HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:41:15 GMT

In article <Sep.30.15.19.17.1992.2859@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.174039.2431@meaddata.com> joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle) writes:
>> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>>> Is it our intent to look at the matter objectively here, or is it to
>>> try to score some political points?  If the former, then the question
>>> arises: is there an agreement as to how to define "lawyer"?  If the
>>> latter, then this question becomes spurious.
>
>> No, you are WAY OFF!! The definition of Lawyer must be static in order
>> to objectively compare the argument otherwise this is strictly
>> comparing apples to oranges and trying to draw conclusions.
>
>But this is exactly the problem!  Quayle is promoting an argument
>based on a different definition of the word than his (politically
>motivated) critics are using in an attempt to discredit him.

Quayle isn't politically motivated?
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7593 alt.politics.clinton:8304 talk.bizarre:32637
From: terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Theresa J Flynn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Date: 3 Oct 1992 16:32:40 GMT
Organization: Computing Something Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4


PENCILS UP, YOU MAY BEGIN

Joel McNally, the Innocent Bystander -- The Milwaukee Journal 10/1/92

A midterm campaign examination on everything we have learned so far:

1. Which promise on taxes by George Bush do you find more persuasive?

   a.  His 1988 pledge:  "Read my lips.  No new taxes."
   b.  His new, improved 1992 pledge: "I am not going to do it again. Ever,
       ever."

2. Which action by a college student do you consider more important in
   determining how you will vote in 1992?
   
   a.  What Bill Clinton did to avoid getting drafted to fight in a war he
       opposed.
   b.  What Dan Quayle did to avoid getting drafted to fight in a war he
       supported.

3. In the Great Owl Debate of "jobs vs. environment" posed by the Bush
   campaign, which would you be more upset to wake up tomorrow morning and
   find was gone?

   a.  Your job.
   b.  Your planet.

4. Which of the following would you be willing to bet your next paycheck
   that the vice president of the United States could spell correctly?

   a.  Anti-disestablishmentarianism
   b.  Potato
   c.  Cat

5. What is your favorite family value?

   a.  The right to choose whether to have a family.
   b.  The right to enjoy "Murphy Brown."
   c.  The Grand Slam Special at Denny's

6. Which candidate has the most appeal among young voters?

   a.  Clinton, because he plays that hip musical instrument, the saxophone.
   b.  Bush, because he talks in rap.
   c.  Al Gore, because he looks like Superman.
   d.  Quale, because he looks like Jimmy Olsen.
   e.  Ross Perot, because he's an elf.

7. Bush says the election is about trust.  Which of the follwoing would you
   trust Bush to do if elected to a second term?

   a.  Never to raise taxes again. Ever.  Ever.
   b.  To select only the best-qualified Americans for important jobs such
       as the vice presidency and the US Supreme Court.
   c.  Not to throw up on heads of state while visiting other nations.

8. During the sale of US missiles to Iran, the late Ronald Reagan was
   napping through the presidency and Vice President Bush was "out of the
   loop."  Write down your best guess as to who was running the United
   States.

9. What is your primary concern about the US economy?

   a.  How to spend the big bonanza if Bush finally succeeds in cutting
       capital gains taxes.
   b.  Whether US jobs are on a fast track or a slow track to Mexico.
   c.  That there be one again.

10. What about Bush reminds you most of Harry Truman?

   a.  Nobody thinks he's going to win.
   b.  He likes to fish and recently rode on a train.
   c.  He's a dead man.

-- 
A little bit of uh huh and a whole lot of oh yeah.   \  (414)CRUSH-13
T. Flynn's Casa de Interesting: 1755 N Cambridge Ave #306 Milwaukee WI 53202    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:17:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.054913.6926@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.040750.28316@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct2.170640.16600@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>I hate Clinton--something to add "Economic policy found in Communist Manifesto,
>>>his name mentioned in the book of Revelation!!"
>>>
>>>Simon
>>>
>>
>>Are you a freshman?
>>
>>
>
>	What, you think he hasn't been subjected to enough college-hip-
>culture brainwashing yet? Maybe you should sick the PC police on him.
>Maybe you could set him up with a nice NOW member who could use sexual
>ploys to alter his mind.

Perhaps we were looking for something sharper than
argument-by-proclamation.

"Sexual ploys to alter his mind?"  What a curious perspective.



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:41:05 GMT

In article <5818@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> Paraphrase from Bush from last night's Larry King on CNN:
> 	There are states in this country that require parental approval
> if their child wants to get his/her ears pierced. Yet we can't even tell
> parents when their child is going to have an abortion. Something's
> wrong.

  Yes indeed. Why on earth are there laws requiring parental approval
of ear piercings? Don't they have anything better to do?
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6891 alt.politics.clinton:7446 alt.rush-limbaugh:5995
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:43:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

In article <20713@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>
>So, what was he doing over there?  How about leading candlelight marches
>to the US Embassy to put crosses in front of it?  How about going to
>Oslo in January of 69 to meet with draft evaders and deserters at the
>Institute For Peace Research?  How about taking a peace train to Moscow,
>where he described it as having a "very friendly atmosphere" in a 1989
>article?  (At a time when Moscow was supplying the bullets to kill
>soldiers in Viet Nam.)
>
>Seems Boy Clinton was a little more than a draft dodger.
>
Good. I'd hate to think the depth of his stand against the war was
limited to avoiding the draft. To quote Dan Quayle <approx> "By
1969 everyone was against the war. Even Richard Nixon." Repeat after
me: Viet Nam was a bad war.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:49:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.011838.10115@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>do you know what probability is? let's assume for the moment, that
>the chances of getting HIV from an unprotected encounter is 10%.

Doubtful.  That might be the chance of getting HIV from an HIV+ partner
in the late stages of AIDS where both partners have open genital sores,
but it most certainly isn't the chance of contracting HIV from any
unprotected encounter.

Keep in mind that over a three year period, only twenty percent of
female partners contract HIV from their HIV+ monogamous heterosexual
partners.  The female to male transmission rate is about 1.5% (and even
that may be overstating the probability -- it was one male out of seventy
or so in the study, and it was possible that he was infected by another
man's semen).

Furthermore, recognize that at most, only 1% of the population is HIV+,
and that figure is widely skewed to intravenous drug users, homosexual
males, and hemophiliacs.

>now in real life your chances / encounter are much lower. say 1%.

Say one in several million, or slightly less than being killed in
a car accident driving ten miles to the sexual encounter.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7286 talk.politics.misc:48748
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:19:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep30.174039.2431@meaddata.com> joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> Is it our intent to look at the matter objectively here, or is it to
>> try to score some political points?  If the former, then the question
>> arises: is there an agreement as to how to define "lawyer"?  If the
>> latter, then this question becomes spurious.

> No, you are WAY OFF!! The definition of Lawyer must be static in order
> to objectively compare the argument otherwise this is strictly
> comparing apples to oranges and trying to draw conclusions.

But this is exactly the problem!  Quayle is promoting an argument
based on a different definition of the word than his (politically
motivated) critics are using in an attempt to discredit him.

Whadda maroon!
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:57:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.220847.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>This is dedicated to the Democrats- who have provided so mush amusement
>throughout this election year. And I think that Bill Clinton is the epitome of
>it all... 'Slick Willie' this is your life:
>VOTE FOR A:
>Lecherous, adulterous, dope smoking, tax and spend, bleeding heart, spineless,
>big government, baby killing, Jeffrey Dahmer saving, tree hugging, kill the
>humans to save an owl, chicken little, draft dodging, doom and gloom,
>anti-prosperity, anti-business, anti-American, socialist, God fearing, LIBERAL:
>
>			BILL CLINTON in '92!
>I'm calling on all Clinton haters to add to this list... let's see how many we
>can come up with, to present a clear picture of just who the Democrats love and
>worship.
>		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative) 
						     ^^^^


More acronyms to the folks who were around this summer...

A Richard Crisp Homoculous?

Certainly, the same inanity is captured in these posts....

--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7510 alt.politics.clinton:8188
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:24:29 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

The politically correct (corrupt) people advocate the restriction of free
speech, so what's wrong when someone else does it to Liberals??

Can you say--HYPOCRITES!!

Simon
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7601 alt.politics.marrou:1405 talk.politics.misc:49326 alt.politics.elections:15038 talk.politics.theory:4428 alt.politics.clinton:8315
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:40:07 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
> 
> >awww. poor junkies. might have to wait 20 minutes to get their fix.
> >my heart bleeds. give me, as the old and wise saying goes, a 
> >fucking break. AIDS isn't a scourge of God, but i'm beginning to 
> >think it's might be natural selection's way of increasing the 
> >average self-control of the human population.
> >
> 
> Is being a addict a disease?  Many will disagree as to what is what,
> but the fact is, these people exist and 'suffer' from a condition
> that was brought on by many factors.

including that fellow holding an uzi to the future addict's head?
yes, there are many factors that cause addiction. in -most- cases
however, it comes down to an individual's personal decision. as
much as "just say NO" gets derided, it does work.

> If the author of the above is concerned with average self-control
> the start tomorrow, stop driving your car so much, look at 
> everything that you simply throw into the garbage, think about the 
> steps you take to accomplish a goal and how much waste was 
> involved, how much electricity do you use = pollution from 
> generation.

first, i don't -care- what the average self-control of the human
population is. i'm merely trying to point out that exercising a little
of it would bring AIDS to a screeching halt. and if we don't we have
no one to blame but ourselves. there are cases where AIDS is not
a consequence of an individual's actions. but those are a vast minority
of cases.

> The condition of AIDS is one that we need to be completely aware of,
> the first step is to stop blaming the victim, and start looking at
> the cause.

what's the cause? for most cases the causes are:
1.	risky sex. who decided to have risky sex? the "victim". who's
	responsibility/fault is it? obvious.
2.  use of dirty needles. who decided not to sterilize first?
	again, the "victim". who's responsible for them getting AIDS?
	guess.

unless the victim was raped, forced to shoot up, infected by a medical
worker who did not disclose their condition, or from an infected
blood supply, the blame cannot rightfully be placed on anyone but...

                          the victim.

and a victim they are. of their own stupidity & lack of self control. 
all the education in the world won't do a damn thing to stop AIDS 
until the public at large decides to put the education into practice.

jason
--
   "I'm the keeper of the cheese, and you're the lemon merchant!" - Ren Hoek  
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7344 alt.politics.elections:14788 alt.politics.clinton:7988
From: MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S TAX LIST
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:32:20 GMT
 <1992Sep28.233338.14875@leland.Stanford.EDU>
 <1992Sep29.173930.1502@umbc3.umbc.edu>
 <1992Oct1.001742.16197@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

[Distribution pruned]

In article <1992Oct1.001742.16197@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael
Friedman) says:
>First off, let's note that even Clinton's own campaign is admitting
>that their 300+ number was a lie.  The list was published by Mickey
>Kantor, the Chairman of the Clinton-Gore campaign.

>Now, for some analysis...  here are the bullshit items.

[outraged protests deleted]

I see. You don't like it when the closing of loopholes is counted as a tax
increase. You think it's unfair when fees are counted as taxes. You believe
it's an all-out lie when a tariff applied to a broad class of items is
counted on each item individually.

Well then, where the hell were you when the Bush campaign posted THEIR list
of Clinton's so-called "tax increases", which uses EVERY ONE of the tactics
you deplore?

Here's a clue: The Clinton campaign composed this list EXPLICITLY to show
how ridiculous and absurd the Bush list was. Using outrageous and indefensible
counting methods, 128 tax increases were tallied for Clinton's twelve years
as governor. So the Clinton people turned it around and, using the same
methods, tallied well over 140 increases for Bush's FOUR years, and over 800
for the twelve years Bush has been in the national leadership.

Either you accept both lists, friend, and brand George Bush the true tax-and-
spender -- or you throw out both lists, and accept the fact that the Bush
campaign is willing to do anything, no matter how sleazy, to get their man
re-elected. Which is it?

                  "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6963 alt.politics.clinton:7542 alt.politics.elections:14473
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton / Quayle's anti-Vietnam efforts
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:15:13 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep27.161621.21498@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
]
]In article <1992Sep23.191620.29360@anasazi.com>, 
]john@anasazi.com said:
]
]> > But not the 13th amendment?  [David Marc Nieporent]
]>
]> The 13th amendment does not apply to the draft. 
]
]Isn't that a little bit like saying that the 2nd Amendment does not apply
]to guns?  Conscription sure looks like involuntary servitude to me.

The 13th amendment was enacted at the end of the civil war (Dec 6, 1865)
to codify that slavery was illegal in the US. Since the winners of
the civil war USED the draft to win the war, and they were the folks who
enacted it, it is clear that their intent was to ban slavery, not
involuntary military service.

The 2nd amendment, on the other hand, was passed when people had just
finished using their personal arms to defend themselves and their
country, and was clearly intended to protect the individual
right to self defense.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:17:39 GMT

In article <palane.718313239@pv7426.vincent.iastate.edu>, palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
|> I've gone to good school districts (Hastings, NE) and bad school districts
|> (Pocatello, ID [in junior high, h.s. was fine]). The most important ele-
|> ment in my success was involvement by and encouragement from my parents.
|> School choice may work for some as those parents who are actively involved
|> in their child's education will look around. Because the parents are
|> involved, the child has a better chance of doing well.
|> 
|> Paul
|> 


Sounds like family values to me.


##############################################################################

Bush/Quayle 92

Fred Seals

##############################################################################
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7948 alt.politics.clinton:8756 alt.politics.elections:15390
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:35:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct7.014820.2074@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
|The gullability of the American electorate continues to amaze me.

Yeah, it amazes me that people bought that "George Bush is a
good ol' Texan (not an easterner prep-school Yalie) who likes
country music & not opera and eats pork rinds, really!" nonsense
in '88.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
The chain that can be yanked is not the eternal chain. -- G. Fitch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 13:45:16 GMT

>  He just approves of airpower to protect humanitarian shipments, but of
> course the rupublican propaganda machine loves to distort that.  
 If I were Clinton I'd shoot anyone that called me "slick willie",
> but then again I don't have the temperment to be a politician.  That term
> is so utterly insulting, but then again it fits in with the republican 
> sleaze mentality.

Actually, the term 'Slick Willie' was not first coined by the Republicans, a
fact they do not like to admit-it is far too acurate of a label. The term was
first started by a reporter from the Arkansas Gazette because the Govenor was a
master at making lies look like the truth. Since that reporter first uttered
that phrase, it has stuck with Clinton ever since. (Wonder why...?)
Interesting that you claim "Republican sleeze mentality" just advocating the
wanton deaths of those who call you a name. You must have had a really
difficult time in grade school. And my only reply is that it is quibbledicks
like yourself that WOULD vote for Slick Willie. I fear your power.

Here Endith the Lesson
		--VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion