ExCUSE me?  This IS the same group that has enjoyed themselves immensely
by listing "Bush's Broken Promises" and similar threads ("he promised XX
million new jobs... RIGHT!").  Oh, brother.  Not even inaugurated, and the
apologists are swarming.  Just remember the old saying about what's sauce for
the goose... 


------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..." 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17244 alt.politics.democrats.d:569 alt.politics.elections:23904 ba.politics:7147 co.politics:2062 ne.politics:2999 nj.politics:734 or.politics:643 ny.politics:254 talk.politics.misc:60354
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:10:31 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

>>In article <adams.721495890@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>> >	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.
>>> Let's not.  The most basic fundamental right I have is to reproduce in the
>>> manner and quantity that I chose.  This includes every number from 0 to the
>
>I couldn't help but think that that is a very irresponsible attitude.
>Think of all the millions and millions of people that already exist
>on this dirt-ball we call earth!! How mant more can it support?!
>Not very many. I think that we SHOULD limit the number of children people
>could have. 
Why should *my* rights to have as many children as I wish (and can afford)
be limited by the number of children other people have?  If you wish to
reduce the population, that is a fine thing to work for, through education,
not through law....

>I personally have decided not to have any kids because I think it's time
>people came off this "My children.. I need children, children are a kind
>of immortatily" crap. Time to face reality:
>
>There's too many people here already. (And how many of those actually CAN
>live? How many die of starvation each year? How many don't have homes?
>How many CHILDREN die each year because the people thought it was their
>most basic right to have kids and then couldn't FEED them!!)

But that is NOT my situation.  And as for you not having any kids, fine.
Your choice.  Now please allow me mine.

 -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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,news.sysadmin
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Junk Mail
Organization: York University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:50:06 GMT

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|Has anyone been receiving automated computer junk mail
|from a site called 'Campaign92.org'?   I've been trying to
|contact the sysadmins at that site to stop sending me
|their crap, but they've ignored me.  I must have gotten on
|their mailing list through my postings to a.p.c and
|a.p.b.  Has anyone been able to contact these clowns?  

I looked, and its a non-internet site gatewayed by lex-luthor (:-))
	Campaign92.org.	3600	MX	10 lex-luthor.ai.mit.edu.

Their hostmaster is hostmaster@uunet.UU.NET. 
	Campaign92.org.	3600	SOA	ns.UU.NET.  hostmaster.uunet.UU.NET. 

Give him and postmaster@lex-luthor a call.

--dave (I love distributed databases) c-b
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@CCS.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | York Postmaster and
CANADA. 416-223-8968  | occasional email consultant.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17622 alt.politics.bush:14000 alt.rush-limbaugh:10217
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Not Even Inaugurated, Breaking Promises Already
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:31:35 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <bill.722222324@castor>, bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

> So Billy lied? Tough shit.  

Uh-HUH.  I trust that you you weren't one of the apologists *before* the
election, denying that Clinton lied -- in the face of direct evidence to the
contrary.  NO NO NO, they insisted before the election. "Tough shit," they
mumble now.  Implying, "Hey, we got in -- too bad now, ain't it?"  Is this
the spirit of things yet to come? 

Guess YOU are beginning to find out how it feels to be branded, fairly or not.

[...]
> And yes, I'm part of the middle-class (not the upper-middle-class
> either - no home, one car, etc.).  But I'm richer than maybe
> 98 or 99% of the people on earth.  And all rhetoric and
> campaign promises behind, I just want an improvement.

So, in your book, it's OK that he lied... uh-huh.  This is a nice example of 
the pot calling the kettle 'a cauldron of color.'  [Witty phrase copyright
1992; ask about cheap licensing rights :-)] 

> Campaign messages are simple platitudes designed to make simple
> people feel good about complex issues.  Ideally they reflect
> an iota of the truth, but I don't take Kevin Costner so seriously,
> and politics are a very similar form of entertainment.

Uh-huh.

> Indicators to look for:  fewer people on the streets, better
> educated kids, retraining in defense and other industries,
> renewed strength in various technical and industrial fields,
> a stable foreign policy promoting stability in the world,
> economic growth, tolerable taxation, improvement in the arts
> (yep, a culture's art is a reflection of its health), an
> improved infrastructure, more attractive cities, preservation
> and cooperation with nature, more jobs, more diversity and
> tolerance of ideas, etc.

He has four years.  We'll just have to sit back and see if he's as good as his 
PR department made you think he was.  In the meantime, is it OK with you if we 
criticize him?  We (well, I, at least) promise not to call him all of the names
that the left called Bush and Reagan. 

> If you were just voting your pocket-book, you deserved to be
> fooled.  

This is getting to be toooo much.... gee, thanks.  They don't call him Slick 
for nothing.  

------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..." 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:20:49 GMT


[Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to
talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs.]

In article <1992Nov20.225051.25114@rchland.ibm.com>, 
jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) said:

> How many people die each year from cancer?
> How many of these cases are directly related to tobacco and liquor?
> Half of all traffic deaths are caused by alcohol.
>
> These three things adds up to an amount that is staggeringly high
> when compared to ILLEGAL drugs.  Brewers and tobacco companies are
> getting rich and people are being killed because of it.  When are we
> going to do something about it?

I think that most of these fatalities fall under the rubric of "death
by stupidity," and that most of the remaining fatalities -- e.g.,
innocent bystanders killed by drunk drivers -- come under the heading
of "death as a result of activity that is already criminal."  

About the only thing that I think "we" -- meaning the state -- should
do anything about is the relatively small (I think) number of cases of
"death by insufficient data."  I have no problem with using state
resources to provide the people with vital data, such as "You smoke,
you choke, you croak"; but I strongly object to the use of the
coercive power of the law to protect people from their own informed
decisions. 

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:04:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu <Mark Allan Hunt> writes:
>
>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>
>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
		    ^^
		  "too"

Grammar, grammar.

>
>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>
>Appealing to your subconcious.

"Worship Satan."


A cartoon found in last week's New Yorker:
Picture: Middle-aged man talking to another middle-aged man in a bar.
Caption: "I just heard that Superman is going to die.  He's the same
	  age I am!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17498 ny.politics:293 talk.politics.misc:60982
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:47:31 GMT

In article <BxxJFK.Aop@hfglobe.intel.com>, labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
} >fact we will if things don't get under control, but we're not at a crisis
} >point yet.  Just go out to Wyoming or Montana, and you'll see that there's
} >still plenty of room.  People are crowded together because they choose to
} 
} 	Tired old argument. It takes 10 acres of farmland to sustain
} 	each person.

Nonsense.  10 acres is 435,600 sq. ft.  That means over 1192 sq. ft. of
land per day.  Or over 397 sq. ft. per meal.

I have a vegetable garden in the back yard that measures just about that
397 sq.ft., and I assure you that while the food I get from it doesn't
sustain me year around, it provides enough food to last considerably
longer than just one meal.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: What would you like on your waffles?
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:34:39 GMT

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

>	Clinton has now waffled on the following positions:

>	Gays in the military
>	Reducing the deficit (wouldn't be prudent at this juncture :)
>	Health Care
>	Estimated growth for next year
>	Reducing the executive branch budget
>	Line item veto

Only by stretching the issues as to what Clinton has said can one
even half heartedly make such an absurd claim. A detailed analysis
would show that Clinton has been very consistent on these ans most
issues.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumni)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
X-Xxdate: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:30:38 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:33:59 GMT

In article <10574@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> Mark Wilson,
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:
>Find ways to increase the demand for labor, decreasing wages does this
quite
>well.  Or decrease the supply of labor.  Brutal, but it can be
effective. ;^)

OR....

You can take the progressive and more humane approach which is to
create new industries through short and long term R&D, and tax
incentive-induced company
creation. This will, in the long run, benefit everyone. It will employ
more people, decrease the need for entitlements, create competitive
forces within the nation to force our corporations to invest in their
long-term health and improve their quality, use our brightest 
and best trained individuals
more efficiently, broaden the tax base, make us more competitive with
our foreign competitors, shrink the trade deficit, .....

Both the solutions you propose are 
brutal, regressive, and show a lack of foresight.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:50:22 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>In article <BxoBI8.39r@news.iastate.edu> Marc N. Barrett,
>barrett@iastate.edu writes:
>>   All of this leads me to the solid conclusion that conservatives
>>are the real guarantors of First Amendment Rights in the U.S.  Liberals
>>support other people's First Amendment rights only when the speach 
>>agrees with them.  Liberals have concocted a large number of terms 
>>like "political correctness" in attempt to stifle the First Amendment
>>rights of people with opposing viewpoints.  Political incorrectness
>>**IS** fully protected by the First Amendment, but liberals refuse to
>>accept this.  Conservatives, however, always respect the First Amendment
>>rights of everybody, regardless of opposing viewpoints.
>>
>>   Liberals are no more the guarantors of the First Amendment than
>>totalitarians are the guarantors of personal freedoms.

>I have a problem with this. For every example you can give of signs being
>torn up by "liberals", I can give 10 equally vile example of free-speech
>suppression
>by "conservatives". Note, I'm not condoning their behavior. However, to 
>extrapolate this one example to the conclusion that all liberals are
>against
>the first amendment and all conservatives are for it is completely
>falacious
>logic.

>Norman

I disagree, I feel that that there is much more tolerance, or at least
indifference, to anti free-speech actions perpetrated by radical liberals.
Indeed, much of this behavior has been given intellectual legitimacy by
the academic left on college campuses. That is a large portion of the 
goal of the PC movement - to control the subjects, rules, and manners
of intellectual inquiry.

Martin Sulkanen
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton