HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:02:47 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep14.164803.27767@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>This is a supposition and not a fact.  I am not aware of what the CIA
>nor of what Bush knew of Norriega's activities.  Neither you nor I
>could ever hope to understand the broader issues influencing decisions
>made at that time either.  You are debating in a vacuum.
>
I'm not debating anything, I'm telling you what I think went on.
I can tell by your reply that you'd rather sweep this under the rug.
Norriega was on the CIA payroll for awhile. 

>>Yea, Olie is a big hero, right? I'm sure the folks down in
>>Nicaragua would love to have him come down so they can say
>>thanks for everything.
>
>A good question, are they in general better off to be free of
>totalitarianism or would you prefer them to live the life that
>demonstratably has failed in most parts of the world (socialism).
>Freedom is preferable to squalid equality.
Well, why don't you come down and try squalid freedom if you
believe that. This is just like Vietnam...destroy the place to
save it.
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>I couldn't care less about your example.  It has _absolutely_ nothing
>to do with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas.  This is the point, you
>are applying the behavior of others in your judgement against Thomas.
>What you have said is that because you have knowledge that sexual
>harrassment happens therefore Thomas is more than likely guilty.
>
>Can someone make an unsubstantiated statement to harm someone else
>in this society?  This is what you are defending, not wether sexual
>harassment happens - that's a no brainer.  Smear tactics are not 
>worthy nor honorable, and what goes around comes around.
>
>Show me proof to back Hills accusation.  There certainly exists proof
>that she was "inaccurate" regarding the facts such as when the incident
>occurred versus when she met Thomas for the first time.
>
>Liberals have oft used the phrase "the appearance of inpropriety".
>Well, I ask you, Anita said she wasn't doing this to advance herself
>yet she has certainly profited by her accusation hasn't she?  Does this
>look strange to you?
Care to apply the same logic to Ms. Flowers? She's certainly profited
by her accusation, too. Look, neither you nor I know what happened
exactly, so calling Hills a liar is the same as me calling Thomas
a liar. What I object to is the assumption that Hills made everything
up, which seems to be what you are saying. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5618 alt.politics.bush:5289 soc.rights.human:3499 alt.society.civil-liberties:692
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:01:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.185735.24146@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>, cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

> As such, the right to self-determination
> would be constrained to work within the public's best interest.

So you can self-determine anything you want, as long as the government
says it's OK.  I see it all so clearly now.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle)
Subject: Trial Lawyers
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:39:47 GMT

Let me give all of you a little more of the actual facts:
Quayle claims 18 million law suits were filed last year this is
what he did not tell you; 82% were criminal and traffic violations;
the remaining 18% consisted largely of domestic (divorce, abuse) and
estate planning (wills, probate); while less than 1% were tort cases.
The above information was published localy in the Cincinnati Enquirer
(a conservative newspaper) in the September 13 Sunday edition page G-3
and the article is entitled "In defense of Lawyers".

Next, Quayle says america has the most attorneys in the world we are
actually 35th, with 28 attorneys for every 10,000 citizens.  The
problem is Quayle counted all of americans J.D.'s but only practicing
attorneys in other nations.  Japan has less attorneys practicing in
court but if you factor in the fact that they have J.D. graduates
practicing family, and corporate law then they have more attorneys
than the U.S.  This information was found in The American Bar Journal
September 1992 issue in an artical entitled "The Mythical Kindom of
Lawyers; America Does Not Have 70% of the Earth's Lawyers".

A couple more points.  Someone help be follow the large leap in logic
which makes the following assertion: " America has many lawyers and is
inefficient and Japan has fewer Lawyers (not true) and is efficient
therefore the more attorneys a nation has the more inefficient it is".
I am sorry I cannot buy this someone show me a proven causal
connection.

Lastly the 6th amendment guarantees trial by jury in criminal cases
and the 7th amendment guarantees trial by jury in civil cases.  These
clauses are explicit in the constitution which means the Supreme Court
(in its infinite wisdom) cannot change it.  To change it we need a
constitutional convention (not likely) and 3/4's of the states must
ratify it (extremely unlikely) so these so called alternate forms of
dispute which attorneys already practice (less than 1% of all disputes
ever go to trial) will actually create a bottleneck because people who
do not like what they are getting in these forums will go to trial
(guaranteed 7th amendment right) and it will actually prolong
litigation.  Removing trial by jury is probably beyond corporate
america's reach but don't think Quayle and the administration are not
trying. Also, the current reforms proposed by Quayle wants to limit
the plaintiff's ability to disclose factual information regarding the
dispute which is in the defendant's possession.  So, I guess we
sacrifice getting to the real truth with these reforms also.  I find
them offensive to my conscience and I am shocked that people are so
quick to jump on board.

--
Joe Mehrle                        ----------------------------------
Mead Data Central, Dayton, Ohio   |  **    CLINTON/GORE `92      **  |
Internet: joem@meaddata.com       ----------------------------------
UUCP:     !uunet!meaddata!joem    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: Clemson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:08:31 GMT

jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:

>Now look at this.  Say drugs were legal. Less violence, lower prices.  Say 
>then that there a shortage, or somebody couldn't buy it when they wanted--
>just for the sake of argument, soemone somewhere is deprived of their new
>"right".  Well hell, Johnny can just go down the street and "borrow" some 
>from Susie, right? But then susie pulls out a knife and says, "get the hell 
>off my land," Johnny whips out his 9mm and makes her rethink things with a 
>pop in the head; now he's got his drugs.   

>Non-addictive consumer products or things that are not psychoactive drugs 
>_usually_ don't do this to a person.  It is my belief that, legal or no, 
>drugs would do this regularly.  That's not my picture of ideal America.
>Banning items which have *that* strong a grip on someone seems pretty
>constitutionally reasonable to me.	
 
Things like cigarettes, you mean?  Nicotene ranks right up there with
crack on the addictivity scale.  Actually, I favor legalization and
see a morose side-effect that could be beneficial in the long run --
people who are stupid enough to use cocaine, crack-cocaine, heroin, and
other extremely addictive and rapidly destructive drugs would be able to
buy cheap, high-quality drugs in such quantities as to overdose or
burn-out their bodies (to the point of death) and raise the average IQ
of the country.  Who knows, maybe after all the crack-heads kick-off,
the hard drug use rates would drop to near-zero.
 
I guess I'm callous about such utter stupidity, but I'm pretty tired of
the War on (some) Drugs, or the War on Rights.  

I'd really like to have the choice to kill myself with crack or alcohol
if that's what I wanted to do.  But, being sensible, I'd really like to
have the choice after a hard day's work to unwind with a cold bear or a
joint -- each equally non-dangeorous in such moderation.


Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Anti-Clinton posters
Date: 14 Sep 1992 19:29:03 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

In article <1992Sep11.212024.21152@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>In <14735@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>
>
>>Why don't you Anti-Clinton people take your butts over to alt.election.bush.
>                                                               ^^^^^^^^
>                                                      (ahem) " politics"
>>and quit wasting so much bandwith, thats why there are TWO diff. groups.
>
>
>I'm sure it'll stop as soon as anti-Bushities do the same. BTW, this
>newsgroup is alt.politics.clinton, not
>alt.clinton.advocacy.and.no.criticism.or.else
>
>Deal with it.

These groups would really help the political process if we could use the 
usenet for helping the people seeking the highest office spread their ideas
and talk about their plans and programs for the future with out a bunch of
"draft dodger" comments from people that arent going to vote for them anyway.
So what does that say ? You have nothing better to do than sit around and 
badmouth this candidate because your's has no program on which to stand 
(or run), you dont see me on alt.politics.bush do you ??????
 

>Deal with it.

Get a (candidate) life !

Quote of the Day:
9-13-92

Richard Nixon to GHWB, "Stop waisting your time in Cailf, it's better 
spent in the Mid-West, this is hopeless.

Tim 
Clinton/Gore 
Campaign '92






Yes ! thats a 15 point lead !!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: A Dearth of Jobs
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:35:48 GMT

A little chart in this Sunday's NYT:

Change in private sector employment by Presidential term:

Carter:		+13.92%
Reagan 1:	+ 7.30%
Reagan 2:	+12.05%
Bush:		- 0.04%

--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:19:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep3.225920.8244@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 
>lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>> Bill Clinton's 128 tax increases. Distortion. Refuted numerous places.
>
>Still, he did raise them a lot more than he lowered them.   

This does nothing to detract form the fact that Bush told a deliberate lie
when he said that Clinton raised taxes 128 times.

I'm sick of 
>Democrats calling Bush a liar over "No new taxes".  I don't think he 
>intended to deceive anyone when he said that... and I think that he felt 
>that the circumstances that existed justified he change of heart on the 
>matter. 

Change of heart or a reckless promise?  Most economists could see a need
for new taxes when Bush made that pledge.  Either he realised the need, in
which case he was being deceptive or he didn't realise the need, in which
case he lacked the forsight to be a good president.
 
>> The Canadian health care system is a failure....Canadians hate 
>it....there are
>> long waits for basic care.... Lies and distortion. Every study I've read 
>has
>> refuted these statements
>> and every Canadian I've talked to would not trade their system for ours.
>
>I think the key to health care is to control costs, not socialization.  

There are two problems with this statement.  The first is that you offer no
justification for an opinion with which at least half of the readers will
disagree.  The second is that the term "socialization" is a subtle smear
tactic.  One of the legacies of the cold war is that Americans tend to have
a negative reaction to anything which sounds like "socialist".  Term
"socialized medicine" is also misleading when applied to Canada as it
suggests that the government controls medical procedures instead of just the
way in which it is funded.
 
>> As a scientist, I am particularly bothered by this kind of arguement 
>because
>> it amounts to one huge speculation. During the depression Roosevelt 
>admitted
>> that he had doubts about many of the programs he started to help the
>> situation. However, he felt that the only way to decide whether they 
>would
>> work was to try them out. That is what I call proof by experiment.
>
>Good, let Congress implement some of Bush's programs that they have 
>bottled up for so long.  

Some of Bush's bills do not deserve to be passed.  In fact a recent bill
was rejected by all of the house REPUBLICANS.  Another bill wanted to
divert funds from public transportation towards more roads for more cars.
This seems unwise from an environmental perspective and from the perspective
of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Peter Lauren.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 1992 19:47:34 -0400 
From: "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
	<Bu9LIw.Koq@apollo.hp.com>

Objective reporting is absolutely essential.  We have more than enough
opporunities to hear and read interpretations of actors, fictional
characters, commentators, politicians and a multitude of other speakers
whom, come election year, are suddenly the most politically adept people
they have ever met.  At a time like this, when we have to choose between
the lesser of two evils, and so much mud is being slung, we have to know
the basic facts!  We should know the stances on issues without those
stances being reported to us through a biased observer.  If we run out
of objective journalists, we are at the mercy of both candidates.  Who
wants to be in that position?  I'd bet that none of us do.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: kjc7435@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.J. Cater )
Subject: Anyone know what Clinton's going to do about homelessness if elected?
Originator: kjc7435@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:28:19 GMT

Hi...the title of the article speaks for itself. I'm a sophomore social
work major here at RIT and I'd really be interested in knowing the
answer to this question....

I know Al Gore helped to write the 1988 McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act, but I want to know what CLINTON specifically is going to do if he's
elected....

Thanks...

K. Cater.

please send all replies by e-mail to:
"kjc7435@ritvax.isc.rit.edu".
From: stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Debate?
Keywords: his fault
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:30:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies



An unusally informed co-worker of mine tells me that today Mr. Bush has 
agreed to debate Mr. Clinton by the rules set forth previously. And also that
Mr. Bush made a statement like "For some reason Mr. Clinton is no longer
afraid to debate ME!" Can somebody verify this??? Regardless I look forward
to the debates and call for a law making them mandatory.

Stan Knight
|[Insert witty saying here]|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
From: chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher)
Subject: Re: The debates about health care
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:12:02 GMT
X-Posted-From: thor.albany.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

>In article <1992Sep11.195123.2239@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:


>	   I've seen lots and lots of discussion about all kinds of health
>	   care -- everything from socialized to nothing!  Comparisons of
>	   what is available in other countries with all kinds of questionable 
>	   statistical evidence.

>	   For some time, I've been  mulling over JUDY's MIRACLE HEALTH PLAN
>	   FOR AMERICA and I'd like to toss it out for discussion.  It goes
>	   something like this.  

>		   1) Companies are required to provide major medical for
>		   employees; this means about $500 deductible per year.
>		   In other words, employees pay most of the bill themselves
>		   and insurance would pick up on the "major expenses."
>		   This would cut premiums dramatically (anyone know any
>		   statistics on this one?), thereby cutting labor costsd
>		   to businesses drastically, yet providing a safety net
>		   for employees protecting them against major expenses.
>
>		   2) Some manner of basic health care such as prenatal,
>		   immunizations, etc., provided by government to those 
>		   who can't pay for it.  

>	   And, PLEASE, this is not some scheme to "help the poor;" it is a
>	   realistic approach ( ? ) to a social issue that most (no, not
>	   all) people believe needs to be addressed as a critical U.S.
>	   infrastructural problem.


>	   If anyone cares to develop this discussion or shoot it down,
>	   I'd like some opinions.

Personally, I like the plan, but I have a few questions and see a few gaps...
	1) What about the poor?  Those for whom $100 of medical expenses
	   would make the difference between electricity and heat for the
	   month?  I personally know several people who are in such 
	   circumstances...
	2) Wouldn't we STILL have the same argument from the Republicans 
	   that we're forcing this plan on businesses and are going to really
	   hurt them?

Actually, that's only one question and one gap, but if this thread takes off, 
I'm sure I'll end up raising a few more.

Understand that I'm not tearing this plan apart; I think it would be a huge
step in the right direction, and could even be used to phase in Clinton's
proposal... have you written Clinton HQ's and suggested it?

>		   Judy.
Chris
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4961 talk.politics.misc:44873 alt.rush-limbaugh:4590 alt.politics.bush:4757 alt.politics.elections:12866
From: ballard@panther.adelphi.edu (Terry Ballard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush & Truman
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:25:59 GMT
Organization: Adelphi University Swirbul Library


   So now our President has looked back into the past (something
that Republicans have always been very good at) and found a role
model - Harry Truman.  He says this long enough and loud enough to
drown out any spinning sounds that might be coming from the general
direction of Truman's grave.  However, in my humble opinion, there
are places where the comparison fails:
   1.  Truman was a genuine and likeable human being.  He did not
need handlers to give him careful instructions about how to talk
down to America.  He just got out there and gave people a double
shot of the man he really was.
   2.  Truman did not need to compare himself to past Republican
presidents in a cheap effort to get party crossover votes.  Nor
would he have wanted to.
   3.  Truman knew when Pearl Harbor was bombed.
   Yes, Bush is repeating that period of history, but not in the
way that he would have us believe.  If he wants to go back to that
era and find a role model for himself and the Republicans of 1992,
then I would suggest Senator Joseph McCarthy. 
                                     
                                            Terry Ballard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Legalizing drugs  (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:24:55 GMT

In article <Bu37L3.Jtx@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) 
writes:

              [...stuff deleted for brevity...]


>
>	Case in point.  Where in the US Constitution is the Federal 
>   government delegated the power to ban psychoactive substances?  
>   When the Feds banned alcohol, they needed a Constitutional amendment 
>   because of that annoying little thing known as the Tenth amendment.  
>   When was it (the 10th) repealed?  Or is the WoD unconstitutional???  
>
>

I bet they put that baby right under "promoting the general welfare"....
Seeing as how drugs seem to be self-destructive in that they can totally
alter the way one thinks about free enterprise; seeing as how withholding 
them prompts people to kill, to rob, to commit crimes they otherwise would 
not have committed, and basically screw up a lot of people's lives, I'm
not sure I disagree.

Now look at this.  Say drugs were legal. Less violence, lower prices.  Say 
then that there a shortage, or somebody couldn't buy it when they wanted--
just for the sake of argument, soemone somewhere is deprived of their new
"right".  Well hell, Johnny can just go down the street and "borrow" some 
from Susie, right? But then susie pulls out a knife and says, "get the hell 
off my land," Johnny whips out his 9mm and makes her rethink things with a 
pop in the head; now he's got his drugs.   

......perhaps even providing for the common defense...

Non-addictive consumer products or things that are not psychoactive drugs 
_usually_ don't do this to a person.  It is my belief that, legal or no, 
drugs would do this regularly.  That's not my picture of ideal America.
Banning items which have *that* strong a grip on someone seems pretty
constitutionally reasonable to me.	
	

comments?


>-- 
> Jordan M Kossack  |  Don't Miss Meals 
>  kossack@qvi.com  |       Bag Your Diet
>  +1 713 240 2073  |            Eat More Fast Food 
>  


Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5019 alt.politics.bush:4805