HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh)
Subject: VIETNAM
Keywords: draft
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:26:32 GMT

	During the Republican Fun Fest in Houston Clinton
was repeatedly attacked as having cunningly ducked out on
going to war when his country needed him while Bush was
portrayed as a young hero nobly stepping foward to battle
the evil threatening to engulf the globe.
	But I ask you-- is it proper to compare the
situation during World War II to the one during the Vietnam
War?  In WWII the United States was directly attacked; the
goal was self-preservation.  Vietnam was another issue, a
conflict where the goal was morally sound for the time
(contain communism) but where the execution and the results
is nothing for the United States to be proud about.  To
equate going into the military during Vietnam with proof of
love for this country is erroneous.
	The country was united in 1941, but in the years of
Vietnam it was divided to the point where college students
were shot as they protested.  It is not unAmerican to have
oppossed Vietnam, but maybe we've forgotten that with the
flush of pride we got from the whiz-bang Gulf War.


Yuna Huh
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2991 alt.politics.bush:2888 alt.politics.elections:11558
From: tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:42:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

In article <1992Sep4.101956.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>   I watched Clinton's speech to the American Legion live on C-SPAN,
> and was outraged at the time at what I perceived he was saying (regarding
> Lincoln having no military experience).  But, after looking at the 
> text of his speech, I can see that he never claimed Lincoln had 
> no military experience.  However, this is just another example of
> his unprecedented political acumen (i.e. his slickness).  Let me show
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[stuff deleted] > 
> Lincoln was not called to service, but rather he ENLISTED...TWICE!!
> I would say that Bush looks more like Lincoln than does Clinton
> in this light.
[stuff delted]

>      The main points I wanted to get across here are that:  (1) No,
> Clinton did not claim Lincoln had no military experience, but (2) Yes,
> the presentation was meant to lead people to believe Lincoln had no
> experience.
>      It is interesting to see how this event was reported by the NY Times
> (Clinton's press secretary?) on August 26.  They made no mention of 
> the references to Lincoln, but wrote:
> 
>      "...he asserted that he could be an effective military Commander
>      in Chief, much as two other non-veterans, Woodrow Wilson and 
>      Franklin D. Roosevelt, had been."
> 
> I suppose if Quayle made this same speech, the headline on the NY Times
> would read "QUAYLE MISREPRESENTS LINCOLN'S MILITARY RECORD TO GET
> AMERICAN LEGION VOTE."
> 
>     C. Perttunen

Yes, and Democrats who would now argue that this point is irrelevant (along
with the draft thing, the pot thing, and the (admittedly alleged) infidelity
thing) would descend upon it like a swarm of hungry flies to a pile of
steaming elephant dung. Of course this group would include the media.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3404 alt.politics.bush:3376
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: FEMA's Republican controlled?
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:39:29 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

Last week the National Hurricane Tracking Center said that Andrew was dangerous.
What happened next?  FEMA sprang into instant lethargy.  I just saw the director
on CNN saying that 24 hours is an unreasonable response time.  As far a I can
figure, they had atleast 72 hours BEFORE the 'cane hit Miami to prestage the
response teams to be sent to wherever the thing hit.  Did they do this, of 
course not.  Why not?  Stupidity is the first thing that one would suppose, but
on further investigation, incompetence seems the correct answer. 

Dear Republican administration, if you aren't going to listen to Bob Sheets,
why are you paying his salary? 

Too bad the Republican convention wasn't in Miami a few days ago, fewer people
might be suffering now.

Larry J

-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
	<AWERLING.92Aug31172210@dante.nmsu.edu> <1874@celia.UUCP>
	<Sep.2.11.28.27.1992.15202@gandalf.rutgers.edu> <1885@celia.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:38:15 GMT

In article <1885@celia.UUCP> steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
>Dont quote a democrate please.
>
>Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

	No comment.
--
Ranjan Bagchi:   Di.sigsgvirusuise                 Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: George on rebuilding FL
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: world, na, usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:01:41 GMT

In article <14489@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>Ol George just locked up southern Calif. for Bill Clinton. I would
>think the people of south central LA might be just a little ticked off
>that GHWB goes on national TV to call fo supplies and cash to rebuild
>Homested FL, not that I complain about that but the majority of people
>in SC LA that lost their neighborhoods to fire we inocent victims also.
>So where was the President ? He did a sound bite or two and let the community
>clean up the mess. A storm is nature and the LA problem was caused by people
>but don't the people of SC LA need help to rebuild also. I guess George 
>needs FL more than Calif. Don't waist our tax dollars on fuel for air-force
>one to fly to Calif. on campaign trips George, you probabaly just lost 
>what little support you had in Southern Calif.
>
>Tim
>CLINTON/GORE
>Campaign 92' 
>
	You're right! Dammit, I'm sick and tired of eating nothing but Ramen
and sleeping on the floor of a seedy, cheap apartment! The president outta
get in here and buy me some furniture, decent food, and a decent
apartment! Damn straight!

				J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: No new taxes!
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:13:21 GMT

Hello.
	Someone on the net complained about the 'no new taxes',
calling it a lie of Bush.  Well, if you had ever had anything especially
difficult to do, you know that the best outlook is one which ignores
failure.  That is, 'don't try, do it!'  Bush gave an outlook.
Does DNA which codes for sexual maturity after full development 'lie'
if the organism dies before reaching that maturity?  Bush's goal,
the Republican goal, is 'no new taxes.'  If the Democrats can defeat
him, if the organism is slain before maturity, then that is unfortunate.
Do you wish to protect the organism? Do you wish to protect your
right to not be leached by the government? Do your best, but that is all
you can do.  To say that the organism did not have the coding for
'sexual maturity' seems to be the lie, especially when the real liar 
is the one who prevents it from happening.

			J. Wagner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:27:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>> Where were these people
>>when the media was trashing Clinton in Jan. ????
>
>Pretty simple - the press was in love with Tom Harkin. The thought of a
>more moderate slick-willy sickened them.
>
>Of course, now that we only have Bush & Clinton, they'll settle for
>Slick.

The news coverage I saw had pretty much written off Harkin by January.
At that point, I remember the press being in love with Tsongas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:01:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.130143.12988@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>Some facts:
>
>	62% of the "poor" own a car
>	14% of the "poor" own two or more cars
>	

Yeah, but do they run?  :) 


patricia


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:21:38 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

In article <1992Aug27.181128.3547@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
|> > = (Rick Eames) writes:
|> 
|> [...]
|> >Last night on PBS, I watched Gore say that they were going to tax the rich
|> >(punish them) for doing well in the Reagan years.  
|> 
|> You know Rick, I'd like to read more of your ideas, but after you
|> stop these baloney statements.

I watched Gore as well and he most definitely did not say anything of the sort.
What he did say was that he was convinced that Bush/Quayle had the interest
of the wealthiest Americans as their first priority.  He said that, based on
their policies and their actions, Bush and Quayle would rather help the 
privileged few become richer and more powerful than support the poor 
and the middle class in their struggle to survive in this failing economy.

And I think he is right on the money!

  Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       | 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3532 tx.politics:4650
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:38:39 GMT
 <G8EAr*rU0@caleb.UUCP> <17plqeINNnks@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <17plqeINNnks@agate.berkeley.edu>, Andrew J. Lazarus writes:

> In article <G8EAr*rU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >Don't you people know anything about how our government operates?  Every bill
> >is a compromise.  Each side trades this for that to get what they want.  The
> >President traded the tax increase to the Democrats to get something else that
> >he wanted.  He now realizes that that was a grave mistake.  However, the tax
> >increase was a DEMOCRAT idea forced upon the President by holding his other
> >programs hostage.
> 
> No sweat. Pretend it's 1990 all over again. Tell us what spending cuts
> Bush (or you) are going to make instead of raising taxes. Be specific.
> 
> GHWB welshed on suporting the painful part of the compromise, but I
> didn't notice his going back on the continued spending -- "other
> programs" -- that went with it.


You are not paying attention.  Go back and read what I wrote.

> 
> Which is the Free Lunch party again?

The Democrats, of course.  What liberal special interest group is there that hasn't
been promised big taxpayer bucks?

Let's see if I can make it clearer for you.  Imagine a hypothetical press interview.
(Hypothetical because the press won't press Slick Willie with any embarassing
questions.  They want him to win.)


[Slick Willie]
  I am going to provide universal health insurance within 100 days of my
  inauguration.  It won't even cost anything!  I'll just make business pay for it.

[Press]
  Yeah, free lunch indeed!  It is estimated that your health plan alone would
  cost half of the entire profits of all the businesses in America!  I wonder
  how many jobs that will cost?

  What about your other programs?

[SW]
  I'm going the make the rich pay for them.

[Press]
  What was that again?  If you take all the assets of the "rich" it won't be
  enough money (and there won't be many jobs left, either.)

[SW]
  Oh, we'll take it out of the 'peace dividend' and spend it on...

[Press]
  What about the defense workers who will be unemployed?

[SW]
  Oh, we'll spend it on retraining.

[Press]
  But Slick Willie, you've already spent it several times over!

[SW]
  Yeah, I know, but the voters are too stupid to figure that out before election
  time...  Oops, you won't print that will you?




                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Subject: What issues are important to you?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:12:02 GMT

I'd like to take an informal non-scientific poll and see what everyone
thinks are the most important issues in the campaign.  Here are a list
of issues in alphabetical order



Abortion
Crime
Economy
Education
Entitlement Reform 
Environment
Family Values
Foreign Policy
Gun Control
Health Care
Infrastructure
Minority Rights
Supreme Court
Urban Renewal

Other (I'm sure I forgot something that's important to someone...	
		Please feel free to put other things down, too.)


Basically, I'm looking for the issue names rather than sentences or
a discussion of issues in this.  


So list your top three issues in order...

Also, I'm interested in knowing your party and who you're voting
for (if you don't mind...)

So this is just five lines that you need to send  :)

I'm interested in seeing the results...   

My email address, btw, is jcconger@athena.mit.edu


	Have a nice day,
        	John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Why I won't vote for Clinton
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:25:23 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Aug28.153116.28827@meaddata.com>, joeg@meaddata.com writes:
|> Clinton has placed himself in to many comprimising positions.  Whether
|> he inhaled or not, he tried drugs.  Whether he dodged the draft or
|> not, he received his notice and didn't comply.  I am not clear what
|> truth lies in the allegations of his affairs.  I try not to let the
|> allegations cloud my judgement, but given his other personal failures,
|> I'm not sure what to believe.  These are the problems I have with the
|> character of Bill Clinton.  Why should I look any farther?  He doesn't
|> have the qualities I want in a leader.

You should've looked farther.  When you consider all of the factors,
Clinton has the abilities to lead this country not George Bush.
Clinton has, in the past, done things to damage his credibility.  But
that was the past.  It can and should only count for so much.  We have
to look at what the candidates will do for the Country.  George Bush
has had four years to show the American people that he can lead this
Country and he has failed.  His theories of trickle down economics
have only made the rich richer and the poor poorer.  One out of every
five children live in poverty.  Unemployment continues to rise.  He is
not and can not be the choice for the future.






-- 
Michael W. King     |  "I'm going to graduate on  |     (513) 865-1395   
Mead Data Central   |  time, no matter how long   |     CAPRR Conversion
P.O. Box 933        |  it takes"                  | mead!mwk@uccba.uc.edu
Dayton, Ohio  45401 |      -- Rod Brookin         |    ...!uccba!mead!mwk
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
Keywords: allegations, draft
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 07:06:20 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:

> In article <1992Sep03.144053.11873@bnr.ca> yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
> >One other item I forgot to include in my last post is that the
> >allegations about Clinton's help from his dead uncle come from
> >none other than a former Republican candidate for Governor in
> >Arkansas. Now there's a reliable ( not to mention unbiased )
> >source. And another thing, why are the republicans always basing
> >stories on the actions of dead people that can't speak for
> >themselves?
> >
> >jeff.
>
> We ought to keep in mind that the press and networks decided this
> story about the actions of a dead person made a nice splashy
> headline.  Not long ago, they jumped on that footnote about
> allegations of a Bush affair--based on something said by a man
> who is now dead.
>
> Maybe Bush and Clinton need to say something new and substantial
> to give the papers something to print that is worth reading.
>

You can't hold the Bush surrogates blameless in this one, however.  Two nights
ago on MacNeil/Lehrer, Charles Black kept trying to bait George Stefanopolous
(sp?) with remarks about the 128 tax increases.  He kept saying 'you ought to
go interview the people who wrote this report, they're not dead,' and other
such drivel.

Now, I'll concede that Black is a political hack extraordinaire, but when he,
or Mary Matalin, or any of their ilk start on a subject, then it's open season
on their boss.  If they're going to demand that Clinton 'come clean on the
draft, as the Dannster demanded, then their boss should come clean on his
marital infidelity problem.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:00:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.215128.8329@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.200952.28208@adobe.com> 
>kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>> There is a private research going on now and it has progressed to the 
>> point where the above DID happen.  It is not complete nonsense.  It is
>
>Fetal tissue research is still in the experimental stage.  Yes, there
>have been some successes, but there is NO widespread program of fetal
>tissue transplants.  It is complete nonsense to believe otherwise. 
>
>> within reason to believe that they would include in their research a 
>> fetus that faces certain death after being born.  Think of it this way,
>> AIDs patients are taking experimental drugs.
>
>AIDs patients are taking experimental drugs, and the government funds
>the RESEARCH needed to develop those drugs.  Likewise, the Bush
>administration supports funding of fetal tissue RESEARCH.

   WRONG!

>
>
>> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>>
>>        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
>>         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  
>
>  "Government is too big and spends too much."
>   -- George Bush, speaking at the Republican National Convention 
>


Your original response seemed to be to the concept that such an operation
could have taken place.  I never claimed there was a widespread program.
In fact, the whole issue was how difficult it was for the preacher to
get the procedure and that only very few are benefitting from fetal
tissue research because our government DOES NOT support it.

There is NO government funding of fetal tissue research.  There is only 
private research and it is expensive and progressing more slowly because 
of Bush's fear of the fundamentalists.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4020 alt.politics.bush:4064
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:08:41 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sick to death

In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov
(Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:
>
>I am sick to death of Republicans using crystal ball arguements (Bill Clintons
>X policy WILL cause y). These arguements are usually overly-simplistic, devoid
>of facts, in direct opposition to statements by experts, etc. Furthermore,
>Bush hasn't given us anything close to the detail necessary to decide if his
>"plan" is any better and he has had four years to do so.
>

Yeah, but there's a great Republican tradition of doing this:  remember
the "Laffer Curve" that brought us the trickle-down economics of the
80's?  Simple concepts for simple brains - in this case Reagan's.

It's a con job.  It's a lie.  Call it either one - you'd be right.

Jeff Luck                              *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University            "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                  -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: The Real Reagan Record
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 07:29:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

Have any of you read the  August 31 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.  I found 
this quite amazing.  On pages 25-62 is found the cover story, THE REAL 
REAGAN RECORD.  Many (a dozen or so) authors have each taken one plank 
of the conventional liberal tale of how Ronny ruined America, and 
smashed it to pieces.

Some of the subjects covered are:

	Liberal claim		This article says

Household income went down	NOT
Rich got richer			not much
Poor got poorer			NOT
Poor are normal families	NOT
Jobs created were McJobs	NOT
US national debt is terrible	NOT
negative trade surplus is bad	not as simple as that
foreigners are taking over	not really        
deficits caused by tax cuts	NOT
entitlements went down		NOT
Rich paid less taxes		NOT
Rich got a tax break		NOT
Junk bonds were bad for bus.	NOT
policies were especially 
	hard on blacks		NOT
Reagan caused S&L crisis	NOT
policies made it harder 
	for poor to advance	NOT
Reagan created homelessness	NOT
Reagan made homelessness worse	NOT
more difficult to own a home	NOT
HUD spending went down		NOT
Decade of Greed			NOT
bad for the environment		NOT


I'm sure you liberals will hate to hear this, and you conservatives will 
love it.  Either way, it is a good read.


-- 
Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton