HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:41:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.161726.27442@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <92Sep11.121442edt.121@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>In article <farenebt.716179954@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>>alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <BuD5GD.IHM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>>The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
>>>>encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
>>>>witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
>>>
>>>His highness Robertson forget to blame feminists for:
>>>world hunger, the war in Yugoslavia, famine in Somalia and the hole in the ozone
>>>layer. Am I forgetting something?
>>>
>>yes, you did.  What really going to bring massive fundie turn out for
>>the republicans if his holiness robertson have said:  "the Feminazis and
>>the JEWs crusified Jesus Christ 1900 years ago."  ;->
>
>You have, in your wish to believe that Republicans are religious 
>fundamentalist wackos, apparently accepted as true that Pat Robertson
>originated the now famous quote which Alex Crain has stained his
>posts with so often.  While I do not care to associate myself with
>Pat Robertson any less than Mr. Crain, I have to defend the truth
>which is that this statement is actually derived from the 1971 Declaration
>of Feminism.  The document apparently postures that women should 
>drop the concept of marriage and adopt such ancient female "religions"
>as witchcraft.
>
>If Mr. Crain wishes to continue to imply that Pat Robertson thought
>this quote up then he can do so but he will have to prove that Robertson
>was responsible for it's inclusion in that 1971 document first if he
>is to maintain credibility for this stance.
>
>Mike Best 


-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
 nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:02:22 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep9.034609.25077@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.210345.5338@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <81741@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:

>@     Bill Clinton sought to avoid the draft and stay in school through 
>@ perfectly legal means.  He did nothing worse than what Quayle did with
>@ his "quickstep" into the National Guard, except that the legality of 
>@ the influence peddling which went on in Quayle's behalf is not at all
>@ clear.

>>Excuse me, but when Quayle entered the Guard there were openings
>>available.  One was not created for him.  There have been claims of
>>influence peddling, but no one as shown any kind of evidence for it.

>	Thanx to the new book _Airhead Apparent_, here is Danny Boy's
>National Guard record:

>	He spent three months in welding training, then just in time,
>an opening appeared in the NG's Office of Public Information. The
>result: Danny Boy didn't have to do any serious blue-collar labor at
>all. He just had a cushy desk job the whole time. Though it was
>associated with the NG's magazine, no article ever appeared under
>Danny Boy's byline.

>	One has to ask why an opening had appeared just in time so
>that Danny Boy would not have to join the blue-collar work force for
>awhile.

Perhaps openings of various types wre occurring all the time and
Quayle just happened to grab that one?  Do you have any evidence
whatsoever that any influence was used?

>	Looks like draft evasion to me...

In that case please check your eyesight.  Quayle played by the rules.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that he did not?

>>Please compare this with Slick Willy who spent 8 months in limbo due
>>to his uncle's lobbying.

>>But of course Slick Willy would never have dodged the draft.

>	Well, Slick Willie had a much better excuse for draft-dodging
>than Danny Boy, who was a gung-ho hawk in his college and NG years. He
>didn't like the war, while Danny Boy did.

So it's OK for him to use his rich family connections so that someone
else had to go?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Draft Dodging/Truth Dodging (was: SC rally
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:55:58 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

>art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
>: 
>:    The point isn't that Bush was involved in the in the Iran-Contra affair,
>:    but that he has lied about it.  The fact is, he was not out of the
>:    loop.
>: 
>: The point is that you can't prove that Bush lied about Iran-Contra but
>: you can prove that Clintone lied about his draft shenanigans.
>
 
What constitutes proof in the Iran-Contra scandal? There's common
sense, for one. There's Bush's own memorable equivocations: in the
loop, when it suits him; out of the loop, when the heat is on. There's
the Schultz memo, of late. The demand for proof can have an odd kind
of 5th Amendment odor in some instances, (obviously not all: accusations
made up out of whole cloth, accusations made for smear purposes,
actual criminal indictments etc.) particularly in the realm of 
presidential politics where the country has accepted a rather overwhelming
criteria -- the "smoking gun" of Watergate fame. This is probably as
it should be for purposes of impeachment, but it says nothing at
all about common sense or breaches of trust. Both Reagan and Bush were
involved with Iran Contra and their end-runs around Congress and
the Law set terrible a precedent. In the past, when Chief Executives
chose to stand on presidential authority (dating back to Jefferson
and the Louisiana Purchase) they have done so openly. The sneaking,
covert, semi-criminal means employed in Iran-Contra say reams about
the plan's legitimacy and the authority on which it was based.

Again, I don't think even defenders of Reagan or Bush genuinely
doubt the culpability of the pair or their own bad faith in defending
them. Is their a difference between Reagan/Bush plausible deniability
and Clinton's statements on the draft? A great deal. The first 
involves misuse of power and breach of trust by elected officials.
The second is window dressing for elective politics. No one looking
at the facts of Clinton's efforts to keep out of the draft would find
it anything other than an effort to keep out of Viet Nam. (A not
unreasonable thing to do, as many career military men have attested)
The fact that such things cannot be said openly and bluntly is unfortunate. 
Clinton broke no law, and were it not for his goofily explanatory letter
withdrawing from ROTC there wouldn't even be an issue here. Reagan
and Bush broke laws and faith. 
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:52:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.191059.21670@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
}In article <1992Sep9.220222.17568@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
}>In article <1992Sep9.034609.25077@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
}
}@ 	Well, Slick Willie had a much better excuse for draft-dodging
}@ than Danny Boy, who was a gung-ho hawk in his college and NG years. He
}@ didn't like the war, while Danny Boy did.
}
}>So it's OK for him to use his rich family connections so that someone
}>else had to go?
}
}	Just like Danny Boy?


So you would vote for Qwaile for President, since he is, as you seem to imply,
just like Clinton?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Is the Honeymoon Ending?
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:23:06 GMT

I think there has been an end to the "honeymoon" for Clinton.  A lot of
reporters have gotten a lot more critical, or at least they are looking
with a more jaundiced eye at Clinton.

I think the main reason has been a general change in tone in the Clinton
campaign.  It lost the moral high ground of change by 'pandering',
and losing the clarity of its message in statistics and renewed draft
charges.  It may have been crystalized by Clinton's own attempt to
control the press around him.  In attempting to keep the topic on the
issues away from the draft he has had to restrict access of the press to
him.

He may have overreached himself a bit.  (not my own analysis)  Instead
of trying for just and electoral victory he seems to be attempting to
go for an overwhelming mandate, which he really doesn't need.  Unlike
Bush, Clinton has proven very capable of dealing with weak or no control
over the legislative branch in Arkansas.  Clinton doesn't need to win that
many states to be able to govern effectively

He may be failing into the old political trap of wanting _everybody_
to like him.  Spme people demand too much from a politician for them
to like him, too great a cost to the nation and to the candidate.


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:15:27 GMT

In article <12272@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
>(talking about affirmitive action)
>I find it sad that some gays are now trying to get their fingers
>into this pie.  I don't believe that gays are mentally disadvantaged,
>and as such do not need bailout programs.  I can see it now:

Huh?  Are you actually paying attention?  I don't know any gay or lesbian
folks who are looking for affirmative action or "special rights", and I'm
willing to bet big bucks that I know a LOT more of them than you do.  All
we'd like is the government to pass some laws saying we can't be fired just
because we're not straight.  Is that "special rights"?  I sure don't think so.

Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 08:49:06 GMT

adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>In article <1992Sep04.181321.2461616@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep4.035918.13993@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:

>>>Neither is stolen territory.  Israel reclaimed it in a purely defensive
>>>war.  And Israel was not the agressor in '48, either.

>>First, you rob my house, I go to reclaim it from you, you are stronger,

>Bought, John, bought.  Land was *bought* from Arabs landlords.
>According to the Peel Commision report, from 1933-35, Jews paid
>4,202,180 British pounds to Arab landowners for purchases of land.

But what fraction of the land did it buy?  Even by 1946, most
of the privately-owned land in Palestine was not owned by Jews.

>>you take my car in addition. Does that make you defensive?

>Yes, defending land that people bought is a defensive war.  Jews were
>a majority in land allocated them in the UN partition.

In numbers, but not in land ownership.  The Jewish population
was strongly concentrated in the cities.

>Adam

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:30:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.220305.10428@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep04.181321.2461616@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:

>>Besides, israel came to forcefull existence on May, 15 '48.  Before
>>that the term israel was only biblical pointing to an extinct tribe.
>
>This is the most ghastly joke I have ever heard.  Elghani, you obviously
>believe every bit of propaganda you've ever been fed.  I'm a *member* of
>that "extinct tribe".  What is this?  Do you wish all the Jews in the
>world dead?  

Of course he does. You didn't know this already?

-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: Motorola Panther Project, Chandler, AZ
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:56:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU 
>(Eric S. Perlman) asserts:
>>And E. Jerusalem is *not* occupied territory. 
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Really? Just because you say so?  For the umpteen time, point of fact is that 
>the UN and virtually the entire world, excluding the Israeli government and 
>Perlman (as usual, of course), believe otherwise.   Iraq too claimed that 
>"Kuwait was *not* occupied territory," but the world didn't seem to 
>agree with such assertion either.

OK how about this,  The Arabs countries started (and lost) yet another war of
Desturction against Israel.  In doing so they lost much land including E. 
Jerusalim.   Israel had offer all (yes this has changed) except E. Jerusalim
back in exchange for peace.  Given that when E. Jerusalim was under Arab rule
the majority Jewish population was /killed/driven out, Ancient Jewish 
Synoguoges/Cemetaries destoryed, and Jews were denied access to the Holiest of 
Jewish sites.  I suspect that if the Wailing Wall was not also significant to 
Muslims would have been destroyed along with the other
Jewish antiquety in E. Jerusalim.


-- 

>
Ron Feigen
ronf@panther.mot.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45703 soc.culture.usa:7306 alt.activism:16332
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Marian Wright Edelman Statement on Child Poverty Increase
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:40:41 GMT
Organization: Echo Beach

In article <1992Sep12.014353.10986@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>Essentially, it only proves that there are large numbers of people
>which do not support themselves sufficiently with their own income.
>
>James J. Kilpatrick had a good column on this. Something like half of
>all "poverty" families own their own homes; many have substantial
>household assets. cars, boats, pools, etc. The image of destitution does not
>apply to all those in "poverty". (Although it certainly applies to some.)
>
Yes, the rural poor may own their own homes, but their housing is
typically substandard (cramped, poorly insulated, possibly a fire hazard).
If they own a boat, the most likely explanation is that they make their
living fishing, which is an erratic way to support a family. (The only
thing that allows most of Canada's inshore fishing families to cope
financially is the unemployment insurance payments during the parts of the
year that they can't fish.)

As well, rural communities lack the social services (doctors, hospitals,
etc.) that the urban poor have access to.

I would like to see an income support program for the working poor,
together with government medical insurance and subsidized child care, that
would allow welfare recipients to seek employment. 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Pssst -- some of your friends could be libertarian!?!
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:07:26 GMT

In article <BuF31w.EJB@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)  
writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.052247.5310@brownfield.glv.com> <jbrow@glv.com> writes:
> >
> >Many people in this country are fairly libertarian in their beliefs.
> 
>    "Many" is a nice safe word.  In a nation of 240 million 1% would 
>    represent "many".  
> 
> 
> ---peter
> 

I didn't say "voted" libertarian or "registered" Libertarian, I said  
"libertarian in their beliefs."  I think that many Americans believe in  
limiting government intervention in their economic and personal lives.  I also  
think this is why Reagan did so well talking "mostly" libertarian rhetoric.

The Libertarian party has a questionnaire "Are You a Libertarian?"  It has 10   
questions on personal liberty like "Military service should be voluntary?  
(yes/don't know/no)" and 10 questions on economic liberty like "Welfare should  
be eliminated? (yes/don't know/no)"  (If anybody has the questionnaire, post  
the questions)  If you use this questionnaire out at a gun show, you get almost  
100% of the people scoring in the libertarian quadrant.  When you use the  
questionnaire on the general public, you get about 30% of the people in the  
libertarian quadrant.

Is this questionnaire scientific?  No.  Is it unbiased?  No.  But even with  
these flaws, I still believe that it indicates that "many" people hold  
libertarian views.  Obviously they are not flocking to register Libertarian,  
but limited government is still very appealing to Americans.

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:28:53 GMT


bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:

>Wimp.  I don't care if you're hetero, just don't bother me with it.
>There's no reason anyone needs to know you're a het, so as long as
>you're quiet about it, no one will know and you won't be hunted down
>like the traitorous counter-revolutionary subversive running dog
>breeder that you are.

Now now, some of my best friends are het, though you'd never know
it just by looking at them.  It's perfectly fine with me if they
choose to be that way, as long as they never lay a hand on ME!

>And we won't be extinct.  My, er, housemate just got a job working for
>a company that's involved in the technology that makes heterosexuality
>obsolete.

This reminds me of the one thing that really brightened up the
first day of this term for me.  On my way to class, I walked by
a young man wearing a T-shirt that said 

I'M NOT GAY
BUT MY BOYFRIEND IS

>J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)

                     -rocker

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45722 ca.politics:7853 ba.politics:5375 soc.motss:39182 ba.motss:1641
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:10:05 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <BuLvDH.GA3@world.std.com>, entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard) writes:
> In article <12286@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep12.170552.13807@spdcc.com>, pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:
> >> In article <12251@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## So why are you taking it out on us? I don't think anyone, regardless
# ## of gender or orientation, thinks that child abuse is good. There are
# ## some pedophiliacs out there on -both- sides. Why does your crusade
# ## get focused on gays?
# #
# #Because the gay community won't shun pedophiliacs like NAMBLA.
# #The straight community shuns pedophiliacs with great vengeance.
# #A person who showed up AT any straight parade carrying a sign for
# #something equivalent to NAMBLA would not only be ejected from the
# #parade, but perhaps from this world.
# 
# So let me get this straight, queers are bad because they refuse to
# kill people with disagreeable view points?

No, because they actively defend child molestation -- though they
insist that pedophilia isn't child molestation.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44815 alt.rush-limbaugh:4573 alt.politics.elections:12847 alt.politics.clinton:4916 alt.politics.bush:4717
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:14:55 GMT

In article <farenebt.716179954@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>
>>In article <BuD5GD.IHM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
>>encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
>>witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
>
>His highness Robertson forget to blame feminists for:
>world hunger, the war in Yugoslavia, famine in Somalia and the hole in the ozone
>layer. Am I forgetting something?
>
yes, you did.  What really going to bring massive fundie turn out for
the republicans if his holiness robertson have said:  "the Feminazis and
the JEWs crusified Jesus Christ 1900 years ago."  ;->


>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>BRI FARENELL			      	   "Canadians do not have a problem
>CLARKSON '95				    Canada's health care system. Only 
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    Americans seem to."   ---anonymous 
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
yes, for some bizzare unknown reasons some Amercians would like to believe
Canadians hosipitals are the equivalent of Soviet KGB.  

>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