HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:35:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep4.005247.8080@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>
>   The Republican party is only interested in the rich.  Does this sound like 
>a true statement, or just campaign rhetoric?  

It has a ring of truth when you consider how Bush promised in his state of the
union address to propose a bill with tax cuts for both the wealthy and middle
class and then submitted the bill sans the tax cuts for the middle class.  He
then vetoed a bill, passed by congress, which combined tax cuts for the middle
class with a tax increase for the rich.
 
>
>   The Republicans don't *really* believe in family values because they
> voted against the bill to allow paid maternity and emergency leave.

Bush has promised to veto a bill which mandates UNPAID maternity and emergency
leave.

>   The Republicans are against single parent families.  
>   The Republicans want to round up all gays and throw them in jail.  
>   Am I getting through to you?  All of this is a tremendous simplification 
>of a complex problem, an exageration, or an outright lie.  And I would 
>not even be bringing it up if not for the Democrats' constant blathering 
>that the Republicans are the only ones playing nasty.

"The Democrats" are not making these claims about "the REpublicans".  Some
democrats are making similar claims about SOME republicans.

>
>I'll tell you exactly what *I'm* afraid of.  I'm afraid of a program
>like FDR's Social Security.  You mentioned that he tried some new
>things, not knowing how they'd work out.  Well look at it.  It is the
>monster that will not die.  It just keeps getting bigger and bigger and
>no politician will touch it with a ten foot pole.  It is the entitlement
>that will bring down our economy if nothing is done about it--and nobody
>can do anything about it.  I'm afraid that if Clinton gets in, we'll
>have NHC and *never* be able to get rid of it if it doesn't work.  It
>will be an albatrose around our necks.  You can't just try something
>like this--if you start it, it will never die.  It will be one more
>thing that people will grow to depend on from their government.  One
>more thing that people cannot do for themselves.  One more thing to foil
>ever balancing our budget.

Clinton has not promised to impliment NHC but he should.  Why would we want
to get rid of it?  The Canadians used to have a system similar to the US
and well over 90% of Canadians are satisfied with the system and would never
go back to the American system.  Time and again it has been demonstrated that
NHC would save up to 100 billion dollars every year.  People like you never
address the many such arguments which have been made on this network.  You
simply spout out a lot of dogmatic remarks without any factual or logical
justification.

Peter Lauren
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:01:05 GMT
	<1992Sep7.154642.12539@athena.mit.edu>
	<AWERLING.92Sep7182057@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Sep8.150715.27352@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Sep9.122635.15065@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <1992Sep9.122635.15065@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:

>werling:
   >>You left out the death penalty part.

-   Which death penalty part?

I don't have a bible with me, but it contains something about those
who lie with a man as with a woman shall be put to death, blooding
being on their own hands.

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:30:12 GMT

In article <lb1ivgINNns0@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>|> Chris you miss the point.  The liberal bias in media refers to Maria (I know
>|> this one is totally misspelled) Shribert asking one of economic advisors
>|> "how are you going to pay for this stupid plan!!!  There is no way!!!  HOW!!!"  and
>|> then asking Clinton or Democrats..."This excelent plan of yours how did
>|> you ever come up with it?"
>
>You mean the Maria Shriver that is a member of the Kennedy clan and

... is an NBC news reporter who was on the floor of the GOP convention
asking, along with fellow liberal Andrea Mitchell, leading questions.
Yes, that one.

>the wife of Democratic VP candidate?  

... nope, she's wed to Arnie " Conan the Republican" S. (I dare
not butcher the spelling of the last name).

>That's like expecting Buchannon to be impartial.

Buchannon? Who's he? Another Democratic VP candidate?  :-)

Brokaw was pretty hard on Buchanan, so I suspect neither is impartial.

Other media bias notes:

Liberal bias, as observed by us conservatives, is annoying.
What is most annoying, both to coservatives and I suspect to
leftists, libertarians, and other "fringe" types, is that
our opinions and ideas are even recognized. As if they don't
exist. If there was even a SINGLE story about how less Government,
conservative-type solutions to problems might help, for every
five stories about how terrible social problem A demands Government
social spending program B, then I would be happy. But
on TV news, you don't even see that.
A classic was when the Washington Post "forgot" to cover a pro-life
rally, in Washington D.C., that had over 100,000 people.
Their journalists were apparently so out-of-the-loop (or biased?)
that they didn't even see it under their noses.

The only impartial coverage of the conventions to be found
was on C-Span.  Kudos to them for allowing Americans direct access.

The Mort Kondrake quote was right on target. NPR is biased,
more to the left than the other news outlets, 
and they are also interesting and have some good stories.
I depended on them for news for over a year, and learned to "read
between the lines". A classic interview was when they were
chastising Newt Gingrich for (get this) opposing the
President's compromise with the Democrat Congress in October '90.
You know, the one that raised taxes.  They were pressing him pretty hard
about "wasn't he being disloyal to the President". I never heard
them criticize anyone else for opposing Bush. Interesting.

Pat
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5399 talk.politics.misc:45416 alt.politics.bush:5108
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:56:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BuL8xu.FpE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:

>It is really something that you can't quite believe until you've
>seen it.  Of course, I could make some comments about the
>stereotypical rural person in Illinois, but I doubt that
>I would be believed.... ;)

I could also make stereotypical comments about New Yorkers, college
professors or people with Phds.  They would all be equally wrong.  I found
the good doctors response to be offensive.  Any comment that lumps all
people of any group into a single category, positively or negatively
is nothing more than bigoted claptrap.

Since the good doctor is not prepared to apologize for the statement
that started this thread, I agree with him.  It is time to let the
thread die.

Peace.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:16:14 GMT

In article <9SEP199212023919@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman) writes:
>
>As a vet in Vietnam, I saw that plane and it was reported on our TV and
>in our local paper.  I am incensed that these STUPID diversionary tactics
>are again being used in the political campaign.

The point isn't so much that he dodged the draft.  It is that he has lied 
about it.  Repeatedly.  

>
>Denny 


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5138 talk.politics.misc:45126 alt.rush-limbaugh:4682 alt.politics.bush:4901 alt.politics.elections:12970
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:25:57 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <BuHBtM.C1q@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>Oh, really? 12 disastrous years? What country do you get your news from? 
>
>In the U.S., we started 1980 with 12% inflation, 20+% interest rates,
>unemployment nearly double what it is now, and a resurgent, aggressive
>USSR. 
>
>The USSR is gone, having self-destructed in the race to get ahead of us
>militarily. It was expensive for us, too, but the alternatives would have
>been FAR worse. 
>
>Inflation is now essentially zero. Interest rates haven't been this low in
>decades. The only reason that we're having this recession now is that
>the democrats in congress (I capitalize neither "democrat" nor "congress",
>because they don't deserve the honor) enacted (yes, with George Bush's
>connivance) the biggest tax increase in history, which forced many
>businesses into bankruptcy and caused countless others to scale back. 
>
When are you folks going to acknowledge that the Reagan ideology
has sacrificed the long term stablity of our economy for a few
years of growth? Remember, the deficit tripled under Reagan and he
wanted it this way! Big defense, no taxes to pay for it, look what
you get.....he knew he could never dismantel the government, so
he bankrupted it.

Have any of you economic gurus figured out just what kind of growth
we will have to have to stop deficit spending without raising
taxes? Dream on......
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Anti-Clinton posters
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:47:55 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
: 
: Why don't you Anti-Clinton people take your butts over to alt.election.bush.
: and quit wasting so much bandwith, thats why there are TWO diff. groups.

There are FOUR different groups, thank-you very much.  There are more people
other than just Clinton and Bush running for President.

Anyway, if you got rid of all the anti-Clinton people, this newsgroup
wouldn't be as much fun as it is now!  :)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I didn't live in this
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 century."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Keywords: tell me true
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:59:17 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Sep10.223727.44082@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>England's infant mortality rate is much higher than the US.  Canada's
>and France's are only slightly lower.  Japan's and Germany's are
>significantly lower.  The average life expectancies are nearly
>identical among all of them.  Infant mortality doesn't have much to do
>with how good the doctors are though.
>
Errrrrr could you tell me where you got these numbers. My World Almanac says
that you are wrong. England being about the same as our and Canada and France
with HALF of ours. Japan and Germany's numbers are even better.


Stan Knight
|Inquiring mind wants to know|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:34:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: gte

In article <18of26INNn6k@news.aero.org>, marken@aero.org (Richard Marken) writes:
> In article <7ytnd5b.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> 
> >	Either the role of the state is to protect us from ourselves, or it
> >is not. If it is, then alcohol and tobacco should be added to the list of
> >schedule one drugs and prosecuted as major felonies. If not, than it's time
> >to legalize ALL drugs and spend our money on education and treatment instead
> >of prisons and enforcement.
> 
> Wonderful post. How long will we have to continue to suffer as a society
> from these idiotic, hypocritical, crime producing laws? It's such a relief
> to know that there is at least one sane person out there. Unfortunately,
> things won't get much better until about 51% of the people come to their
> senses about this. They finally did catch on about Prohibition. But I 
> am not optimistic that people will EVER wise up about DRUG laws. AH well; 
> just have to keep watchin' yer parkin' meters. Too bad Clinton can't 
> publicly advocate doing the right thing, like FDR did.
> 

The Libertarian party has already wised up.  Vote for them this election
(Hell, Bush and Clinton are a couple of puppets being played by the same
hand that's been screwing us for 30 years.).

I believe that Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord are on the ballot in all
50 states, so everybody should be able to vote for the one 
candidate who is for legalizing drugs, cutting government, 
eliminating the income tax and returning our freedoms.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Clinton speeches
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:05:38 GMT

solms@mtholyoke.edu (Sharon Solms) writes:

>Someone told me that Clinton's speechs are available on the net.
>Does anyone know if there is a specific place to access them or
>should I just read through this newsgroup regularly?  Thanks.
> solms@sophia.smith.edu (sharon solms)

there are multiple sites:

site			directory			  
----			---------			  
world.std.com		obi/USElection/President/Clinton  
			  [ 78 files as of this posting.  
			    named according to subject. ]

nptn.org 		pub/campaign.92	
			  [ 115 files as of this posting.  see the 
			    file INDEX.CLINTON for subjects. ]

ftp.cco.caltech.edu	pub/bjmccall/Clinton
			  [ 25 files as of this posting.
			    named according to subject. ]

					you're welcome,

						-- dave

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: edjans01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:26:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In <1992Sep13.171912.18924@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:


>	So, I suppose you are ignorant of the story of the city
>which wanted to forcefully copulate with a Jewish family.  You are
>probably familiar with the name.  Angels escorted the Jewish family out
>of the city and God destroyed it.  There were no instances in the bible
>in which Jews went out of their way to kill or molest homosexuals.  That
>is what I said.  In your defensiveness you lend yourself to ignorance
>and fear.

Wrong!  Boy, you have got that story all screwed up.  First off, it was
not a city, it was a village.  Second, they were not interested at all
in Lot or his family; they were interested in the two strangers that Lot
and his family had provided accomdations and lodging.  BTW, the two
strangers were the angels that you spoke of.  In a fit of anger and
desparation to find out who these two strangers were (they could have
been from an enemy camp), they asked Lot, "Bring them out, so that we
may know them."  The Hebrew word for know in this case was "Yahda" 
which NEVER means "to get to know in a sexual way."  It more precisely
means "to get to know through an introduction."  The village was 
destroyed for inhospitality, which is the most heinious crime in the
Jewish law.

Wanna know how I know this?  Just read John McNeil, S.J. or any other
Scripture Scholar that has bothered not to stick his big ol' biggotted
nose into the Bible, looking to bash people with it.  Homosexuality and
the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah is just that:  a myth.  God destroyed
it because the people of S & G were a hateful, depraved people.  NOT because
it was thought that they were engaging in homosexual acts.

BTW, Lot offered his daughters, not because hetrosexuality is the
norm, but because, what other way would you distract and calm a group of
angry men outside your door.  In the Jewish faith, it was more
honorable to protect your guests than your own family.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Jansing                     | "What we call the beginning is often the end
Electrical Engineering Department|  And to make an end is to make a beginning.
University of Louisville         |  The end is where we start from . . ."
                                 |  -- T.S. Eliot, "Four Quartets"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:	The opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not
		necessarily reflect those of the Department of Electrical
		Engineering or any other department within the University
		of Louisville.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Date: 7 Sep 92 03:18:15 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep6.205327.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.223548.20021@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> A little chart in this Sunday's NYT:
>> 
>> Change in private sector employment by Presidential term:
>> 
>> Carter:	+13.92%
>> Reagan 1:	+ 7.30%
>> Reagan 2:	+12.05%
>> Bush:		- 0.04%
>> 
>> --
>
>     Based on this chart, we must have been living in Utopia during
>the Carter years.  I sure wish that someone would have invited me to
>that quadrennial jubilee.
>

There was a tremendous amount of job growth during the Carter
Presidency.  The big problem was that with the large numbers of baby
boomers entering the job market the growth was not enough to keep
unemployment down.  There was indeed a party, there just were too many
guests.  

I don't think that anyone else could have done any better.  Now, on the
other hand, a room full of monkeys could have done better than George.

-bert
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:25:29 GMT

In <1992Sep08.173633.4149@watson.ibm.com> born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:

[blah, blah, Reid Collins, liberal media, Clinton, etc]
>>
>> >     Two questions that come to my mind are:
>> >     1.  Does Reid Collins have some substantive, behind-the-scenes
>> >         evidence for this belief that he fears sharing?
>>
>> No, I think its quite obvious from watching much of the network
>> reporting, the Emmys, and the state of the US in general. I don't

>Eh, since when are "the Emmys, and the state of the US in general."
>part of the media?

Who said they were? Who said they had to be? The question was did
Collins have some "behind-the-scenes" evidence? I said he didn't need
"behind-the-scenes" evidence...just look at what's going on in the US
today. I didn't think there was any limitation to "the media".

And the Emmys, FYI, are part of "the media" in the sense that they are
an orgiastic celebration of television, a medium of communication,
ergo part of "the media".

Michael
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton's Nobel Laureates -- THE LIST
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:17:31 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


     I see that my original post has spawned a great deal of
debate!  All I was really interested in was the list of names.
For your information, here are the six Nobel laureates that
support Clinton's plan, along with the year their award was won:

     Paul Samuelson    -  1970     (MIT)
     Kenneth Arrow     -  1972     (Stanford)
     Lawrence Klein    -  1980     (Penn)
     James Tobin       -  1981     (Yale)
     Franco Modigliani -  1985     (MIT)
     Robert Solow      -  1987     (MIT)

Let me interject one opinion of my own -- forgive me if I sound
like Lloyd Bentsen.  I am an academic; many academics are friends of mine;
but I would never want an academic having his/her hands on the economy.

     Cary Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou