HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 23:25:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.234004.23180@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <138338@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
>]Do you think that anyone who was a tourist in Moscow in that period
>]is automatically ineligible to be president?  Because I don't believe
>
>I think any anti-war protest organizer who went to Moscow during that 
>period has the burden of proof on him to show that he did not cooperate
>with the Russians. If he is unwilling to try (and Clinton refuses to
>discuss the issue), then yes, he would be unfit to be president. For one
>thing, he could never get a high security clearance without explaining
>it adequately. Do we want someone as president who wouldn't even qualify
>for a secret or above security clearance? I know that I sure don't!

I think you have shown yourself to be both paranoid and vindictive.  I
doubt there is anything Clinton could say that would fill the suspicious
void in you, and he is wise not to try.

The press has had extensive coverage of what you call "anti-war protest
organizing."  The facts are that:  the leader of the anti-war movement in
London, a Pakistani, says Clinton was not a leader or an organizer in their
efforts.  Clinton's roommates at school say he was not in a leadership
role.  Clinton was a parade marshall at one rally to keep the march
peaceful (hence the "leadership" role).  Clinton helped organize a
'teach-in' on Vietnam at Cambridge.  Hardly an offensive action, except by
the standards of the right wing.

The balance of your argument is a rehash of the sort of thing we saw in the
McCarthy era.  Too bad you don't respect the real meaning of the
Constitution and go in for the Red-Baiting tactics of "Are you now or have
you ever been..."

For you younger folks on the net, there was no adequate answer or
explanation once that question was asked.  You were destroyed.  

I am grateful that folks with your viewpoint apparently don't get a lot of
respect when it comes time to hand out security clearances.  The paranoid 
right's rules do not control there.  The people who issue clearances
accept that we have a free society and that patriots can, and do, disagree
with their government's policies--even in times of war.

>]there's any evidence that he actually "conspired" with the enemy, or
>]that he protested the war while he was there.  
>
>Agreed. THere's no evidence that he didn't, also.

Well, there you have it, folks.  The McCarthyist mind in action.  It is not
our job to change his mind.  We can't.  What we can do is defend our
democracy by making certain that he is never in a position of power where
he can act on these beliefs and affect *all* of us.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.guns
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 12 Oct 1992 22:35:34 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <70dP02bT25G501@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jej20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin) writes:
>In article <1b4jv4INNn6i@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
...
>
>What, you mean actually try to understand and solve the problem???
>Wow, what a concept.  :-)
>
>I can fill in part of the puzzle using Perot's numbers from 
>_United_We_Stand_.  Any Concord Coalition folks out there willing
>to help out with the rest?
>
>                                    Amount        % of    rate of 
>  1992 Federal Entitlement Outlays  (Billions)    Budget  Growth(91-92)
>  --------------------------------  ----------   -------  -----------
>
>  Social Security Payments [a]      $293         19.53%         ?
>  Health Care Benefits              $200         13.33%      12.0%
>  Pension & Veteran Benefits         $84          5.60%         ?
>  Unemployment & Family Support      $71          4.73%         ?
>  Food & Housing Benefits            $52          3.47%         ?
>  Other Nonretirement (includes      $28          1.87%         ?
>    Farm Price Supports a
>    Student Loans)
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  1992 Total Entitlement Outlays    $728          48.53%     11.88%    
>
>  [a] Extremely important category is Social Security Payments.
>      When the baby boomers start retiring around the year 2020, 
>      this figure is going to skyrocket.
>
>Jerry Joplin   Sunnyvale,CA | I do not speak for Amdahl Corporation.
>joplin@mcode.amdahl.com     |  
>Compu$erve: 70441,2627      | All these worlds are yours, except California


Thanks you posting this breakdown.

I find these numbers interesting. During the debates President Bush said
that he would allow social security to cover cost of living increases and
grow per the population. How is he going to reduce the deficit?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer






Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51172 alt.politics.elections:16287 alt.politics.bush:8769
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Your Permanent Record
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:30:15 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Paramax/DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <1992Oct10.232559.13416@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
> >]there's any evidence that he actually "conspired" with the enemy, or
> >]that he protested the war while he was there.  
> >
> >Agreed. THere's no evidence that he didn't, also.
> 
> Well, there you have it, folks.  The McCarthyist mind in action.  It is not
> our job to change his mind.  We can't.  What we can do is defend our
> democracy by making certain that he is never in a position of power where
> he can act on these beliefs and affect *all* of us.

Here's an interesting point:  when all of these sophomores grow up and some
eventually run for public office, all of their current half-thought-out
rantings on the net will probably still be available in various archives. 
After all, the full net stream is being captured and put on cdrom even now. 
Every flame, every obscenity, every lapse of logic.  This is something new
in the world of politics.

So think about that out there in .edu land; are you sure about your facts
and logic?  What you say now may doom your run for dogcatcher in 2012.

-- 
Bob Munck

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:02:41 GMT

Theodore Kaldis writes:

[story of Lot and Sodom and Gamorah deleted]

>Lot leaves with his wife and daughters, God destroys the city, Lot's
>wife looks back and becomes a pillar of salt.  (And then Lot's
>daughters get him rip-roaring drunk and then "go in with him" to
>preserve his seed, because they thought there was no man left in the
>earth for them.)

>_THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
>don't we?

Yes let's get it right. The tale of Sodom and Gomorah is one of the more
bizarre pieces of mythology in the Old Testament. It is not at all obvious
that the crime of Sodom was that its men practiced homosexuality. They
wanted to rape the two "angels". Gang rape is never anything but evil (
as is all rape). To conclude that God decided to rain down fire and brimstone
on Sodom because of its homosexual practices is a tremendous leap of logic.
Sodom was reputedly a town where acts of grotesque violence on visitors
were common place. It seems far more likely that this was the reason for 
the destruction, rather than homosexuality. After all Lot commits incest 
with his two daughters and God apparently doesn't like incest either. But 
Lot was accounted righteous by God for his act of saving the two angels from
the mob. Are we to conclude that a just God would account righteous a man
who is prepared to have his two virgin daughters raped by  a mob, and then
later commits incest with them, while despising homosexuality so much that 
he destroys a whole town because of it?

Mark C.
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton victory causes stock drop [was Re: Bush ...]
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:44:51 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

In article <1992Oct12.231803.14970@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
(Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>His likely victory has already sent the stock market sliding 10% in
>the last few weeks. :-) Only 90% left to go. :-(
>
That is completely false.  The stock market has been in the 3150-3250 range for
months now, with slight aberations.  In the 2 days since the debate, which
clearly is perceived as diminishing Bush's re-election hopes, the market is up.
 10% would mean a drop of over 300 points in the Dow.  This has not happened at
all.  And considering that reports of corporate earnings have been
disappointing lately, one would expect the market to decline.  Perhaps the
imminent demise of the Bush regime is cause for optimism on Wall St.:-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.  (in his dreams)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.210818.8760@Princeton.EDU>, 
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes...

>It was obvious that Gore was the only candidate prepared to be up there.

Yep. You could have replaced him with a cardboard cut-out and a tape 
recording, and not been able to tell the difference.

-- Stephen


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:35:52 GMT

In article <Bw3D3C.1u4@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>> In article <Bvzssz.Iqt@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

>> > ... I don't believe
>> >for a moment that he really intended to join ROTC and then "changed his
>> >mind", and if you really believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell
>> >you, CHEAP. 

>> See, guys, Mitchell is basing his vote on his (Mitchell's) religious beliefs.
>> He believes, without any possibility of proof, Bush's assertion that Clinton
>> lied.

>Sorry to spoil your poetic experience, but it just ain't so. 

>First of all, I neither LIKE nor BELIEVE George Bush. If he told me that
>the sun was out, I'd check to make sure that I had a shadow. If he told me
>that the sky was blue or water wet, I'd check for myself. Y'see, despita
>all his crap about "who do you trust?", the answer (for me) is "NOT BUSH!". 

>But that's O.K., because I CAN check for myself. 

>Bill Clinton has been on both sides of a LOT of issues. First he's AGAINST
>public financing of abortions, now he's FOR it. First he "never broke any
>US laws", then admitted that he'd smoked pot, but "didn't inhale". First

Yes.  He smoked pot IN ENGLAND.  Not breaking any US laws.

>he never got a draft notice, then yeah, he did.  First he says that he
>resigned from ROTC and made himself subject to the draft; then it turns
>out that he'd already had a high draft lottery number when he resigned. 

>Figure it out, folks. Here's a man who DESPERATELY wants to not be
>drafted, at ANY price. He'll agree to ANYTHING even to delay the
>inevitable. If it hadn't been the high lottery number, he'd have thought
>of something else the following year why he couldn't attend ROTC, or, if
>he couldn't get out of that, why he couldn't be commissioned. 

Well, it's a sign of intelligence, at any rate.  I don't think anyone
with an IQ larger than a turnip WANTED to get drafted by 1969.

>Not that it's an issue, or anything. 

But what about Quayle?  He supported the war, and yet avoided getting
drafted.  Why?  "I wanted to go to law school."  So Quayle supported
FORCING people to go to Vietnam, where they might die -- as long as he
didn't have to.  Clinton opposed it for everyone, worked against it for
everyone, and opposed it for himself too.

>But as bad as Bush is, he's clearly the lesser of two evils.

Two?  Bush is the worst of 3 evils.

He lies about things that affect *everyone*, like Iran and Iraq.  Or
Panama.  But he also has no principles.  He'll do whatever it takes to
get reelected.  

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The 'Missing' Pages -- Evidence of Media Coll
Date: 11 Oct 92 06:41:26 GMT

In article <10OCT199223001512@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> 	Newsweek, one of the organizations that requested the 
> 	State Department records through the Freedom of Informa-
> 	tion Act, reported in todays edition that State Department
> 	officials pulled the file and noticed that several pages
> 	appeared to have been ripped out.
> 
> Anybody got an original quote from newsweek?
> 

"The FBI, Newsweek has learned, has opened allegations that someone tampered
with Bill Clinton's passport file at the State Dept... It is possible that
an official (or low-level bureaucrat) sympathetic to Clinton destroyed
the evidence that could further embarrass on the draft issue.  It is also
possible that a Bush supporter tampered with the file to make it appear
that incriminating documents had clumisily removed..."

			-- Newsweek, Oct 12, 1992, page 6

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Cost/Benefit and Safety Regulations
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:51:27 GMT

In article <1bb1nmINNslu@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>One of the major complaints against the Reagan-era OSHA was that
>they had begun a cost/benefit analysis of new safety regs in which the
>value of a common laborer's life was set at $1 million. In fairness,
>OSHA denied it.

What was the nature of the complaint?  That the value of the life was
only $1 million?  Or that the cost/benefit analysis was done at all?
I suppose the former complaint can be a point of contention, but I'm wondering
what criteria one might use to determine the efficacy of safety
regulations if not cost/benefit?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:07:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bw3FoC.67t@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>Perot, while striving to avoid attacks on individual's character, 
>has emphasized the notion that people who hold office in this 
>country should consider themselves SERVANTS of the people -- 
>I consider possession or lack thereof of this attitude to be 
>the most important "character" issue when measuring candidates.

  But what does it MEAN?   In the current issue of Business Week
  they published a nationwide poll showing rejection for 3 of 4 
  major Perot deficit-cutting proposals.   If the poll is accurate
  should a good servant like Perot then just accept the bidding of
  his masters and forget about these ideas?  

  Indeed, to be a good servant you have to know what your master
  demands.  How does Perot suggest doing this, especially with
  different polls producing different results or changing over
  time?   Also how is being a servant consistent with having 
  opinions of one's own?    Whom do you obey, your own conscience
  or the dictates of your master?

  The whole concept of being a "public servant" is fraught with
  contradictions like these.


---peter


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50951 alt.rush-limbaugh:7113 alt.politics.bush:8656 alt.politics.clinton:9749 alt.politics.elections:16131 talk.abortion:41997
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:37:21 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <eyrdz5v@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.104147.12858@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes ...
>
>Or do something faster, easier, cheaper, and no less legal!  Force all men
>to have vasectomies!  If a rapist can't get a 12-year-old girl pregnant,
>she doesn't have to be pressured to have/not have an abortion!  Of course,
>the planet will get *real* peaceful in 80 years or so, but the problem is
>certainly solved in the short term.
>
>
>Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com		x 6244  ----------------+
>|  I don't belong to any organized political party:  I'm a Democrat.	|
>|						-- Will Rogers		|
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

	Congratulations, Carrie!  At last a realistic solution!!!
	You know, those vasectomies can be reversed.  If all male
	children were vasectomized at puberty, and when safely married
	(and with the little wife's permission, of course) had their
	vasectomies reversed, we could all rest easy!   

	As a mother of both sons and daughters (all grown up now,
	thank goodness), I like that idea.  Actually, making them
	eunochs would be alright with me, though!  I know, I know,
	I'm a *little* extreme.  

		Judy
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Date: 7 Oct 1992 20:16:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Bush and Clinton don't even begin to dig into the real problems with our
country. Perot pointed out just about every major problem that our nation
currently has. When is the last time you saw Bush or Clinton sit down with
cold hard facts and give you an "in your face" shock-style lecture? What you
see from Bush and Clinton are what I like to call scripts for the new movie
"Perfect World". They make token efforts to address some of the problems. I'm
all in favor of breaks for the middle class (I'm currently below middle class),
but running a campain based only on big pandering promises (Clinton) is not
going to fix a lot of things in our nation. If it takes another four years
for us to realize that we are being told what we want to hear then I guess
that is the way things go. In another four years it will only make people even
more angry that they thought they were getting change and all they got was
confusion. The answers to problems have to hurt sometimes.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51270 misc.misc:3515
From: Patrick Townson <ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
Subject: The Debates versus the Three Stooges
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992  23:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: misc.misc
Organization: none

The debates got underway Sunday night, and an estimated sixty percent
of the Americans who were watching television or listening to the
radio got to see and hear the candidates.

Two points in this message:

One --  a full page ad in the Sunday papers in Chicago presented one
point of view:

                 (Pictures of Clinton, Bush and Perot)

   Caption says:  At 6 PM Central Time Sunday night, seven television
   networks will present these three men in a debate on the issues
   which are important to many Americans.


                 (Picture of the the Three Stooges)

   Caption says:  On Channel 50, we will present these three men 
   instead.


Channel 50, WPWR chose to have three hours or so of Three Stooges
films for anyone who wanted to skip the debates. I thought it was a
rather appropriate rebuttal to the major event of the evening.

Item Two:  So how come the Libertarian Party candidate was not invited
to be in the debates? Like Perot, the Libertarian guy got on the
ballot in all fifty states ... and the Libertarian Party specifically
asked to be in the debate, but the Commission refused. I guess they
figure that while Perot poses a small problem to the 'authorized'
candidates, if enough people found out about the Libertarians there
would be a REAL 'constitutional crisis' when people go to the polls to
vote next month.  Gotta keep those Libertarians out of the public
spotlight no matter what the cost!

The fraudulent debates: just another reason to NOT VOTE next month.
REMEMBER: voting will change nothing. You are wasting your time by
going to the polling place, and you are accomodating a government
which likes to humor you and make you feel your thoughts and opinions
matter.

DO NOT VOTE.


Patrick Townson
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Senators get off the hook.
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:47:25 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

Another jewel from the back pages of the Atlanta Journal and Constitution.
Oct. 7

When congress passed a big civil rights bill a year ago, senators voted to
make themselves personally liable for discriminating against their employees/
Now they've quietly shifted that liability to the taxpayers.  The change
came when senators quietly slipped the provision into an appropriations
bill last week, and the House went along.  Congress had long taken heat for
exempting itself from laws that applied to everyone else, and the Clarance 
Thomas hearings added fuel to the flames of outrage.  In a bid to kill the
provision, Sen. Warren Rudman offered an amendment to make senators
personally liable for monetary damages if they discriminated against their
workers.  But the lawmakers were so jittery about their tattered reputations
that they adopted the language 75-22, and it became part of the law.
Now it is gone, replaced with language that makes the government pay any
damages won by a senate employee with a bias complaint.

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