HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Forward an article from another group, 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:48:31 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Min Zhao writes:
>President Bush indicated in the last night show that it was wrong for Clinton
>to demonstrate against his own country (against U. S. policy in Viet-Nam War)
>in a foreign territory though Bush did seem to more tolerate the demonstration
>before the White House during Gulf War.
>
>Cliton was against U. S. invasion when he was in England in 70's.
>Those Chinese students are against the "CCP dictatorship" in U. S today.
>What is the difference?
>
>It seems to me that dirty politicians sometimes consider issues "morally" 
>rather than politcially.
>
>I think it was politically right for Mr. Clinton to demonstrate against U. S.
>wherever since he believed the war was wrong for americans and world peace.
>
>If it is morally wrong, can it be politically right?
>
>Dose Mr. Bush think it is morally wrong for Chinese students to demonstrate
>against their own country (represented by the CCP goverment) ? 
>
>
Mr Bush has often abandoned his own beliefs to try and secure power. His
remarks about Bill Clinton demonstrating in another country in support of
his [Clinton's] beliefs is simply an attempt to throw dust in the  
eyes of the American electorate. It is meaningless innuendo at best and a 
call to abandon support of one's beliefs at worst. It is an easy call
for Mr Bush to make since, apparently, he has no firm beliefs to 
demonstrate in support of, either in this country or another. Certainly
if you asked Mr Bush if it were ok for Chinese students to demonstrate
against the CCP he would say "yes."
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:41:59 GMT
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>In article <2660@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
>>
>>...
>>    The ad, first aired last Sunday, depicts a Time cover bearing
>> the negative image of Democratic nominee Bill Clinton and the
>> caption,  "Why Voters Don't Trust Clinton." 
>>    In a statement, Time said it decided to sue after lawyers for
>> Bush's campaign rejected its demand to cease running the commercial
>> because use of the cover gave the impression that the magazine
>> endorsed the contents of the ad.
>
>     To me, the cover gives the impression that the magazine
>endorses the contents of the *article*.
>
>     C. Perttunen

Interesting is that I saw this ad run a couple of afternoons ago.
As I was watching it, I wondered if it was something put on by the
Bush/Quayle campaign.  Then I saw that it was Time magazine.
Nowhere on the screen or in the audio did it say something like
"this is brought to you by Bush/Quayle '92".  So, I assumed that it
must be this week's Time magazine cover story and I should go pick
up a copy to see what they have to say.  Well, later in a news
report I hear that it was indeed a Bush/Quayle campaign ad.

So, based on my own experience, their advertising was very
misleading and at least the ad should be changed a bit to make it
known where it's coming from.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:02:32 GMT

From article <1992Oct12.201231.13585@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao):
> In article <1992Oct12.184202.25368@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

[...]
>>Did he participate in any demonstrations in the US?  If not, its somewhat
>>like smiling to someones face, but talking behind their back.  
>>
>>'I'll do my demonstrating over hear in England where no one will see, and it 
>>won't damage my political viabiltity.'
>>
>>SEH
> 
>   No son, you don't do your "demonstrating" where no one will see. You do
> things like masturbating where no one will see.   *-)
>   
>   Frankly, I don't understand it either why one can not demonstrate in 
> England when in England. Do you suggest that to be correct one has to 
> come back to US to demonstrate here first then go there to demonstrate ?
> Well, at least you are a little less rigid than the Bush campaign's 
> understanding of the consititution. Thanks for giving us that revised 
> freedom of speech . I hope you don't too much more of Bush's idea later.
> 

Okay pops.  Just tell me where I said anything about what should be
legal.  And while you're at it, explain what the hell your last sentence
means.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:28:52 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
: > I just saw the article come across the clarinews feed here.  Time
: > magazine is suing the Bush campaign for copyright infringement (I
: > think) because of the overuse of Time's cover story on Clinton.
: 
: 	TIME will lose this one.  (In the ad I saw) TIME is clearly shown, thus
: no conflict over where the picture came from.

However, the ad may be misinterpreted as an endorsement for the Bushwacker
and Co. by Time.  I believe that Time has made no endorsement.   Does
this constitute "fair use" under copyright laws.  Last I heard, you
couldn't reproduce someone else's work without their consent, except
within the limits of "fair use."

Of course, considering how conservative some courts have become, it
wouldn't surprise me if Time lost.  After all, so many rights have
vanished or have been eroded in the past twelve years, why should
we expect the courts to honor copyright rights?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10675 ba.politics:6119 ca.politics:8696
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Decaturville, TN
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:11:53 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

I was thrilled to see Al Gore go after Dan Quayle with the issue
raised in the 60 Minutes report on the USAID agency's efforts to
move American Corporations to Central America. 

In my opinion, the Director of USAID and his operatives are guilty
of something approaching treason. Certainly, none of them deserve to 
continue drawing a paycheck made up out of our tax dollars. Perhaps
a fitting punishment would be to move them to Decaturville, Tennessee 
and let them look for jobs there. Although I could get behind hanging
that director and placing his head on a stake at the factory gates. 
(See, I'm pro-death penalty and not a bleeding-heart liberal... ;^} ) 

It was distressing to me that Dan Quayle simply shrugged off this problem
as if it were some bad joke. It certainly is no joke to me. He said "Don't
believe everything you see on tv." - I wonder if he watched the program.
It was a classic 60 Minutes expose. They had their ducks in a row and 
the Director admitted that they did those things while on camera and on
the record.

The amazing thing to me is that Clinton and Gore haven't been hitting
them harder on this issue. It seems to me that this evidence puts the 
lie to everything that GB & Co. have said about their "commitment" to 
keeping decent jobs in this country. I think their commitment is to 
get as much as they can while it lasts. 

Which by my calculations is something less than three weeks. 

JZ
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10764 talk.politics.misc:52160
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN is not a good reference for Gore's Caribbean vote
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:12:41 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Oct14.232218.4816@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	CNN was wrong.

     Heresy!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Rhodes Scholarship - Frills and Frivolities
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:41:09 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     I came across a few interesting lines in a book entitled
_The Rhodes Scholarships_ by G.R. Parkin.  On pp. 219-220,
a question was asked of President Teddy Roosevelt:

     "Will the training of your young Americans at Oxford...help
      or hinder them when they come back later to work out their
      careers in their own country?"

The book continues with Roosevelt's reply:

     His reply was that it will depend entirely on the men 
     themselves -- on whether they make a wise use of their
     opportunities or not.... If they choose the frills and
     frivolities of university life, these will do them more
     harm when coming back to America than parallel things
     picked up at an American university.

The words are almost prophetic.

     C. Perttunen
From: syee@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 9 Oct 92 04:39:48 GMT


Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding

In article <Bv90sJ.C3F@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>There is another, and extremely important, reason for colonization, namely,
>escape from an oppressive government.  The Spanish colonies were moderately
>successful only where they were eminently profitable; the missions in
>California must be considered a failure.  The French colonies in Canada
>and Louisiana were not particularly successful.  On the other hand, the
>English colonies to escape oppression were generally quite successful,
>even bringing in others.  A major part of the US immigration in the 19th
>century was to escape oppression.


I have one simple question.
If you're trying to "...escape from an oppressive government.", how are you
going to escape from this "oppressive government" when they're funding this
project?

Keep searching until a group of private corporations get together and fund a
majority of this project.


					syee@ics.uci.edu
From: mea@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Read(e) My Lips
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:27:49 GMT

My thirteen year old daughter came up with this one, I thought I would share
it.

"No new taxes", he did say,
but he spelled 'no' with a 'K'

Mary Ahnger
mea@ifasgnv
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ==> Five City Mayors Set Record Straight On Bush-Cities Relations
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:53:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <92290.130955U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
wrote:

>  "Even after the crisis in Los Angeles," Abramson added, "Bush and
>  Quayle failed to act.  While they endorsed enterprise zones,
>  President Bush is threatening to veto the legislation setting up such
>  zones."

Here's a novel thought: how's about states and cities raise taxes
*themselves* and get needed revenue instead of standing around waiting for
Washington to take money *for* them?  Why is this so difficult?

To me, these mayors are a bunch of wimps who don't want to ruin their own
political careers by raising taxes, but certainly have no qualms about
having other people do the same thing.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10767 talk.politics.misc:52162
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Essential Clinton On The Economy (Part I)
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:16:20 GMT

In his "PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST" plan, Bill Clinton says:
# ...
# corporate tax loopholes, forcing the very wealthy to pay their 
# fair share of taxes,..."
# ...
# corporate tax loopholes, requiring the very wealthy to pay their 
# fair share of taxes,..."
# ...
# "     - Making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in   
#           taxes;"
# ...
# "code; we should, too. We will lower the tax burden on middle class 
# Americans by forcing the rich to pay their fare share."
                                             ^^^^

"fare"?  Oh, you mean "fair".


In article <92285.170137U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>, U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
} THE ESSENTIAL BILL CLINTON: THE ECONOMY (Part I)
} ...
} [This will be] "an America . . . in which the wealthiest
} few--those making over $200,000 a year--are asked to pay
} their fair share."


Does anybody besides me have a large problem with someone who apparently
sees no difference between "force/require/make" and "ask"?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 10:00:32 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct11.020941.4685@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <qN5-3==@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> > In article <1992Oct8.140354.4632@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> ...
|> > 
|> > Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.  The broadcast from a local station
|> > has value, it is property belonging to the local station.  It is improper
|> > for anyone with the ability to receive the transmission to rebroadcast
|> > it for a fee without consent from the property owner.  If the local
|> > affiliates broadcast has no value to the cable customer, then the cable
|> > operator should simply not carry it.  If it chooses to carry it, then
|> > an agreement should be arranged with the property owner for use of
|> > the property.  
|> 
|> 	I agree with your premise, however...
|> 
|> 	XYZ cable comes into Anytown USA and asks for cable rights.  Anytown
|> city council says ok, but you *must* carry local stations as a minimum
|> configuration (plus the government mandated channels).
|> 
|> 	The problem is requiring cable systems to carry local stations, then
|> letting local stations set the fees.
|> 

I agree with you if a cable company is required to carry a station and
then has to negotiate a rebroadcast fee.  Obviously the 'must carry'
puts the cable company at a disadvantage.  I've seen contradicting
viewpoints about 'must carry' and retransmission rights.  Some people
claim that if a station is a 'must carry', then the cable company
does *not* have to negotiate rebroadcast fees, but if there is no
'must carry', then the cable companies must negotiate.  I haven't
seen the actual text of the bill so I can't say if this is a true
assesment or not.

|> > In reality, local broadcasters should realize than
|> > rebroadcast on cable increases their coverage area and should enhance
|> > ad revenues.  Losing this benefit may be more than the amount they could
|> > receive from the cable company paying for rebroadcast.  As long as
|> > the cable company isn't required to carry the station, I don't have a
|> > problem with retransmission rights.  I do object, however, to other
|> > aspects of the bill.
|> 
|> 	I'd rather see cable completely unregulated.  Let N companies decide
|> the market price.
|> 

I agree completely.  For example, lets let the phone companies provide
cable-like services.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire)
Subject: Re: Why Gore is more charitable than Quayle - Top 10 Reasons
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:53:57 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Oct6153856@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>Two questions: doesn't the VP get a free residence?
>		and, wasn't Gore's son severly injured in a car
>accident a year or two ago?
>
 
 Two answers:

	1) The VP does have a free residence, but all senators get a 
	   substantial housing allowance, so they can maintain two
	   residences.

	2) Both the VP and all senators have completely free medical
	   coverage (so Gore's psychotherapy was free, also.)

The benefits look similar to me.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Debate results
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:36:10 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) transcribes from the WSJ:

: 15	Ford, Harold      (D,TN)	$323		$-0.16		$323

Figures.  He still has tax evasion charges outstanding.

: 45	Ravenel, Arthur   (R,SC)	$279		$-1.12		$278
: 89	Emerson, Bill     (R,MO)	$ 60		$-3.78		$ 57
: 90	Smith, Christopher(R,NJ)	$ 52		$ 0.00		$ 52
: 92	Quillen, James    (R,TM)	$ 49		$-0.68		$ 49

Who are these heretics?  :)

: 96	Sanders, Bernie   (I,VT)	$ 45		$-0.21		$ 45

I presume that this is the Socialist guy.   Am I correct?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: President Bush
Date: 16 Oct 1992 20:18:23 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that maybe GB doesn't want
to win this election. Just a guess but is it posible that at 68 he really
might just want to retire and spend time with his family.

No joke, he really seems to be just going through the routine.....


-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:12:20 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

[Sorry about this flame, but I got no sleep last night (thanks to a
 airheaded roomie), and it's getting mighty close to Columbus Day
 for me not to be in a bad mood.]

lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey) writes:

: 	The fact that they were the first of the huddled masses
: 	to crawl ashore does not give them the right to enforce their
: 	cultural biases on the subsequent immigrants. 

Never mind the fact that they [white Anglo-Saxon Protestants] were NOT
THE FIRST to crawl ashore.  There were hundreds of thousands of people living
in what is now the US when the Jamestown colony was started.  They
had been here for thousands of years.  People keep forgetting that
little tidbit of information....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Willie Horton endorses Clinton.
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:01:47 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.170235.14350@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.145949.4789@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
> demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.193021.6178@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov 
>>(Mark T. Evert) writes:
>>> Willie Horton who is currently serving two life sentences plus 85
> years in 
>>> prison has endorsed Bill Clinton stating that it is because of what
> the 
>>> "Republicans did to me".
>>
>>	This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, and so common.
>>
>>	"Society made me do it.  Society made me what I am."
>>
>>	How dare anyone react with revulsion at his torture and rape!!!
...
> Come on....you guys don't really think this means anything substantive do
> you?
> I expect this from the stupendo dude, but from you Mark?

	Once again, with logic failing him, Doc resorts to butchering nicknames
as a "debate tactic".

	Ooooo, I'm mortally wounded.

	What's your PhD in, innumeracy?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:31:56 GMT

In article <BvvxIw.KM2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>2.  If the unborn are legally considered persons, can expectant parents
>claim their unborn child as a deduction on their IRS forms?

I would really like to know the answer to this question, because if 
this country ever is foolish enough to pass a Human-Life Amendment 
inclusive of fetal life and marking the start of life as being 
conception, I will go out and have about 50 eggs removed, get them 
fertilized by a willing donor, and put our little darlings into 
cold storage so that me and the donor can live happily ever after, 
never paying another dime to the IRS.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:24:09 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu>, 
kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu said:

> The problem is the same old thing, character, or lack of it. Why is
> Clinton not answering questions about Moscow honestly.  I know a lot
> of you will say that he is, if the answers are honest, why do they
> keep changing??

I know I may regret asking this, but... what are the questions about
Clinton's trip to Moscow (besides "Did you go to Moscow?") and what
answers given by Clinton have changed over time?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>