HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: 1988 Redux or Duck Soup? (Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:45:16 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

lip@s1.gov Loren I. Petrich writes:
>Stupendous Man writes:
>>Jeff Davis writes:
>@  I'm wondering if the Bush campaign people overdid it in '88 with the 
>@  Boston Harbor/Willie Horton stuff. That maybe people are looking askance
>@  at any charge that the Bush people might toss out.
>
>>	Considering it was the media that did the Willie Horton stuff, don't
>>hold your breath.
>
>	Wrongo. It was some group that professed to be independent of
>the Bush/Quayle campaign, and one which exploited some of the dirt dug
>up by Joe Biden in the primaries.
>
>	When one considers that Bush never complained, one _does_ have
>to be suspicious.

I was just trying to come up with an explanation of why the Baker campaign
is having such trouble against Bill Clinton. Bush is running around the
country practically singing "liar, liar, pants on fire" and most people
are dismissing it as simply "politics as usual." Clinton's campaign
has attracted positive response, large crowds, no lack of money, good
press, enthusiasm...In contrast, the Baker people (Bush & Quayle) have
been back-tracking from their Sure Fire issues of family values (what
an albatross that proved to be!) and are running  away from their own
convention and platform and (lest we forget) amazingly stinko employment
numbers. Tell me again...these guys want to run this place?

And Roger Ailes was the man w/ the plan in 1988. Very much of a Baker
insider.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>      
Season: 0-1  Lifetime: 0-3
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
From: bjorn.kvisli@thcave.no (Bjorn Kvisli) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: THE NEW REPUBLIC
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Thunderball Cave BBS - Oslo, Norway  (47 2) 56 70 18
Reply-To: bjorn.kvisli@thcave.no (Bjorn Kvisli) 


Does anyone happen to have a copy of  The New
Republic? Would you please post its phone number and postal
address here, or send them by e-mail.

The New Republic is not available in the newstands in Norway (many
other American magazines are) and the local subscription service
charges excessively. I would like to contact the magazine to
inquire about a subscription.

Thanks a lot. Bjorn.
---
  MegaMail 2.10 #0:Internet: bjorn.kvisli@thcave.no
                                                                
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45440 ca.politics:7778 ba.politics:5314
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: I want Line-Item Tax Allocations for me (Was: Run conservatives, run..)
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:21:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep12.004758.12248@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <12210@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <5176@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
> >> In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >> >In article <1992Sep3.100740@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
# @  ## It is interesting that if the NEA were abolished we would be the only
# @  ## "first world country" where the federal gov't did not fund art.
# @  #
# @  #Big deal.  We are also one of the few first world countries without
# @  #an established religion.
# @  
# @  Non-sequitur.
# 
# #Not at all.  The turkey pointed out that all other "first world"
# #countries fund arts; I pointed out that nearly all other "first
# #world" countries fund religion, or give it a preferred status.
# #His argument is bogus; just because other countries are screwed
# #up is no reason for us to join them.
# 
# 	Government funding of religion is OK, I presume. But whose

Why do you presume that?  I said, "other countries are screwed up,"
in the same sentence as a discussion of established religions.
Are you utterly without a clue?

# religion? I'm sure that Claytoon would scream at the idea of some of
# his tax dollars going to a church that had some homosexual
# clergypeople (of either sex). There are some such churches, actually;
# just ask in soc.motss.

I would scream at them funding any church, including one that I
attended.

You are just stupid.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "liberal bias"? (Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias)
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:40:00 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <BuA2r0.5s7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> [media bias observations deleted]
>
>  But the worse bias at all among the mainstream press is the "stupid
>  bias":  there is a very strong bias towards reducing very complex multi-
>  faceted issues to whatever can be expressed in a few minutes with simple
>  ideas and a modest vocabulary.   This is an inevitable result of the 
>  major news organizations like TV, Time, Newsweek, etc, having to attract
>  large audiences.   I can't really fault them on this since it's a free
>  market and they're only trying to make a buck. 
>

I have to second this.  Unfortunately, this shallow treatment of
"very complex multi-facted issues" is evidently what people want.

Dave
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44328 talk.politics.guns:20719 talk.politics.animals:7786
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Date: 9 Sep 1992 15:51:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep9.055802.27485@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>
>  The latest plank in the animal-rights platform: cat control. Animal
>  lovers want to make it illegal for people to let their kitties out of the
>  house. It seems that animal-rights activists have discovered that cats
>  have a nasty tendency to kill birds, rabbits, frogs, and other cute
>  creatures.

The war on cats has been going on for several years now, but
I don't really connect it with the animal-rights platform,
more than I do with a misguided subset of animal lovers
and institutions such as humane societies.  And of course,
an extreme AR person objects to keeping pets in the first place,
and thus, if they are consistent,  would not imprison a cat inside 
a house.

The only claim of the anti-outdoor-cat types that makes
any sense to me -- and I have no idea if it's true --
is that housecats are significantly depleting already
threatened songbird populations.

Barring this, I think the theory that it's "cruel" to
let a cat run around outside is a lot of jack.  What's
cruel is keeping a cat trapped indoors.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Dr LaFave vs Al Thompson, et al
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:08:23 GMT

I think it would be nice if Dr LaFave, Al Thompson and everyone else
involved in that flamewar would be nice enough to take their name
calling to email. It does nothing to enhance the group and is downright
annoying. Am I alone in this sentiment?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:22:14 GMT

achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

`In article <swood.716148783@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
`>art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
`>` He  went to the backyard for
 (stuff deleted about baby)

`>I suppose we will consider this a "real" example?  I have two dogs that

`I took this story to mean that he at first thought it was a doll, but in 
`reality it was a real human baby. Did I misunderstand? 

My apologies - I misread the confusing wording to mean the doll was a
baby doll as compared to a Barbie/child doll.  I have cancelled my
response, however, I would be interested to know more details.  I
wouldn't imagine the circumstances are as clear cut as the post
details.  I would also say that both the owner of the dog and the parents
of the child should be held suspect for negligence of responsibility in
this case (depending on the circumstances which were conveniently left
out of the previous "shock value" post)

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility (Contradiction in Terms)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:12:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <Sep.15.07.41.14.1992.9777@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.142859.17019@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>> Gerard M. Vignes:

>>> Bill Clinton had his chance, during the Vietnam War,
>>> to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.

Dan Quayle had his chance, during Vietnam, to show us what he was made of.

>> George Bush had his chance, during his first term,
>> to show us what kind of stuff he was made of.

>And he was indeed found wanting in many respects.

Every respect.

>>> If he didn't have it back then,
>>> what makes anyone think he's got it now?

>> Good point.  No second term.

>Russ says this, of course, on the basis of considerations other than
>George Bush's supposed shortcomings.  Others, naturally, might differ.
>George Bush is a far cry from my idea of an ideal President.  But what
>also needs to be taken into consideration is the alternative.  Russ no

For once, Kaldis says something intelligent.  The only relevant fact is
which of the candidates is best, not which one is good.

>doubt finds Clinton much more appealing from an ideological standpoint
>(which, for me, is more than enough reason to reject him).  But Mr.
>Vignes brings up a very good point, i.e., Mr. Clinton's character (or
>rather, the lack of same).  The last time we had a veritable scumbag
>as President was when LBJ held that office -- and he (and his legacy)
>has very nearly destroyed this country.  The last thing we need now is
>Bill Clinton to finish the job.

It's funny, I seem to remember Richard Nixon being president after LBJ.

>Vote Bush.

Bush has character?  What about the PROVEN lies he has told, as well as
all the questionable things he has done?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush plan on Health Care?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:12:53 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.192633.29634@cass.ma02.bull.com>, ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
> [I posted this earlier this week on alt.politics.bush. One
>  fellow answered with a brief description. I'd still rather
>  have a citation. Sorry for the cross-posting /DDD]
> 
> On the McLaughlin Group [last Sunday] I heard (I think)
> M. Kondrake state that Pres. Bush had a health care
> proposal 'out there'. 
> 

	Bush's plan is the same as his other plans: to wait until all options
are gone, then throw in the last remaining alternative, with the ready excuse
(for when it fails) "we had to do something".

	Bush is not a good domestic prez.  He's an administrator.  Too bad he
didn't stay in congress....

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Health care will-o-wisps
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:56:32 GMT

Jim Brownfield <jbrow@glv.com> writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>> 
>> Just a warning though ... you'll be hard pressed to find articles in
>> our papers (no, they're not government-run press (-;) about the health
>> situation, 'cos for us it's just not a problem ...
>
>Gary, you'd have a hard time finding criticisms of any government social  
>programs in the American press as well (except to complain that they are 
>not funded enough).  That doesn't prove anything.

Well, you might find by looking at the Toronto Globe & Mail or Maclean's
(probably the only Canadian publications that leak into the U.S.) from a
well-stocked library (yeah, those two are hard to find), you'll usually
find only one political bias in them: Opposition. (-;  (I was pressed to
explain it in a European's terms one night, as their papers tend to have
explicit, declared party connections.)  Seriously, you have to be some
kind of unbalanced masochist to want to be Prime Minister or a Premier
(provincial governor) up north.  If Canada's health system were as bad
as some American presenters would have it, our press would be going hog
wild over that rather than wasteful spending of taxes (Canadians are
once again different from Americans; we don't mind a little tax in the
right places {and I know many of you Americans out there differ with
that concept, so no need to follow-up! (-;} like health insurance, but
outside of that and infrastructure we do have cause for concern).

>> take the advice of some Soc.culture.canada readers in private e-mail
>> and leave Brett et al.  alone as long as those white collar and auto
>> jobs keep trickling northward ... (-;

>>And it also should not be surprising that large blue collar employers
>will go where a government steals things from citizens that they
>would otherwise have to pay for.  In the long run -- when they find
>they can't exist in an environment of massive taxes and regulations --
>they will be sorry that they chose such action (or more probably, they
>will disavow any knowledge of their actions :-)).

In the cause of GM, which I cited, and the other Detroit automakers,
they've been up there for a long, long time.

>And, *HEY*, quit smiling upside down.  It makes me think your in 
>Austrailia  ;-).

Oh ... that's 'cos we still use British spellings up north. (-; (-; (-;

See ya,

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43892 ca.politics:7474
From: laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!
Date: 5 Sep 92 07:18:42 GMT
Reply-To: laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco

In article <1992Aug28.072509.27910@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>argh, stop it Clayton!
>
>Please, if you follow up to this thread, pay extra attention to the
>Newsgroups: header. soc.motss is a lesbian and gay positive newsgroup
>for the discussion of issues of specific relevance to lesbians and
>gays. talk.politics.misc and ca.politics are for the discussion of
>political issues. Please consider which newsgroup your message is
>relevant to, and only post it to those newsgroups.

I got the article he was referring to in soc.motss.
Clayton Cramer and I have disagreed on almost every damn thing
for 10 years now.

On this one, I think that he was dead on the money.
I still have problems understanding why that fascist message 
originated on motss.... but at my site it did.

You nail it where you find it...

Laura

-- 
	C unions never strike; they only work to rule.

Laura Creighton 
toad@toad.com
hoptoad!laura
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43954 talk.politics.mideast:19667 misc.headlines:6229
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:26:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep6.042618.6705
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4231159@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.182314.28708@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>>   Actually, they did write it so that it does not apply to Jerusalem.
>>   The word Jerusalem does not appear in the resolution.
>
>If that were any indication, then the same logic would lead to the
>conclusion that UNSC 242 does not apply to the Sinai, West Bank,
>Gaza Strip, or Golan Heights, as none of those words appear either.
>Since that conclusion is obviously false, yours is too.

Oops, my error.  I meant to say that "it does not *necissarily* apply
to Jerusalem."

The argument was made that 242 "obviously" or "clearly" applied to
Jerusalem, and I meant to say that I didn't see that the resolution
did not have to be read that way.  I was not intending to claim that
the resolution excluded Jerusalem.

Sorry about the poor phrasing of the above.

>>  And, as has
>>   been pointed out many times, the word "the" is missing, intentionally,
>>   from 1.i, meaning that the resolution does *not* automatically apply
>>   to all of the land, but quite possibly, only some of it.  That some
>>   does not need to include Jerusalem.
>
>That interpretation seems incompatible with the preamble.

Nonsense.  Jordan acquired parts of Jerusalem by force.  Claiming that
they should be handed over to Jordan, or some other arab state is more
incompatible with the Preamble than claiming Israel should control it.
I base this claim on the word "just."  I think it is undeniable to an
impartial observer that on the whole, Israels control of Jerusalem has
been more just than the Jordanian oocupation.

Adam



Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:03:49 GMT

clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

>>
>>How does Mr. Richard Roberts, director of Chicago's Christian
>>Industrial League, know this to be true?  Obviously not an
>>empircal statement of what is probable, merely a sarcasm.
>>So much for Christian love and kindness towards all living things.

>Try paying attention to the quotation marks.  The editor of "Reason"
>magazine made the comment "They were probably trying to train.....",
>which appears without quotation marks.  The quote from the Christian
>fellow about the homeless shelter, etc., ended before that.  The
>editor was trying to tie together two totally unrelated items in his
>editorial, and the Christian Industrial League probably has no idea to
>this day that their quotes were presented in such a way.

>Figure out show said what before you throw stones.

My stone was directed at the editorial, my reference to
poor old Richard Roberts was rhetorical.  Sorry if Richard
Roberts was being overly stoned, but he did raise a rhetorical
question that prompted the editors scarcasm.  If you are
going to accept this destitute tying of "two totally unrelated
items" in the editorial, then you should have no objection
to my tying two persons by their common sentiment.  You
can't have it both ways.  I agree that my condemnation by
assocations is unfair, and even more so is this editorial
attempt to blackwash the animal rights movement.
.
                                   ted
.
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Family Leave (was Re: Bush is pro-child molestors?)
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:46:41 GMT

In article <farenebt.716140581@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
} I think I need to provide you with some info on the first one. The bill
} mandates up to 12 weeks of UNPAID maternity leave for workers who work
} in businesses of MORE THAN 50 EMPLOYEES. Therefore, your example doesn't
} hold water.

I heard it was 25.  Oh well, what ever the actual number is, apart from
another case of government's meddling into someone else's affairs, there
is another bad side effect of that bill -- businesses whose employees
number at or below the cutoff point will be reluctant to hire the number
of people that would put them over that threshold.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:13:43 GMT
	<BD.92Sep11075850@fluent.UUCP> <1992Sep11.085452.3350@walter.cray.com>
	<mykes.0dou@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
Distribution: na
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

[What was this thread doing in talk.bizarre, anyway?]
In article <mykes.0dou@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.085452.3350@walter.cray.com> toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg) writes:
>> >: Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that Congress exempts itself from all quota legislation
>> ("Affirmative Action"f  you prefer euphemisms). Why would they force
>> businesses to do things that they themselves can't abide by?
>Another easy example of congress putting itself above the law is the Bowlen
>amendment, which prohibited sales of arms to the contras during Reagan's terms.
>This amendment was highly unconstitutional, because the constitution does not
>allow for one of the three branches to make laws to limit the contitutional
>power of one of the other branches.

And I guess the constitution allows the President to decide by himself which
amendments are unconstitutional and *requires* him to ignore them and to lie to
Congress about ignoring them, right?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "I think I should tell you that I am enjoying my involuntary
    retirement, and I know and hope that President Bush will share
    the same pleasure after January." -- Jimmy Carter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.guns