HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: billd@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Bill D'Camp)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. NOT!
Organization: Grumman Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:46:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.214439.5435@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:


   
   >>Here is the actual text of that part of Clinton's speech:
(some text deleted to go easy on net bandwidth)
   >>
   >>     In 1969, while studying at Oxford on a Rhodes
   >>scholarship, I received a draft notice, which
   >>arrived late.  My draft board postponed the
   >>induction date to give me time to finish my first
   >>year of study.  That summer, I agreed to join the
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
   >>ROTC program and attend law school at the
   >>University of Arkansas.  But a few weeks later, I
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       
   >>changed my mind and decided I should take my
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >>chances with the draft.

   >Even after you receive a draft notice, you are free to do anything you
   >legally can do before the induction date to keep out of serving in the
   >Army. Case in point, my brother received his draft notice in 1967. But
   >before his induction date came up, he had enlisted in the Naval Reserves.
   >This is no different that Clinton making arrangements to be in a ROTC
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >program.
    ^^^^^^^
   -- 
   >Zack Sessions
   >sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
   >University of North Carolina at Wilmington
   >"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."

According to your quote he agreed to join an ROTC program, apparently
with the concurrance of his draft board, but changed his mind and did
not join.  My question is : did his draft board know he had reneged on
his agreement?  He had already been drafted and was excused because of
agreeing to join ROTC which he then failed to do.  Somehow this still
looks like "draft-dodging" to me.

--
    _   /|
    \`o_O'
      ( )    Aachk! Phft!
       U
billd@gdstech.grumman.com
-- 
    _   /|
    \`o_O'
      ( )    Aachk! Phft!
       U
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:02:10 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:

> The GOP could be a really great, all-American inclusive party if they just got
> rid of the kooks.

Same could be said of the Democrats. Perhaps we need a third party for
the kooks of both sides. Ross, are you there, Ross?

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Far left's new "bill of lefts"
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 22:42:51 GMT
Summary: Hey folks....you *can* hold your breath for this one, maybe..

In article <nate.529@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> >                              Ammendment 3
> >No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered.  If by some fluke of
> >social engineering, war happens to errupt, soldiers will volunteer quickly,
> >defense industries will spring up from nowhere and we will defend
> >ourselves after a brief training period.
> 
>     Unfortunately this can happen even to nations which maintain very 
> high levels of millitary preparedness. While the army of Great Britain at 
> the turn of the century was one of the largest and finest in the world, 
> it wasn't ready with either men or armaments for the onslaught of the 
> Germans in 1914. Under Kitchener's recruitment drives there were literally 
> hundreds of thousands of young men who joined the British Army and were 
> shipped to France with as little as 5 weeks training. Most of their training 
> consisted of learning how to march in formation (not very useful in a trench 
> war); some were issued rifles only days before they sailed.
> 
>     I guess my point is that the US is in a similar situation today. Our 
> standing professional army is excellent, but if a major conflict comes 
> along that really threatens the US (something more challenging than a 
> bunch of Iraqi tankers hunkered down in the middle of a desert) I fully 
> expect that we'll have to enlist large numbers just as the Brits did in 
> '15 and '16.
> 

I fully expect not to have to wait a whole lot of time if the Bill 'n
Al show makes it to the White House for two terms.  Such *precedent*
they have their party to thank for here.  Everyone got their duffle
bags packed for Bosnia??  Or how about a resurgent Japan...those of
us who survive the advanced nuclear fireworks in the skies, that is.
Who wants to bet the Japanese won't have a *fully operational*  it-
*will*-work SDI before starting the action??  The fire next time,
indeed. Are you listening, peace-freeekies??

                                                H.R. Holm
*standard disclaimers, comment my own*
*pls post replies to the group only*
                                        *******************************
                                        Bill & Al (AND Hillary)
                                          have what it takes
                                            to TAKE WHAT YOU'VE GOT.
                                        *******************************
                                               



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. NOT!
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:25:51 GMT

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> You forgot the best part of Clintons speech. He stated that if you did not
>vote for him because of this issue, he would respect your position. Why on
>earth does Clinton need to say this ? I dont require respect from Clinton 
>to make any of my decisions, nor do I need it. 

He wasn't talking to you. He was talking to the American Legion. Besides,
he wasn't implying that any voter requires his respect in order to make
a decision on who to vote for.

Garbage post.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4069 talk.origins:10313
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationists
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:36:36 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) wrote:
> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
>> MANY people didn't grasp Darwins' Theorys at first.
>> Even the school system, which (is supposed to) teach(es) fact, didn't
>> accept Darwin's Theory until they lost a court case which 'forced'
>> evolution into the school system.
> Which case was that?

You crossposted that to alt.news-media.  It has nothing whatever to do with
the media.  The appropriate forum is talk.origins; I'm setting followups
there.

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:09:49 GMT

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>No, Clinton did not dodge the draft as nothing he did could remotely be
>considered as deceit or trickery. "Uncivic"? Give me a break! He opposed
>the war in Vietnam. How does that make him any less of an American? How
>does than make him any less patriotic? The whole draft dodging issue is
>merely another smokescreen invoked because the re-election campaign has
>no positive issues of any accomplishements by Bush that they can run on.
>That is why they attack Clinton's "war record".

>If you want a real example of deceit and trickery, you needn't look any
>further than Danny Boy, who is but one heartbeat from the Commander in
>Cheif job. How did he avoid the draft? There are certain types of National
>Guard Units, by their very nature, which are virtually guarenteed to never
>have to serve overseas. The unit Quayle wanted to enlist was one such unit,
>but the young men of Indiana aren't all stupid, the waiting list in that
>particular unit was so long, that if Quayle waited it out, he would have
>been drafted first. What did he do? He had his family assert pressure at
>the right places and voila! His name went to the front of the list!!

I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
have on these two.  It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to 
avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?

It is also interesting to note that four years ago this was a hot topic
for a very long time and the Republicans were the ones accused of 
negative campaigning.  This year the subject was quickly talked about
in the media and dismissed as not an issue.  

Break out of your campaign fog for a minute and look at the facts.  Do
you think this is right?
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4270 alt.politics.bush:4041 alt.politics.elections:12391 talk.politics.misc:43684
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Remarks by William Bennett (text)
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:07:11 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <185rqrINNnlq@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
->Yes the former Secretary of Education, where he was a whiner and
->a complainer and did nothing to improve education in our nation
->in any measurable way.

->Likewise as the Drug Czar (with a nicotine habit!) he moaned and
->groaned and was completely ineffective.

 Read his book "The De-Valuing of America". He documents his success
very well and very accurately.

 Steve Tyree - These opinionsa re mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4283 alt.politics.bush:4081 alt.politics.elections:12425 talk.politics.misc:43753
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Remarks by William Bennett (text)
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:27:28 GMT
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <16857C2BC.PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:
>In article <5061@news.duke.edu>
>eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>><< Acknowledgments to the Republican National Committee for supplying me
>>the transcriptions upon request. >>
>>
>>Republican National Convention
>>Remarks by William Bennett, former Secretary of Education
>>
>>Nomination of Dan Quayle for US Vice President
>>
>>Houston Astrodome, Houston, TX
>>August 19, 1992
>>
>>WILLIAM BENNETT:
>>Thank you. Let me start from departing from my text. << It's in here, so
>>he's not departing from THIS text! >> As a trained philosopher and as a
>>sometimes objective commentator for the news media, I'd like to say I think
>>this is a whole lot more interesting than New York.
>>
>>child's life than his values, his internal process, his beliefs, his sense
>>of right and wrong. It is the child's values, more than his race, his class,
>>Let me be clear about one thing. When we talk about traditional family values,
>>we are not using code words. We are not seeking a political wedge issue and
>>we are not speaking to demean or belittle others. Rather, we're seeking to
>>honor and to affirm what is best in us, what Lincoln has called "the better
>>angles of our nation." [Quotes mine.]
>>
>
>The Lincoln quote, it pains me somewhat to say, should be "the better angels
>of our nature." 

I have heard Bennett on this and other occasions give the Lincoln quote
correctly, in particular as a way of delineating the positive and "inclusive"
need to affirm what is best in us.  So I am sure *Bennett* knew it.
Apparently some typist somewhere didn't.  Time for Bennett to go back
to being a Prof., and start teaching Lincoln quotes 101.

>Is that really what the Republican National Committee's
>own transcript said, "better angles of our nation"?  Geez, they might
>have a point about this Cultural Elite business, after all.

Ah, but "We will not be discouraged from defining religion as the
anchor of morality, and we will never stop affirming that all real education
is the architecture of the soul."

That is, Bennett is not against the concept of elites, cultural or
otherwise, he just wants them to (as Spike Lee might say :-) )
"do the right thing."

---
Pat
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4071 alt.activism.d:2963 alt.news-media:1078
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:25:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>>>Now a question for the liberals:
>>>How can you be pro-abortion and anti capital punishment?

>>    That's easy. I'm *pro* capital punishment.
>>    Next question?

>Come on!  This is getting completely out of hand!  We can't have people
>making their own decisions about things.  You are either a conservative
>or a liberal and you have to adhere to the conventional wisdom of each.

    Are you sure that using the term "conventional wisdom" in conjunction 
with the word "liberal" doesn't constitute some form of internal paradox?

>If we can't stereotype you, how can we understand you?

    Just so. Do you want things to be too easy?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:29:35 GMT

pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>that gravity exists.  Say what you will about the theory of evolution,
>>but please don't say it is a verifiable fact.

>But it is a verifiable theory if not a fact. The theory of
>evolution, just because it is a theory it can be tested many ways
>and therefore proven wrong. Since evolutionism has not been proven
>wrong it therefore is right.

    Wow. Such confidence. Such assertiveness. Such inaccuracy. The mere 
fact that disproofs of evolution and creationism don't exist doesn't make 
either of them right. The Theory of Evolution remains only a theory, but 
it's a theory with one important advantage over creationism; the theory 
of evolution is subject to amendment and refinement as new evidence 
becomes available. Creationism is all spelled out; not exactly carved in 
stone, but I don't see a graceful way of saying "Oh, by the way, we've 
noticed that the Divine Word of God has a few inaccuracies...". If you 
open that floodgate then all sorts of things might be subject to question.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: atkeson@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Atkeson)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:14:45 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>Liberal media bias and corporate media ownership are both well
>documented.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

	My understanding is that most of the media (tv) is owned by
large corporation which are generally run by Republicans.  I don't 
really think news is liberally or conservatively biased.  I'm
thinking here of mainstream media (tv especially).  This does not
include things like Reason Magazine, or The Republic which are
heavily ideological.
	TV news has an obligation to not only tell the news, but
sell it as well.  News is more interesting when there is
controversy, it sells better.  The "liberal" press has done a lot
of looking and attacking on Bill Clinton and let's face it Bush 
and Quayle deserve a lot of discussion as well.
	I'd be interested in your documented information.  Academic
sources would be particularly interesting.  The small amount of 
reading I've done on it indicates that although a long time ago 
"news" was more pro-Democratic today it tries to maintain a 
neutrality because that what sells, that's what people want.  

Lonna 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Far left's new "bill of lefts"
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:25:43 GMT

pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>People are, of course, the most important element, but technology
>>can't be overlooked.  We are capable, right now, of fighting any war we
>>need to.  We are prepared.  The great catastrophes of WWI and WWII would
>>never have happened most likely if the allies had truly been prepared.

    We'll have to debate that one off-line sometime, Chip.

>>Hoping for peace is nice, but history tells us that real peace is being
>>ready to fight.   
 
>Of course that's your way of looking at history. Preparedness for
>fighting a war means nothing if the people are not willing to
>actually intervene. WWII would have happened even with well armed
>adversaries since none of them were willing to fight until it was
>almost to late. The posession of arms and technology will
>eventually lead to the use of it. 

    That may be true, but I would only point out that one of the most 
poignant lessons of the past two centuries has been that the lack of arms 
and technology will eventually lead to subjugation by a foreign power.

    Much as I am repelled by the slaughter that was wrought against the 
Zulus or the Ashantis, I'm not in any hurry to share their fate. The 
moral distress of being a victorious conquerer is nothing to the moral 
and physical distress of being a vanquished foe.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Are Republicans Evil?
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:53:59 GMT
Organization: UB

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:

>I am still curious how the US recognizing same-sex marriages will "protect a
>certain lifestyle."  If a man and woman can do it, why is it that I cannot? 
>Many ancient religions (even Christianity) recognize such unions.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	!! While I will plead ignorance on the theology of "ancient religions",
my knowledge of Christian theology leaves me incredulous at this statement.
Perhaps I could be convinced of its validity by appropriate quotes from the
Bible, or other authorities on Christian theology.


-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thurston@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Tad Thurston)
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN'S SPEECH
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:39:07 GMT

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>Here is what the New York Times had to say about the "Lincoln Quotes".
>If probably was not what Emil had in mind, but...
> 
>Jim McMaster (all typos mine)
> 
>========================================================================
> 
>Honest, Abe never said it
> 
>Quotations in Reagan's speech weren't Lincoln's
> 
>By Herbert Mitgang
>The New York Times
>(reproduced without permission)
> 
>In his speech Monday to the Republican National Convention, former
>President Reagan said the Democrats don't understand the principles "so
>eloquently stated by Abraham Lincoln".
> 
>Correction.
> 
>One reason the Democrats - or anybody else, including Lincoln scholars
>- don't understand these principles is that the 16th president never
>said what the 40th president claims he said.
> 
>In Reagan's speech, he quotes Lincoln as saying:  "You cannot
>strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.  You cannot help the wage
>earner by pulling down the wage payer.  You cannot help the poor by
>destroying the rich.  You cannot help men permanently by doing for them
>what they could and should do for themselves."
> 
>But Thomas Schwartz, curator of the Henry Horner Lincoln Collection at
>the Illinois State Historical Library in Springfield, said:  "These
>fake Lincoln quotations have been known for more than three-quarters of
>a century.  They've been exposed as untrue many times, but the words
>keep coming up, usually in a political or business context."
> 
>"These Lincoln quotations have been rattling around in Republican
>literature for some 50 years, even though they've been brought to the
>attention of party officials as phony," said Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton
>Professor of American History at Columbia University.
> 
>Asked about the Lincoln quotations yesterday, Catherine Goldberg, the
>former President's spokeswoman, said, "I'm not aware that they are
>untrue."
> 
>She added, "I do know that he got the quotations out of 'The
>Toastmaster's Treasure Chest,' a book by Herbert V. Procknow."
> 
>Goldberg said Reagan did his own research and writing for the speech.
>"President Reagan is the author of the speech," Goldberg said.
> 
>For a number of years, Lincoln scholars have been aware that the actual
>author of the maxims used by Reagan is the Rev. William John Henry
>Boetcker, a minister from Erie, Pa., who was born in 1873, was ordained
>in Brooklyn and was a lecturer and pamphleteer.



What is also interesting about the list of un-Lincoln quotes is that 
Honest Ron also left out one that was on the list...

"You shall never spend more than you take in..."

Thanks, Ron... we're all in supply-side heaven  :-)


Tad-o


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh