HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:01:38 GMT

b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>I really had no reason to be against Clinton before this.
>I did have real concerns about anyone who's a war protester
>being able to lead the country in the event of war, since 
>you have to have people go and fight.

>But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
>he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 
>alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
>-- I'll be dead against him personally -- if all this is true.

>(aired on C-Span today). 

>Clinton better tell the whole story now. And he better go
>beyond a reasonable doubt.

>-- Stephen D. Tice,  Veteran    

How is protesting a war that you feel is unjust considered to
be unpatriotic? Patriotism means not just accepting everything blindly.
If you love something, then you try even harder to correct its
faults. I would have been disappointed in Clinton if he had
publically supported the war and then evaded it... like a certain
Vice-President from Indiana!

I think that the fact he was a war protester would force him to
be more reflective about using troops. I have no doubt that any
decision to use troops would be the result of incredibly careful
reflection on his part. I don't believe he'd use troops for an
unjust cause, like he believed Johnson and Nixon were doing.
								
I feel that protesting a government policy you oppose, is not only
patriotic but your civic obligation. 	

Apparently, the authors of the Bill of Rights didn't believe that
protesting was unpatriotic either.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				"Violence is the last refuge of the
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     	 incompetent."  --Salvor Hardin	
CLARKSON '95
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"If you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice."   
	---RUSH ("Free Will")
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:56:34 GMT

In article <Oct.1.08.38.35.1992.14872@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>Let's see ... Mr. Frank is, what?  A _LAW_ student (if I'm not
>mistaken) preparing to be a lawyer.  He wouldn't have a vested
>interest in repudiating the above claim, now would he?  Naw ...
>couldn't happen.

It is a common lapse in logic to suppose that questioning the source of an
argument is just as good as questioning the argument's validity.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Yet another lie/distortion from a Slick Willie supporter
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:36:20 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct5.223005.20550@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <BvMrtI.DGG@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>
>>  Clinton announced today that he finally supports NAFTA,
>>although he still has "reservations".
>
>Let's be a bit more accurate.  He supports NAFTA, but he wouldn't sign
>the agreement in its present form.  He hasn't been specific about the
>exact changes needed.

Glancing at the NYT article, "The Democratic Presidential nominee said
an acceptable trade agreement should include provisions that would
toughen environmental and worker-safety standards in Mexico and allow
the President to establish a commission to monitor the agreement's
impact."  I'm not sure if specific clauses of the treaty were cited.
This seems to have come in a speech given at North Carolina State
University, a location chosen so that he wouldn't have to give the
speech directly to union members.

A Bush Administration official, Carla Hill, "the US Trade
Representative,... said the 'omissions' that Clinton identified had
already been alleviated by the agreement, which is the product of more
than a year of negotiation."

>
>Once more Slick Willie tries to stand on both sides of the issue.  He
>supports NAFTA - but he still won't sign it.  He supports free trade,
>but the unions don't need to worry - he doesn't really support free
>trade.

I still argue Clinton is a free-trader at heart, given his policy
staff (Reich).  There's an interesting interview with him in the
current Atlantic Monthly discussion how Clinton moves between "pol"
(who tends to straddle issues) and "A-student" (who has clearer,
though perhaps political lethal, ideas on policy).


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
From: KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Sit down and shut up PEROT!!!!
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:32:54 GMT
Organization: Penn State University


  Originally, I thought it was a great idea for a third candidate, I even
signed a petition in Maryland, because Clinton and Bush are not exactly the
greatest candidates.  But now it is time for Perot to return back to Texas
where we don't have to hear from him again!  Anyone who votes for a man who
can't make up his mind whether he wants to be President or not over a 10
month period should just give it up (shit or get off the pot in other words).
What is going to happen when a real decision has to be made, will it take him
so long again?  The man is thin-skinned, which is why he quit in the first
place.  He couldn't take the media scrutiny, which is essential in the 1990's.
I am tired of his act!  Is there a number we can call to tell him NOT to run?
Of course he wouldn't give us that opportunity!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48325 alt.sex:31120 talk.abortion:38995
From: ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:09:52 GMT
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 27-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
by Richard A Chonak@athena. 
> Can you substantiate this in any way?  I've seen figures from the
> Boston Globe/WBZ poll which regularly studies abortion opinion in detail;
> they show pro-life sentiment to be stronger among women than among men,
> stronger among non-whites than among whites, and stronger among poor people
> than among the affluent.

To this, one response comes to mind. There are three kinds of liars.
Liars, Damn Liars and Statisticians.

ag
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:33:49 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bv9LIx.qt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>  varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>
>      It is interesting that everyone is expected to take responsibility
> for the results of their actions EXCEPT women who get pregnant.

Getting an abortion if you don't want to have a child *is* a responsible
reaction to an unwanted pregnancy.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49641 alt.rush-limbaugh:6573 alt.politics.bush:7777 alt.politics.clinton:8546 alt.politics.elections:15222 talk.abortion:40659 alt.sex:31971
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:57:18 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu writes:

|Well put.  It is no more punishment to require a woman to fulfil
|her parental responsibilities than it is punishment to require
|one who signed an enlistment contract to go to boot camp, or to
|require one who injures another in a car accident to do
|everything possible to save the life and health of the one
|injured.

Since when is having sex equivalent to signing a contract?
And since when are people involved in car accidents responsible
for saving the life & health of an injured party?

Both of your analogies are ludicrous.

BTW, do you still want pro-choicers to die, Mr "pro-life" Arnold?

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com          C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"If you meant what you said in your article, I'd suggest you seek out 
psychiatric or spiritual guidance.  You may end up as a criminal 
statistic."--Russell Lawrence
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49341 talk.abortion:40317 alt.activism.d:3508
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:35:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct3.031102.1065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be the only
>choice they want to discuss.  Here's a good choice for couples: abstinence
>until they are fully ready for children.  I mean, in all the arguements that
>concept always gets lost.  And some folks think you just beamed down from a UFO
>when you bring it up.

I don't intend to have any children. I'm not willing to go without
sex for my entire life.

>Simon
>
Eric
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49434 can.general:4768
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:43:27 GMT


Why isn't a fetus considered a living entity??

I could understand if there were extreme circumstances, but what about
abortions carried out simply because the parents think a child might
be an inconvenience.  I could understand if perhaps it was known that a
child would be born with major medical problems and not live very long if
born. But each case must be looked at individually.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Build that wall, Bill & Al!  Excellent.   NOT!
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:23:38 CDT


In article <1992Sep30.150640.4437@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 	Clinton and Gore have lined up on the anti-NAFTA side of the coin,
> spreading protectionist fear and xenophobic hatred in their wake.
> 
> 	Smoot-Hawley, anyone?

Red herring, anyone?

Here's Tom Peter's view on trade:
  [...]
  There's also the matter of free trade and entrepreneurship, where
  Clinton's marks are equivocal.  Clinton broke with the orthodox liberal
  wing of his party years ago, but his pander potential on trade is
  troublesome and he travels with several economic gurus who are thinly
  disguised protectionists.  Of course, Reagan and Bush, who talked a
  good game on free trade, have blythly overseen the greatest increase
  in U.S. protectionism since the woeful '30's - with the help of House
  Majority Leader Dick Gephardt and friends, to be sure.
  [...]
  (reprinted in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Tues, Sept 29, 1992)



-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49685 alt.politics.clinton:8595
From: clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 6 Oct 1992 12:40:06 GMT
Organization: Merit Network, Inc.  Ann Arbor, MI
NNTP-Posting-Host: home.merit.edu

For all of those libertarians out there... How exactly is the Libertarian
philosophy of government different from what happened in the U.S. during the
1870's - 1890's? What leads Libertarians to believe that 'individuals and the
market' are strong enough to correct abuses?
Chris


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:10:43 GMT

In <1992Sep24.154852.21811@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:

>In article <Bv20t2.JEx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>>	A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>>consent to sex.

>Please provide some documentation for this assertion. (Hint: so far not one
>person has shown that this is anything more than a personal opinion.) I, for
>one (as I think I've mentioned repeatedly) do not share this opinion.

	Documentation?? You're screwed in the head. Now listen. You should
have learned this in school, but in case you didn't I will tell you:

	Having sex can result in pregnancy.

	I would venture to say that MOST people who engage in sexual
activity know this. That being the case, if they were interested in 
avoiding pregnancy for sure, they would not have sex. Otherwise, they
are taking a risk, AND KNOW IT FULL WELL!! If that is not consenting
to the possibility of pregnancy, then I would like to know what is.

			Bruce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:35:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.171727.19865@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
|> That doesn't mean the budget deficit is in itself bad.  To take a
|> famous example, it's widely (though not universally) believed that
|> a dollar spent on HeadStart saves four-five dollars later in welfare
|> and prison costs.  If you could borrow money at 5% a year to get
|> this double-digit return on your investment, wouldn't you?  Deficit
|> or no deficit, debt or no debt?
|> 

Only if at some definate point in the future I had a firm commitment to
pay off in full.

|> This is why Clinton has the right idea.  He suggests splitting the
|> government budget into two accounts -- a "present" account that pays
|> for things like government employee salaries, farm subsidies <bleah>,
|> and the like; and a "future" account that pays for infrastructure,
|> educational investments, and other tangible assets.  The present
|> accounts would have to be balanced, while it would be less of a priority
|> to do so for the investment accounts.
|> 

I have not heard this from Clinton.  Where did you hear it? or better
yet, where did you read it?

I fully agree that this is a good idea.

|> Looking at the situation as a "deficit" problem is all wrong -- not
|> a single business in the country looks solely at cash flow.  We could
|> sell the Grand Canyon for $200,000 to the Germans, and the national
|> debt would be reduced $200,000 -- but would we really be better off?
|> No -- we have $200,000 more in cash, but an immeasurable sum less in
|> national assets.  Similarly, we could "save" money by refusing to pay
|> for schools or highways, but when the money is spent (increasing the
|> deficit) it doesn't go down the drain -- our human capital is increased
|> in the first instance, and we have an actual highway in return for our
|> money in the second case.
|> 

As I said befor, the deficit IS NOT the current problem with the
economy.  But if you look at the trend you cam PLAINLY see that it is
going to become the #1 problem with the economy in the first or second
decade of the next century.  It is going to hurt to solve this problem
now.  It will be devistating to this country if we let things continue
along the current path.

|> (The other thing to recognize is that the deficit problem isn't as
|> serious as it looks -- a large part of the interest component is 
|> really an inflation component, and if there's 4% inflation, then one
|> should recognize that a $3 trillion debt is really $120 billion less
|> than it used to be.)
|> -- 

Not when we are adding 300+ billion per year to this number.  It means
every year the debt is 100+ billion more than it used to be.

Doug
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hughes@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Susan Hughes)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:55:26 GMT

In article <28711@life.ai.mit.edu> benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.015639.28562@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>
>-But if you must take the risk and you do get pregnant,  why not
>-give the baby up for adoption?  
>
>Because people son't necessarily want to go through the painful,
>socially comitting and costly process of pregnancy and birth. Besides,
>there are a lot of babies that need foster homes out there. Thousands
>and thousands. The only problem is that they arent't white.
>
>-Thousands of couples are on waiting lists all
>-over the country to adopt babies.  Why won't pro-aborts consider it?
>

As a possible solution to the adoption question, why not assign foster
children to anyone desiring to be on an adoption waiting list? No pick-
and choose; just the next child in need of a home. Crack-babies, HIV+,
abandoned, abused, birth-defects, mixed-race, whatever; the parents will
be responsible for all care and medical bills, just like real parents.
They can't afford it?  That's not the babies fault.
They can't deal with the problems? That's not the babies fault.
Too much stress?  Comes with the territory.   
Just like real parents.
Going to this system would 1)get a lot more born children taken care of
2)probably improve the caliber of adoptive parents 3)put a damper on
pro-life noise about adoption instead of abortion-no more waiting lists.

Sue
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 4 Oct 92 00:06:04 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1aij51INN4fs@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>If someone is assaulting me because they want my property, I will say take it
>and enjoy it.  It just isn't worth it.  Property is replaceble, expendible, etc.

Property takes money to get.  Money takes work to get, and that takes part of
your life.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct3.012039.19567@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct5.051653.14318@s1.gov>
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:35:32

Loren Petrich asks:

	     And is one to be a second-class citizen if one
     cannot afford a car or would prefer not to drive one?

The short answer is yes.  Cars are only some of the things whose
avoidance leads to a cramped life.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:15:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.103939.1478@cnsvax.uwec.edu> kitzmadj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>	I am not one of Bush's zealots, but Clinton is a joker and
>Perot is a baby.  There is a saying that goes something like, "Fool me once,
                                                                ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^
>shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."  This epigram is quite fitting when
 ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^  ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^  ^^^^^ ^^ ^^
>
> [speculative character assassination deleted]
>
>D.J. Kitzmann       

Certainly, you could not be voting for Bush and saying this, could you?

  Dave
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:50:00 GMT

{ talk.politics.misc                                                }
{ Re: If you want to know if Ross is Running -- Ask US.,  27 Sep 92 }
 
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) opinion.
]

]b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
]>

]> If you really want to know if Ross Perot is running -- Ask US --
]> just plain Americans.

]> There is no reason to ask Ross, he already told you,

]> the issue has gone down to the state coordinators and from there
]> back to the people.

Which I reckon is what he would do if something like the Iraqi invasion
occurs again, or before committing troops to Serbia.

]And the state coordinators who felt they were betrayed by Ross back on
]July 16th (or whenever it was) and would never support him again have
]now been replaced by more compliant ones.

I trust the folks that really are suspicious of Ross have moved on,
like Ed Rollins -- which is why I said when he left that I was glad
he wasn't a Benedict Arnold. No doubt there are a few benedicts
hanging in with the UWS folks yet. The important thing is that those
who are more at home in the traditional camps have moved on and that's
fine.

]> And if you're interested in a Cooperative Alliance no matter what
]> your party or politics is, which has the American People at heart,
]> (rather than beating-up on everyone else, just to win the election),
]> then please join our movement.

]> The message we're sending to the parties is =cooperate=, open the
]> discussion to the people who aren't part of the present political
]> class, and offer your best positions with an intent of coming to
]> a compromise position.
]
]The message you're sending is that you're a bunch of dupes who would
]line up behind any Pied Piper who throws you a few meaningless slogans
]that make you feel good -- and are brainless enough to do so even
]_AFTER_ you've been screwed by him once.

Not through "beating-up" others I see. This is a pretty harmless way
to express your contempt, so if you need to flail away, have at it.

As to having been wronged by Ross, I never felt that way. I was glad
he was in the ring for us, and when he'd had enough, I didn't expect
him to continue to get bludgeoned with their lies.

I would have been dissappointed if he hadn't climbed back up in the
saddle after getting knocked down by the media though.

||  Theodore A. Kaldis
||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu

   |
-- J --
   |      Stephen D. Tice     "Just like riding a bike."
   |      Arlington Texas
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss