HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman)
Subject: The draft and Vietnam
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:54:33 GMT

It appears from reading the posts regarding Bill Clinton
and the draft, that most viewpoints represent a post-
Vietnam perspective.  Below are excerpts from a 24 February
article by Col. David H. Hackworth (ret) which appeared
in Newsweek.  For those of you who don't remember,
he was a much-decorated officer who lead an unsuccessful
attempt to rescue POW's in North Vietnam.  The title
of the article was "When No One Wanted to Fight"

"Beating up on Bill Clinton over whether he evaded the
draft during the Vietnam War is like taking the strap
to your son for not sticking his finger into an electrical
socket.  If he had been eager to go to Vietnam as a 23-
year old student in 1969, I would question his credentials
as presidential material in 1992.  Let's remember; It was
autumn of 1969, the fourth painful year of the most 
divisive war in modern history. . . . At this point the 
only Americans who endorsed the war were the loony tunes 
and the John Waynes. . .

By 1969 you would have had to be brain-damaged to want to
sink into that swamp.  As a stateside commander, I faulted
no one for not wanting to go.  I helped many men get out. I
told soldiers who did not want to go how to obtain
conscientious-objector status.  For the condemned - those
that were going - I did my best to teach them the tricks
to keep them alive.  Later, I told a friend that I would
have driven my son, if he were eligible for the draft, to 
Canada and proudly sustained him in exile.  I was shocked
those words came out of my mouth - but not sorry. . . .

In 1969 I was on my third tour with the infantry in Vietnam
and had two more tours to come.  I was a regular soldier
and my job was war-fighting, but I hated that war. I saw what
it did to my soldiers, my army, my nation and to the people of
Vietnam. I openly questioned my superiors as to what end
this war would lead.  I saw too much blood, too much waste
and too much stupidity. I concluded, about the same time Bill
Clinton made his stand, that it was a criminal enterprise
brought upon our nation by careless politicians and the
greed of the military industries. . .

Those who didn't rush to the sounds of the guns are not 
unpatriotic.  Defense Secretary Dick Cheney held draft
deferments, yet he led our forces in the Persian Gulf victory.
Vice President Dan Quayle found a way not to go on active
duty, as did 16 million young men who won deferments or
joined the National Guard or the Reserves. These are the people
who are running America today.  We don't blame them for 
finding a way out of Vietnam.  Let's treat Clinton the 
same way, and concentrate on his credentials."

I suggest we listen to Col Hackworth!

James L. Heilman
________________
enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44254 alt.activism:16070 misc.headlines:6259
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Health care will-o-wisps
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:02:08 EST
 <1992Sep8.110912.3960@desire.wright.edu> <1992Sep8.195546.8791@news.columbia.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Methinks thou doth protest too much

In article <1992Sep8.195546.8791@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
>>
>>> Why do you rarely hear *Canadians* complaining about their system?
>>
>>	When I was in North Conway, NH on vacation, I heard plenty of
>>complaints about Canadian health care.
>>
>>	Too-high taxes, mediocre care.  Assembly-line like conditions.  
>>Waiting lists.
>>	Yes this was from Canadians.
> 
> Yeah, right.

	Quick!  Rush to the resue Gary!  Your way of life is in danger!!!!

	People are saying they don't want *gasp* Canadian style health care!!!

	Why must you always jump in with the denial?  I held of posting this
because it was anecdotal in nature.

	Of course there is your "yeah right" to "refute" me :).

> Brett's artistic licence aside, all I can say to the rest of you is:
> Come up and see us sometime! (-;

	Nahhh.  I'll have my procedures done down here, thanx anyway.

> Just a warning though ... you'll be hard pressed to find articles in
> our papers (no, they're not government-run press (-;) about the health
> situation, 'cos for us it's just not a problem ... but maybe I'll just
> take the advice of some Soc.culture.canada readers in private e-mail
> and leave Brett et al.  alone as long as those white collar and auto
> jobs keep trickling northward ... (-;

	Well, Gary, since no one is slamming Canada (except in response to
those like yourself, deep in denial), why don't you?

	Heh.  Bet you can't wait for the next tax hike.  Which, of course, has
nothing to do with health care costs.
:D

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45443 ca.politics:7781 ba.politics:5317 soc.motss:39073 ba.motss:1628
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: 14 Sep 92 22:30:19 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep12.170552.13807@spdcc.com>, pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:
> In article <12251@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #I'm sure of my sexuality -- but I would prefer that adults leave
# #children alone about theirs.  Unfortunately, there is a loud and
# #vicious faction of the homosexual community that keeps asserting that
# #pedophilia is not child molestation, and that adults having sex
# #with prepubescent children isn't necessarily wrong.
# 
# 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.

# In all the time of reading your postings, that is the one thing I fail
# to understand. If you want to fight pedophilia, great, but it is falling
# short if you only focus on gay people. I don't really think that you 
# believe that heterosexual pedophila is okay.
# 
# The only difference is that there happens to be an organization on the gay
# side. Not everyone likes it, but it is there regardless. There is nothing
# that we or anyone else can do about its existence. 

How back shunning it?  How back telling them they aren't to march
in gay parades?

# Please don't fall back on the 'gays support it' argument. We don't. there
# may be -some- who do, but they don't speak for me.
# 
# Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement 

Great.  You know how much crap I received from homosexuals arguing
that NAMBLA is not really that bad?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: General conservative lunacy (was: Arrogant Indians...)
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:15:43 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <adams.715878541@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
|> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
|> 
|> >``Gee thanks, Mr. Bush, for your promise to pick up the tab for
|> >cleaning up after Andrew, but we think we can handle it ourselves.
|> >Haven't you got an evil empire to be defending us against?''
|> 
|> No, but he has a deficit to defend my CHILDREN against.  My comment when I
|> heard the $30Billion tag on this was, "Just where is this money coming
|> from?"  Borrowing.  Argh.
|> 
When my house burned down, there was no red-cross, no government loans,
no national guard, no FEMA, no nothing.  When the Oakland fire hit, politicians
were standing in line to express concern and to deliver money, food,
support, etc.

The difference?  Political exposure.

Andrew is a politicians wet dream -- Free TV coverage, the ability to
buy votes with taxpayer money, and the chance to act like a humanitarium.
But it's an act all the same.
-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH: ON MANUFACTURING JOBS
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:29:51 GMT

In article <sysrick.716054961@starbase.spd.louisville.edu> sysrick@orion.spd.louisville.edu (Rick McTeague) writes:
>>REMARKS BY GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON
>>STANDARD KNAPP, INC.
>>PORTLAND, CT
>>SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>Under the theory that we have, I think it's pretty
>>clear that we haven't supported manufacturing.  The
>>theory of trickle down economics is that if taxes
>>are made low enough on the highest income
>>individuals, and the highest income companies, and
>>the  government does nothing else, all the right
>>investment decisions will be made and manufacturing
>>jobs will grow.  That's our theory.
>
>>Our competitors' theory is quite different. They
>>believe that government has to support the free
>>market with real incentives to always modernize
>>plant and equipment, with intense support for
>>constant retraining of the work force, and with
>>aggressive trade programs, not just for larger
>>companies, but for small and medium-sized companies
>>as well.
>
>Huh? This sounds backwards...
>
>Rick

"Our theory" = the current US administration
"Our competitors' theory" = Germany, Japan

Hope that clears it up.

--------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:27:19 GMT

In article <65520@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>
>If it weren't an election year, I wouldn't find this hypocritical.  Isn't
>it just good policy for a country to make sure that it can produce its own
>critical products, like food?  If another country is more efficient in
>these areas, either tax the imports or subsidize our producers, so that
>if the imports are ever cut off, we still have domestic production.
>
>Unrestrained free trade in everything seems awfully dangerous. 
>

Noone would have any problem if the US and Europe produced their own
food, but the trouble is that the US and Europe are dumping their
excess production on the world market at ridiculously low prices
because of huge direct government export subsidies and huge subsidies
to their farmers.  

Gerald

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:44:59 GMT

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

`   `>art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
`   `>` He  went to the backyard for
`    (stuff deleted about baby)

`   `>I suppose we will consider this a "real" example?  I have two dogs that

`   `I took this story to mean that he at first thought it was a doll, but in 
`   `reality it was a real human baby. Did I misunderstand? 

`   My apologies - I misread the confusing wording to mean the doll was a

`I'm not sure what is unclear.  Jim went around to the backyard and saw a
`gang of four dogs playing with what he at first took to be a doll.  Upon
`closer inspection the doll turned out to be a real dead human baby.

If you read the original post, it does not say "what appeared to be a
doll" is says he witnessed three dogs "playing with a doll" then followed
it up with "It was a baby.  It was quite dead."  When I read this, it was
not clear enough in its scope for me to get the gist of what he truely
meant.  It was my mistake, but the wording could have been clearer (as
stated above by including "what appeared to be")

`   out of the previous "shock value" post)

`You can say what you want, but the fact is there was one dead baby at the
`paws of a bunch of nice neiggborhood pooches.

But how?  More info.  Taken out of context this seems horrifying.  What
are the circumstances?  How did they get ahold of it?  How long had it
been dead?  How long were the dogs left to themselves to play with it if
an appraiser was the first to see it?  ie Where does the direct fault lay?
On the owners of the dogs, the dogs themselves or on the parents of the
child? (or a combination?)

`BTW, it wasn't a "shock value" post.  It was a post intended to refute
`the idea that all nice neighborhood pooches are just sweet little things
`that wouldn't hurt a fly unless they were pit bulls or rotweilers.

Seperating this incedent to the mere witnessing is leaving out a lot of
valuable information.  It adds (as stated above) to the overall horror
of the image. (not that the image - regardless of circumstance is not
terrific to consider - but the brevity of the account adds greatly to it)
The only explanation for this would be for the sake of connotation or
"shock value."  There is nothing wronge with "shock value" and I did
not say there was.  But, lets call a spade a spade.

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45687 ca.politics:7836 ba.politics:5359 ba.motss:1638
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Fiscal Responsibility
Date: 9 Sep 92 06:40:38 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep2.204600.28181@dg-rtp.dg.com> gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
>
>Considering that currently it takes all of the taxpayers money from
>taxpayers west of the Mississippi just to cover the interest payments on
>the national debt right now, how is it that things aren't that bad!?
>The only way to keep it from ending in collapse is to take drastic
>measures now.
>
>The national debt (based on the On Budget items) is over $4 trillion
>dollars and growing at the rate of nearly a billion dollars a day.
>Neither the Presidents nor the various Congresses have done anything to
>pay off the debt we've incurred.  When the amount of On Budget debt
>reaches $12 trillion (a very conservative estimate of the amount owed by
>2000), there will simply not be enough money coming in to the national
>treasury to pay even the interest payments and pay for all the wonderful
>government services we have come to depend upon.
>
>It is at that point in time that our government will either default or
>monetize the debt.  They know full well that Americans today have
>neither the will nor the courage, generally speaking, to face up to the
>harsh truths of our economic condition and pay the price now.  The price
>later will be far worse, but try convincing people of that.

The best solution is probably default. A national Chapter 13 would
solve the debt crisis for good. The government's credit rating would
become nil and all budgets would have to be based on cash on hand
accounting.

The problem with this approach of course is that the nation's monetary
system is based solely on the "faith and credit" of the US government.
With faith and credit gone, the money becomes worthless. This problem
must be solved first. I suggest a return to the gold standard. The
government can borrow the money to buy the necessary gold, mint the
money, and then default on it's loans. Anybody caught holding paper
money or debt instruments will be screwed of course, but anyone so
gullible probably deserves it.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:51:19 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep14.165144.4641@panix.com>, tovah@panix.com (Tovah Hollander) writes:
> Clayton Cramer writes:
# #I would be happiest of all if homosexuals stopped trying to involve
# #the government in telling consenting adults what they may do in
# #private.
# 
# Are you suggesting that the qualified job-seeker and the bigoted
# potential employer are both "consenting"?
# 
# Or the apartment-hunter and the landlord: do they both "consent"
# to the refusal to rent?
# 
# Or maybe it's the bash-er and the bash-ee who are "consenting adults"?
# 
# Tovah Hollander

If a man and a woman come to an agreement about having sex, they
are "consenting adults."  If the woman insists on refusing his
advances, for whatever reason, and he insists on consummating
his desires, what do we call them?  Rapist and victim.

It doesn't matter if the woman has good reasons or poor reasons
for refusing his sexual advances.  It's HER CHOICE.



-- 
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:45718 ca.politics:7849 ba.politics:5371
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:54:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep14.195307.10935@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> >Any nationally recognized liberals out there calling for less
> >taxation? Aren't they pretty much lining up behind Clinton and
> >his tax (increase) plans?
> 
> June Genis ...
> 
> -- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411

June Genis is no liberal.  Libertarian.  Big difference.  Libertarian
is what happens when liberals believe their own claims about
"private actions between consenting adults" or conservatives believe
their own claims abut "making the government smaller."


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Bush is pro-child molestors?
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:37:41 GMT

>What exactly are Bush's "family values"?  He has promised to veto a bill to
>mandate UNPAID family parental or emergency leave.  He has also vetoed a bill
>to prevent convicted child-molesters continuing to work at day-care centers in
>another state.   

	Think about this forced unpaid maturity leave.  Say you are a
small business and have one employee.  The employee says they are taking
time off, and you can't do anything about it, because it's federally
mandated.  While that person is off, you have to put your business on
hold, find someone else, and spend the money to train them.  Say that
employee comes back, works a few months, and then takes more time off.
You have to do it all again.  Usually, you would just find someone more
reliable, but because of the federal law, you're stuck.  This already
happens in big companies that mandate leave to their small franchise
stores, and it would be a big mess on a federal government level.

	I haven't heard of the second one.  You'll need to provide some
more information.	
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:59:06 GMT

In article <BuL143.J15@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.183911.24209@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@shine.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>>>>   The author documents numerous examples of corporations which were
>>>>every bit as bound up in bureaucratic waste and paralysis as any despised
>>>>government agency. And this in an era of fierce international competition...
>>>
>>>  Right.  So presumably they won't stay like this for long.   Either they 
>>>  will change or go out of business.   Nobody says that private enterprise
>>>  can't be bloated and inefficient.  But market advocate claim, and generally
>>>  I agree, that such companies can't stay like that for long (unless they
>>>  are protected by government intervention from feeling the effects of
>>>  the market).
>>>
>>Does one counter-example disprove your theory?  In short, GM.  They are the
>>ultimate in inefficiency and while they are loosing market share it sure is
>>taking a long time.
>
>  Funny, I think this supports *my* view.  After all, they ARE losing 
>  money and market share.  It takes a long time because they're such
>  a big company.   But the fact of it is undeniable.

Peter is right. GM has lost the equivalent in market share of
almost *two* Chrysler companies in the last 15 years.

When you fall from a high place, it takes a long time to hit the
pavement.

>  Also, I said "unless they are protected by government intervention
>  from feeling the effects of the market".   Have you forgotten the
>  "voluntary" import quotas?  These were agreed to by the Japanese
>  under the threat of trade action by the US government.
>
>
>---peter

Pat

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44686 talk.politics.soviet:7816
From: greenie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: ANOTHER Live Online Conference
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:37:49 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

Sorry about the last blunder... I got my wires crossed.  Here's the blurb
on the next conference...

----------------

I'm posting this message for the Conference Hosts;

The IDS World Network will be holding a "live", CB-Simulator chat conference
on the 1992 election and the candidates.  Topics currently being considered
include The Economy, Healthcare, Education, Family Values, Abortion, and
"World Leadership Role".


The *NEXT* discussion will be on Friday, September 11th, from 7:00 PM 
EST to 8:30 PM EST.  The topic will be: "The Economy"

We invite everyone to participate.  CB Chat discussions on the IDS World
Network are completely free.

To reach the IDS World Network, TELNET to ids.net [155.212.1.2].  If you have
an account already, you're all set, although you can apply for one by signing
on with GUEST as a username.

That's September 11th, 7PM EST on the IDS World Network CB Simulator.
telnet ids.net [155.212.1.2]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc