HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:01:08 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <5881@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>I don't know how many foot-soldiers were convicted and punished in the
>Nuremburg Trials. Of course, these soldiers were also threated with
>death if disobedient.
>
>Not really knowing that much about military things, soldiers do express
>their views on anything but when they are ordered to do something, they
>must perform that order without question. In a military conflict, I
>don't think you have time to be a "moral actor" if your life is in
>danger.

  You're right, you don't know that much about military things.

  War and being a member of the military does not absolve you from having
to make moral choices and the UCMJ specifically protects you from the
legal consequences of refusing to follow illegal orders. It may not, however,
protect you from the social and other immediate consequences of that
refusal. Moreover, it requires a soldier to refuse to follow clearly
illegal and immoral orders. "I was following orders" is not a sufficient
defense to the commission of illegal acts.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:19:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.122119.14482@meaddata.com> joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle) writes:
>In article <BvvF14.FMo@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, styrins@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Stephen Styring) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct6.043550.7425@sma2.rain.com> fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) writes:
>|> >A check of the passport records for Bill Clinton for the 69-70 time period
>|> >has revealed that the pages for that period are missing from the state
>|> >department records. The FBI is looking into this matter now.
>|> >I wonder who has them?
>|> AS if....
>
>Well much to the chagrin of all the REPUBLICANS the FBI announced late
>Friday that there are NO PAGES MISSING from the file it all appeared
>to be a mistake, convenient for all the Rush L., Republican, and right
>wing fans isn't it.  Apparently the FBI worries Bill will be the next
>president and they want to clean up their act before he gets in.  This
>was the WORST inference and fabrication yet coming from the President
>himself, lets throw this ass out of office.  

It's worse than that: Newsweek continues to report this story in the
10/19/92 issue.  The Bush campaign professes innocence but the same
official who sic'd the FBI on Clinton because she was so 'appropriately'
concerned about the potential political implications, was none other than
Asst. Sect. of State for Consular Affairs Elizabeth Tamposi. This is the
same woman who called the embassies in Britain and Scandinavia and insisted
that there be an immediate investigation of their files by the senior
embassy official in order to see if they had any information on Clinton
from when he was a student in Europe!!!

This woman is a Bush political appointee and her protestations in Newsweek
that her introduction of the FBI into the phoney claim Clinton's passport file  had been doctored was all innocent and not connected to the political
campaign is now an obvious lie.  Her contacts with the embassies were
outside of normal channels, violated procedures, and were clearly focused
at involving the highest levels of their staffs in an effort to find some
mud on Clinton.  She has become a political operative within the State
Department and should be removed from office for her abuses.
From: mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:33:27 CDT

In article <1992Oct12.210431.9810@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.170749.23176@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>
>>Before your baby is born try to use him/her as a tax deduction. Let us know
>>how you make out. One more time---the pro-choice position has been and is
>>that the woman has a choice to have an abortion if she desires BUT late term
>>abortions should only be allowed unless to save the life of the mother. One 
>
>Speak for yourself, white man. Some of us believe that the woman's health,
>including mental health, are important. Others of us believe that in cases
>of rape or incest, late abortions should be an option.

Still others feel that this is an area where any legislation
is apt to do more harm than good.  I have no problem with
doctors and other health care providers setting professional
standards for the ethics of terminating pregnancies in the
third trimester, but I am leery of bringing the law into a
situation that is, in most cases, extremely painful for all
involved. 

muriel
standard disclaimer
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8715 alt.politics.elections:16221
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:53:27 GMT
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Something else is interesting about this issue.  Exactly why was
Clinton opposed to the war then, and does he feel the same way 
today?  Did he believe that it was immoral for America to be
involved in a "civil war"?  Did he believe that the Viet Cong
represented the best interests of the South Vietnamese?  What did
he believe then and what does he think now?

The point is, does he think that it was wrong to defend another
nation from communist aggression?  Does he believe that America
should not get involved in "civil wars"?  If so, how does this
fit with his recent statements on Yugoslavia?  From where I sit,
I don't trust Clinton to handle US foreign policy, mainly because of 
his failure to connect his past positions with his present beliefs.

His waffling on Iraq didn't help either. 

-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert)
Subject: Re: bush, katie and the today show
Organization: Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:45:08 GMT

In article <92288.123014JENNY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, JENNY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Jennifer F. Murphy) writes:
> My question is:  Does anyone know what the question was and what the
> actual response was?
> 
> 

Printed in the USA Today, October 14, 1992 p. 4A

BUSH'S IRAN-CONTRA RESPONSE

President Bush walked in Tuesday morning on an NBC Today show interview with
first lady Barbara Bush after a White House tour to mark the 200th
anniversary of the building's cornerstone.

Bush took questions from Today co-host Katie Couric, and sterred the talk to
the Reagan Administraction's selling of US arms to Iran to free US hostages
in Lebanon, with profits going to the Nicaraguan contras:

COURIC:  Do you have an knowledge of the Iran-contra arms-for-hostages deal
while you were Vice-President?

BUSH:  i've testified 45o times under oath, some of them, and our staff
3,500, that yes, but nobody's accused me of not doin , I think -- I'll hel
the contra part of it, absolutely not.  And no one has suggested that I did.
Diversion of arms for support for the contras, no.  And no one's challenged
that.  What was challenged, I think -- I'll help you with the question --
what was challenged...

COURIC:  I want you to go ahead.  Clarify what you think was...

BUSH:  Well, what was asked was whether I knew that (Reagan Defense
Secretary) Caspar Weinberger and (Secretary of State George) Schultz,
how strongly they opposed it.  And I said to that there were two key
meetings where they almost got into a shouting match, I'm told, that
I did not attend.  But I said all along that I knew about the arms going
and I supported the president.

COURIC:  You knew about the arms for hostages?

BUSH:  Yes, I've said so all along, given speeches on it.


GEORGE NEEDS TO COME CLEAN.  LET'S HEAR THE WHOLE STORY.

-BERT
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:47:47 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Oct13.204347.22961@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.182621.20464@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>>But clearly Larry, a more aggressive military strategy on our part 
>>(greater and more effective use of air power on the North) could have
>>seriously hurt the  North and their Viet Cong puppets.  China and 
>>Vietnam had been long time foes of each other and it was doubtful that
>>she would have intervened.  
>
>The US dropped a greater tonnage of bombs (with greater
>power) on SE Asia than the Allies did on Germany during WWII,
>and it didn't work.

Of course they were dropped in the wrong places primarily.
Bombing missions were planned primarily by strategists far from the
actual theater, often with no understanding of actual military conditions.
Hanoi was scarcely touched.

>
>>In any event, has Clinton come out and stated that this was his reason
>>for opposing the war?  Having lived through that period, I recall that
>>most of the opposition to the war centered on the belief that we should
>>not be involved in a "civil war" and that we were fighting for the wrong
>>side!
>
>Wrong again.

>
>I don't understand:  when I attended the University of Chicago,
>it had an excellent history department.
 
This is laughable!  If you are such a world class historian, perhaps
you'd like to actually present a counter argument rather than a clever smear.
 
Some people opposed the war because they didn't believe we had the will to
do what it took to win it.  Some people because they felt too many young
men had died.  However, the focus of the anti-war movement (especially
among students) dealt with the notion that we were involved in an
"immoral" cause.

Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago
>
>-- 
>| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
>| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:43:03 GMT

In article <MARCA.92Oct7000439@wintermute.ncsa.uiuc.edu>, marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) writes:
> Barely, you callow, functionally iliterate little twit.
'Iliterate'? 
Almost got it right.
--
Here endith the Lesson
--
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
PS Do you happen to understand what "disclaimers" mean, dickhead?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8432 alt.politics.clinton:9417
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: How CAN Bush call Clinton a waffler?!@!
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:58:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

From the clarinet:

>	Congress has finally adjourned. It happened at mid-morning
>(Washington time)... after members worked closer to the election than
>expected. The Senate did not adjourn until last night... after passing
>the tax bill. It restores IRAs... Individual Retirement Accounts... and
>lets people take that money out, tax free, if it's to buy a first home,
>put a kid through college, or pay emergency medical or unemployment
>expenses.
> 
>	The bill also holds tax breaks for business which President Bush
>requested. But auto taxes are hiked to make up for that. The President
>himself proposed doing it that way, but subsequently told voters he
>would never back a tax increase again. So it's possible that he may veto
>a bill whose main features he proposed.

WHAT A F***ING HYPOCRITE! This is absolutely the most pathetic thing Ive
ever seen! How can Bush bash Congress for "gridlock" when HE proposes a 
plan THEN vetos it?!@!@ I thought I couldnt be amazed anymore by politics,
but this takes the cake.

This, along with harping on the "Moscow trip" , shows just what depths Bush
will sink to in an attempt to win the election. This man is PATHETIC. While
I can understand those who have reservations about Clinton (I certainly
share them), I cant see how anyone could pull the lever for Bush/Quayle. 
How much hypocrisy can one president embrace?

-rob
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Pandering, both ways, level with American people, etc...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:39:12 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct13.024416.20375@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>
>   Mr. Bush, no matter how you answer, I will not be satisfied. 
>
     After filtering out all the verbiage, we are left with the
statement given above.  Doesn't this say it all?

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Missed opportunities
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:44:20 GMT

Just a few thoughts on some of the opportunities missed by the candidates
during Sunday nights debates:

Clinton

  Had his chance to give a definitive "People making under $200,000 WILL
NOT pay more in taxes under a Clinton administration".  His campaign is
getting closer though, as Ron Brown, not a direct spokesman for Clinton, 
said in effect this statement after the debate.

  Could have sewn up the election by stating that he had made some mistakes
in the past, learned from them, and will be a better President for it.  To
date Clinton has never admitted to doing anything wrong (and I don't mean
illegal or even immoral, just using bad judgement).  It seems his advisors
have him on auto-pilot, refusing to change anything in the way he is
running his campaign unless he takes a big plummet in the polls.

Bush

  Should have compared Clinton to Clarence Thomas with something like "When
Clarence Thomas was seeking the highest position in one of our three 
branches of government (a position which in a lot of ways is more powerful 
than the President's), the Democrats screamed for an investigation of
activities which were not illegal and occurred over ten years ago when
Thomas was a young man.  We held an inquisition which sorted through the
evidence and even had Thomas having to explain that period in his life.
Why is it that when their candidate is involved in a similiar scenario, all
the public is given is silence?"

  Missed a great opportunity when Clinton talked about having a brother in
drug rehab to say "Well, Mr. Clinton - Maybe your brother would not have
had to go through the hell of drug addiction if people like you wouldn't
have advocated the casual use of illegal drugs in our society!"

  Get aggressive!  Forget this Presidential ****.  I get the feeling that
Bush still thinks he can win by being a nice guy.  This is probably the
biggest mistake his campaign has made, causing him to change his strategy
after it's too late.

  Could have shown that he's a take charge President.  Obviously blew it by
bringing up this "I'll make Jim Baker economic Czar".  This was probably
his worst point during the debate, giving the public the impression 
that the economy is too big of a problem for him to handle.  Why
does he think the voters have this great love of Jim Baker?

Perot

  Didn't miss many opportunities.  The only advice I'd give in the future
is to concentrate more on Clinton.  He's the one he's going to have to beat
if he's really serious about winning.
 

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:01:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.173941.4357@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.050859.10782@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>There will be ice floes on the River Styx if Clinton becomes President.
>
>Nah, that's Cocytus, fourth river of Hell, running through the 9th circle.
>
I didn't even know about Cocytus.  I knew of Styx and Acheron though.

Simon       :)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:25:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.205054.27002@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>"The rich are going to have to pay their fare share"
>"People making over $200,000 will have to pay more in taxes"
>"We are targeting people making over $200,000 for a tax increase" - These
>statements do not exclude people making less than $200,000 from having
>their taxes raised.

What's to stop these "economic democracy" advocates from later establishing
another high water mark some day, say around 50K.  

>"We are planning on giving the middle class a tax cut" - An old trick.  
>Lower your taxes in 1993, raise them to a higher point in 1994.
>
>ALL I WANT IS A DEFINITIVE
>
>      "NO ONE MAKING < $200,000 WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TAXES"

If this is true then does it only apply to _income_ taxes or will all 
people making less than 200K also be exempt from the surtaxes that 
will be applied to promote environmental concerns for example.

And when buisnesses are forced to provide health care for employees they
will have to find the money somewhere (because it isn't lying around
just waiting for a good idea like this to come around).  The question
then becomes, will buisnesses only fire people making MORE than 200K
in order to pay for the health care proposal by Clinton?

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Debate trivial nonsense 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:11:37 GMT

In article <MARTIN.92Oct12172445@lyra.cis.umassd.edu> martin@lyra.cis.umassd.edu (Gary Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.171009.9733@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>
>
>   Anyone else have any trivial tidbits from the debate?
>
>Did anyone else have a good laugh when Bush brushed his nose with his
>fingers while talking about cocaine?  A friend I was watching with called
>it a Freudian slip!!!
>

That was priceless.  I'm sure it will end up on Saturday Night Live this
weekend.... 

-Howard



-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
Do what keeps thou from wilting shall be the loophole in the law.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:24:00 GMT

>>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>  What exactly are the facts regarding Clinton's family background?  I've
>>heard some stories on how his father died when he was young and his mother
>>had to raise the family, which would lead you to believe that they didn't
>>have much money.  But when the Vietnam stories popped up there was talk of
>[stuff deleted]

Hey!  You left out the stuff about Clinton's rich uncle.

>>for much.  By the time one reaches the rank of Governor or President they
>>are out of touch with the common man (and woman).

>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>Bill Clinton now only makes 35,000 per year (source 10-8-92 USA today)
>He seems very in touch with the adverage person to me. He has been
>poor, no one will argue that. He worked and payed his own way through
>school. When he finished law school he went back home to Ark to practice
>instead of Wall St. 

But you forget that along with that Governor's salary, Clinton gets room
(the Governor's mansion) and board (fine dining every night).  I thought it
was estimated that these and other perks came out to over $100,000 a year.
Bush gets perks also, so I think it can be said that neither of them can be
considered paupers.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
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, 9 Oct 1992 04:11:26 GMT

In article <2AD4D136.4694@news.service.uci.edu> jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.025354.7306@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <2AD22B42.25070@news.service.uci.edu> jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct6.075113.24657@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>
>>>>You have asked me to elaborate.  So here goes:
>>>>
>>>>I am concerned about Clinton's tax policies.  I hope to be successful
>>>>finacially, 
>>>>I plan to be a writer
>>>
>>>If you plan to be successful financially, may I suggest you examine
>>>your career goals?
>>
>>Depends on what he's writing.  And he did say, "aspiring" I believe.
>>
>>Re: a previous poster noting that "a lot" is two words.
>>	That's what editors are for.
>>
>
>My apologies to Simon.  I wrote this too glibly.  I didn't mean to 
>imply that Simon wrote poorly.  I meant that financial success and
>a career as a professional writer are not as common as subsistence
>living and a career as a professional writer.  (I thought the two
>comments together were pretty funny ... but, regardless Simon, 
>keep your aspirations.)

Actually, editors make a fair amount of money, comparable to some Wall
Street types.  You just have to be very, very patient with a shitty
salary for about a decade, and have a little luck.  I believe most
editors also get chances to write on the side.  As an added plus, you
can wear jeans to work, since you generally just see other editors,
and not businesspeople.  You don't have to be Tom Clancy or Stephen
King to live as a writer.  


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth