From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.155620.17712@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In <1992Oct12.023719.15705@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.152824.11911@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>[Clinton is not a "liberal"...]

>>>Dream on!  How many non-liberals do you know of who lead anti-American, 
>>>anti-war protests,

>>	What's "anti-Americanism"? Is "anti-Americanism" simply not
>>sounding like a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society?

>>	He seriously disagreed with the war. What is the _right_ thing
>>to do about it? And why are you not flaying Pat Buchanan alive for
>>opposing the Gulf War? It is unpatriotic to criticize wars, right?

>The right thing to do is certainly not to go to our ENEMY (remember, 
>we were in a cold war with the soviets at that point, and that they had 
>preformed a brutal crack-down in Czechoslovakia (sp) just a few months 
>before Clinton went there) and protest our country.  The right thing 
>may be to protest in our country.

Two blatant lies and a few irrelevant points.

1) He did not protest while in the USSR.  He protested while in England.
2) There is no such thing as "protesting a country."  He protested against
	the Vietnam war.

3) 50,000 Americans a year went to the Soviet Union.  Why?  They wanted
	to see what it was like.  All Rhodes scholars travel around Europe
	over Christmas break.  What was wrong with it?  You guys keep linking
	it to the Prague crackdown, without actually explaining what that had 
	to do with anything.

4) Which brings up the question of why you'd send top administration officials
	to China [a PUBLIC, not PRIVATE action, unlike Bill Clinton's] only a
	few weeks after they massacred thousands of pro-democracy students.

>>pick a running mate who believes that the automobile is the 
>>>most dangerous weapon on the earth, etc.

>>	What did Al Gore actually _state_?

>Read his book.  He said that the most dangerous weapon on the earth is 
>the automobile.  He is talking about the danger to the ozone layer.

He did not call it the most dangerous weapon on earth.  He said it was
the biggest *threat.*  There's a difference.  If you're pointing a gun
at me, it becomes a bigger threat than an ICBM which probably won't be used.

>>	Actually cars are a rather troublesome albatross in some ways.

>>	Here in the USA, oil has to be imported to fuel them,
>>accidents cost $130 billion/year, 45,000 people die in car accidents a
>>year (the leading cause of death for those under 44), they are a
>>leading cause of smog problems in major cities, and so forth. I have a
>>relative who moved out of LA because the smog there would aggravate
>>his asthma.

>He said DANGEROUS not deadly.  How about nuclear weapons as a candidate 
>for the most dangerous.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3889 alt.rush-limbaugh:7440 talk.politics.misc:51837