HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:41:40 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct6.85400.11141@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.043550.7425@sma2.rain.com> fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) writes:
>>A check of the passport records for Bill Clinton for the 69-70 time period
>>has revealed that the pages for that period are missing from the state
>>department records. The FBI is looking into this matter now.
>>I wonder who has them?
>>
> The same people who have Bush's 1980 passport records I'd imagine.

	Secret Service logs prove what intelligent people already knew: Bush
didn't fly in an SR-71 to Paris and back.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7788 alt.politics.bush:7172
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:23:16 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton at Ohio State
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep29.215838.5684@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) says:
>
>     Because there was so much net-traffic about the Bush visit to Penn State,
>I decided to write about Bill Clinton's trip to Ohio State today.

Great!

>     Clinton was about 20 minutes late to the podium, but he gave a good
>speech
>to make up for it. I can't say I agreed with everything he said, and I plan to
>vote for Marrou/Lord, but I did enjoy his speech immensely. He is good at
>working a crowd. He played off of the Republican demonstrators well, a skill
>that Bush apparently has yet to learn. (I know, I know, now that Buchanan is
>out Bush doesn't have to *face* Republican demonstrators... :-) )

If Clinton even had to *see* Republican demonstrators, then his visit wasn't
like Bush's was here.  Demonstrators were kept so far away that they couldn't
be seen, and certainly couldn't be heard.

Hope this helps,

Jeff Luck                         *My Opinions are My Own*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University        "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU              -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8372 tx.politics:5826
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:50:42 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct3.142404.16797@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.203245.18119@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> In <1992Sep30.213640.31229@watson.ibm.com> johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>> This is generally considered a Bad Thing (tm) when done by
>> governments, and particularly bad when done by the governments of
>> major nations.  If you don't understand why this would be so, I'm not
>> sure where to even begin explaining it.
>
>	See "Russia" for a current example of a possible outcome.

No, "Russia" is an example unto itself.  It was unable to feed itself
years ago - back when it could still produce oil and gold for export.
We don't have Russia's problems - we have plenty of good solid industry,
we just have a government that it bent on pissing away all of our money.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: who are clinton's advisors?
Summary: who are clinton's advisors?
Keywords: clinton
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  6 Oct 92 14:48:17 GMT

Hi netters,

Can anybody give me a list of Clinton's policy advisors, specifically
for:

1. Foreign Policy 
2. Defense (I think Les Aspin is one)
3. Judiciary
4. HHS
5. Economics (I think Robert Reich is one)
6. Environment (Al doesn't count)
7. Education
8. Law Enforcement
9. Civil Rights
10. Science & Technology

Thanks alot. Any bio info on the more obscure ones would be appreciated as
well.

|_________________________________________________________________|
| martin sulkanen      ][ internet: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov  |
| es 65                ][ span:     ssl::sulkanen                 |
| nasa/msfc            ][ voice:    205/544-5823     >>,--```;('> |
| huntsville, al 35812 ][ institute for troutphysics              |
|_________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:10:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.220008.25909@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>So who's in the lead in terms of number of books sold, current ranking, etc.
>
>Ross Perot's Book, Albert Gores, Rush Limbaughs, or Clintons Biography?

Limbaugh's book is on the top (#1) of the NY Times Bestsellers List, as
of Sunday.  <head shaking, wondering "Why?">

--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7477 talk.politics.misc:48198 alt.rush-limbaugh:6005 alt.politics.bush:6911
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:44:25 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep26.031401.7667@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:

>1> Bush vetos family leave bill.

Using someone else's money to acheive a good end is not compassion it is
theivery.

>2> Bush vetos extention of unemployment benefits until it becomes
>   obvious that it will be against him in the elections

Using someone else's money to acheive a good end is not compassion it is
theivery.

>3> Bush fails to support the Kurds and Shi'its in Iraq and allows
>   Saadam to butcher them.

Bush definitely screwed up here.  But I do believe those who wanted Bush
to intervene here need to explain why this is different from central 
america and other parts of the world where the US was condemned for
intervening.

BTW, why do you respond with three strikes at Bush, the question was
about conservatives.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 21:46:49 EDT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA10694; Mon, 5 Oct 92 22:57:07 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA15608; Mon, 5 Oct 92 22:54:05 -0700
X-Received: from sub.its.rpi.edu (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB33);id AA21735; Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:53:39 EDT for talk.politics.misc.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by sub.its.rpi.edu (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/RPI-ITS-SUB13-AIXV3) via SMTP;id AA58813; Mon, 5 Oct 92 21:46:49 -0400 for clinton-student@mail.clinton-gore.org@rpi.edu
X-To: drum@concert.net
X-Cc: talk.politics.misc.usenet, alt.politics.clinton.usenet,
        clinton-student@mail.clinton-gore.org


I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
progressive result.


---
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"In 1988 1800 homosexuals were dischaged from the military. The cost to train
them was $23 000 000. 35% of those discharged were women. Women make up only 
5% of the military. " -- MTV's _Buzz_.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Measuring Generousity (was Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:26:21 GMT

In <21640@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:


>Generousity is an attitude as much as an act.  Christ said "Greater love
>has no man than that he lay down his life for a friend."  It is that
>willingness to lay down your life, your coat, your bag of groceries, 10
>minutes of spare time, etc. that is "generousity."

True, but giving things that are of little importance (a donation from
someone who is quite wealthy as compared to someone who has fewer
resources, organ donations -- after all, you don't need them once
you're dead, etc.) is much less generosity.  After all, if you don't
need it very much or it isn't very important to you, then giving it
away to someone else who needs it is no big deal.

Which, of course, brings us back to marginal utilities.  ;-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Job Creation (Arkansas vs. USA)
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:35:53 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)

In article <1a38eiINNr8c@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
|> In article <47895@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
|> 
|> Re-formatted (watch your line-lengths!)
|> >An amazing bit of statistical data:
|> 

I do watch my line length.  It just so happens that whether they fit on
your display or not depends on the software you are using to read this.
I myself often get posts with lines longer that fit on my window and
also some with lines that appear way too short.  Don't think that the
world is only the way you see it!
|> 
|> You may have misinterpreted the statistic. Since total job growth has
|> been close to zero, and in fact negative if we restrict to civilians,
|> it's easy for a state with + job growth to have done better than the
|> other 49. The catch is that California (for example) LOST a great number
|> of jobs.
|> 
|> It is not, I believe, true that Arkansas was #1 in job growth, but it
|> may have been close.
|> 
|> andy

Wrong again.  I did not misinterpret the statistic, because I did not
interpret it at all.  I was quoting, just quoting, what was said by
James Carville, who was quoting Lynn Martin.  I do not believe or
disbelieve anything either.  I just wanted to share with other people
what I had heard.  Since you _believe_ that it is not true what Lynn
Martin (Bush's Secretary of Labor) stated, would you please share
with us the data on which you base your disbelief?

   Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:16:04 GMT

In article <BvCvwp.CMs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occaisionally) writes:
>Once again Mr. Wganer has shown his true intellectual colors.  I am against
>abortion myself, sir, and find people like you a tremendous liability to my    
>cause.  I wish your type would think before they talk.  Then again, fascists
>have never been good at making friends.
>
>Matt I.

	What makes a Fascist so ugly to us?
	It is the fact that fascists bend government, which then bends
the people through its superiority in warfare against the people. That
seems to be our modern day definition. My only ideal for the government
is one which fills a vacancy and keeps other governments from assuming
that position; otherwise I would be forced to spill my blood and the blood
of those I love trying to get rid of it.  To call me a fascist is merely
to invoke a trite word reflecting upon my apparent coldheartedness.
	Yes, I am coldhearted-but I also try to be realistic.
Everyone of you will die. I can guarantee you that, at least in the physical
sense.  I do not pretend that death is a bizarre evil which government
can prevent, simply because our concept of government is so mutually
entertwined with the concept of death. I look at you people with your false
pitty and I call it a lie.  You have no solutions, and life in the abstract
means nothing to some of you.  It is only *your* life, *your* concept
of existence which means anything.
	Maybe I have been tardy in following up to that post. I wanted to
see what response it would elicit.  I received *Fascist*, *cold-hearted*,
*I assume you knew her*, etc.
	When people buy *illegal* drugs and snort mouse poison, a common
occurence here, I have known people intimately involved, I say that
those people are *stupid*.  Yes.  The addict needed to fulfill his addiction;
the woman needed to have her abortion.  But it is widely known that
drugs is a dangerous game; it is widely known that illegal abortions
are a dangerous game.  Only fools play with drugs, loaded guns,
and illegal abortions. Everyone must experience a physical death at
least; I feel no pity for someone because they died; should I feel pity
millions of times a day? No, I say that it was her decision and she
made a *stupid* decision.   You can attack me all you want because
you think I am cold-hearted; I don't subscribe to any of your petty
social conventions, nor do I care to, considering the severe 'brainwashing'
that goes on behind its curtains. Good day.

				John Peter Wagner
.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:26:45 GMT

>In article <1992Oct1.145222.18647@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>>In reality, these labels do
>>not effectively describe *my* political views.  I do not believe in the
>>Webster's definition of conservative (resisting change) in most cases,
>>and believe in the Webster's definition of liberal (nothing about tax
>>and spend in there).  Yet, I find myself jumping across the fence on
>>most issues, and I assume that most people also feel restricted by these
>>labels.
>>				
>>I believe in:	     General Consensus
>>Term limits		(cons) 

-- Now only because they don't control Congress. They didn't like the prez
 term limit THEY imposed (to stop FDR) when it prevented a 3rd term for
 Ike.

>>RTKABA		(cons)
>>Waiting period	(lib)
>>Welfare reform	(cons)
>>Aid to cities		(lib)
>>Federal Health care	(lib)
>>Family values		(cons)
 
Yeah right. How does the veto of the family leave bill promote
family values? How does condemning a child who wants to get away
from abusive and neglectful parents constitute family values? How
does gay bashing promote family values? 

>>Moral obligations	(cons)
					
See above. The conservatives seem to believe (or at least too many of
them) that if you don't have the same morality as they do, you have
none at all (ie watch the GOP convention?)

>>Lowering the deficit	(lib) -- GHWB ignores except during elections

Well, I think lowering the deficit is something that few on either
side REALLY care about (or the voters for that matter too), with the
exception of a courageous few like Tsongas and Rudman.

>>Gay rights 		(lib) -- the right to be left alone
>>First half abortions	(lib) -- legal, but restricted somewhat

I wonder how many abortion rights supporters would agree with
the restricted somewhat position of you. Remember their outrage
at the Court's ruling on the PA law...

>>States rights		(both) - abortion (con)  other (lib)
>>Peaceful coexist.	(lib) -- see GHWB policy
>>Environmentism		(lib)
>>Development		(cons)
>>Kemp			(cons)
>>Gore			(lib)
>>Capital punishment	(cons)

>>The list goes on.  What party am I supposed to belong to?

How about neither. But does it really matter? If you join one party,
it doesn't predispose you to voting for the party's candidate all
the time.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				"Violence is the last refuge of the
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     	 incompetent."  --Salvor Hardin	
CLARKSON '95
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"If you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice."   --Rush Limbaugh

	(I know it's HIM, but it's still a great quote)
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Job Creation (Arkansas vs. USA)
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:09:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <47895@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
>An amazing bit of statistical data:
>
>This morning on the TODAY show, Katie Kouric (sp?) was interviewing James
>Carville from the Clinton Campaign and Charles Black from the Bush Campaign.
>Mr. Carville said that according to Bush's 
>Secretary of Labor, Lynn Martin, in the
>last two years more jobs had been created in Arkansas 
>than in the other 49 states
>put together.  

I bet it was "private-sector" jobs.  If one counts growth in government
jobs, I think the U.S. has created more total jobs than Arkansas.

>Since Black did not deny this statement, 
>it appears clear to me that
>she did indeed say that and that it must be 
>true no matter how unbelievable it sounds.
>If you consider the population of Arkansas in comparison 
>to the population of the
>rest of the USA, this piece of data is really amazing.
>

Right after the Republican Convention, Stephanopolus (sp?) claimed 
(on MacNeil-Lehrer) that since Jan. 1989 the state of Ark had
created more than 90,000 private sector jobs whereas the US
as a whole had created less than 90000 jobs.  Charles Black
would not deny that statistic then.   He said he hadn't checked
the numbers.  (wink,wink)  A couple of weeks later, though, I saw
a Bush supporter belittle Clinton for only creating 90,000 jobs
in the past 3.5 years.  

John D.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@a02.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:39:02 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.192815.20894@sbctri.sbc.com>, asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>> >In article <1992Oct3.192210.27887@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>> >
>> >>However, if I say so, I'm sure to get beaten up because
>> >>that would mean I'm a Nazi and Nazi's are guilty before proven 
>> >>innocent.  
>> 
>> Yeah, I always get mad because those documentaries on the Holocaust have
>> such an anti-Nazi bias.
>> 
>> (big eye roll) Yeesh. What a maroon.


Sorry, I should have put 'Nazi' (note the quotes).  I'm not a Nazi
supporter!  Please don't start saying that I am!

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@Ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: dinneen@sequent.com (Jay Dinneen)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:00:46 GMT


Are homosexuals dangerous to children?  Give me a break.
Heterosexuals are more dangerous to children than homosexuals.  I
don't have statistics, but the question itself is ridiculous.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:00:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.041345.2641@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Geez I don't believe this, I'm called a redneck after posting a message on
>why name calling is not the answer to racial problems.
>
>No trailer park person here--I posted that message myself.
>
>Simon
>


I think name calling reflects how ignorant a speaker is.  If a person is
ignorant enough not to pay attention to what he or she refers to, how can
he or she understand  who that person is.  an example is "native american"
which was always refered to as "indian".  I'm sorry you better learn where
India is.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7850 talk.politics.misc:48655 alt.rush-limbaugh:6232 alt.politics.bush:7224 alt.politics.elections:14679
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:06:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>In article <1992Sep25.085020.29253@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>>I disagree. From reports of American politics here in Britain,
>>there has been a very concerted effort by American
>>Conservatives to use the word "liberal" in a pejorative sense
>>and to misuse it to mean someone who believes in state
>>interference.
>
>  In the US that *IS* what it means.   I have no idea what it
>  means over there so why don't you tell us?  The UK has a
>  "Liberal" party -- where do they stand on national health,
>  education reform, taxation, industrial policy, censorship
>  of radio and TV, etc?   I'll bet on many of these topics they
>  are more statist than the US Democrats.

As it happens, I am a member of the UK Liberal Party (it's now
called "Liberal Democrats", following a merger with a smaller
party) and we use "Liberal" to mean precisely "concern with
individual liberties". The very idea, which has been expressed
frequently in this thread, that "Liberals" are not concerned
with individual liberties strikes us as absurd as saying that
black is white.

I will say that UK Liberalism places more emphasis on social
liberties than Liberalism in the rest of Europe. In most of
Europe "liberal" is actually used to mean "free market
economics". In the UK Liberal Democrats, while we are basically
supportive of the free market we do realise that people's
freedom relies on good health and good education, so we support
the National Health Service, and the system of universal
government provided education. We are opposed, though, to the
present (Conservative) government of the UK's proposals to
increase state control over education. We are totally opposed
to any measures of censorship.

>  "Liberal" is an English word (granted it has Latin roots, but it
>  is, nonetheless, an English word).  We speak English and, moreover,
>  we are the largest English speaking country in the world (unless
>  you count India) so we have every right to define the word as we
>  wish without regard for the non-English speaking world's opinion
>  of the meaning of the term.

It is the nature of the change which is breathtaking - a
virtual reversal of the meaning of the word. I suppose if
Americans were suddenly to decide that the word "sea" means an
area without water, or the word "democrat" means someone who
is opposed to elections and parliaments, we in the rest of the
English-speaking world would not have a right to object, but I
think we would have a right to find it odd enough to remark on it.

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7680 alt.politics.bush:7077