HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:36:14 GMT

Why was Quayle's service in the National Gaurd such an issue in 1988?
No body seems to say much about his age anymore either.  Hmmmmmm?
I don't think most people care that Clinton didn't want to go to Vietnam.  I
think people care about the way he has handled it since then.  At first it was
total denial that he did anything wrong.  As one fact after another came
out he still didn't come clean.  When the news broke that his Uncle tried to
help him he denied knowing anything about it, and was quit  adamant.  As it
turns out, he heard about that in March of this year.  I still think he is more
concerned about his political "viability" then he is about the country.>

>>
>> >Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
>> >irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
>> >some of the people most of the time.
>>
>> Selective reporting is irrelevant? Only to those whose decisions are not
>> affected by factual reporting, I suppose. I'll bet this is one of the
>> same posters who denied there was any tilt in the convention reporting,
>> too ;-)
>
>This was not a comment on the relevancy of biased reporting, it was a comment
>on the irrelevancy of the draft dodging non-issue.
Why is it an irrelevant issue?  Because Clinton supporters say it is?  If 
voters are concerned about Clinton's integrity than it should be an issue to 
Clinton.
>
>> >
>> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>>
>>
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave

Commoner Jeff.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4631 talk.politics.misc:44432 alt.politics.bush:4544
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 9 Sep 1992 21:55:11 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <2AAE62CF.11063@news.service.uci.edu>, harvey@cafws1.eng.uci.edu (Harvey Chen) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
> >> station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
> >> have expected them to.
> >> 
> >> Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
> >> He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
> >> he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
> >> flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
> >> for president!".
> >> 
> >> The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
> >> I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
> >> 
> >> I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
> >> paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
> >> go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
> >> imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
> >> you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
> >> 
> >> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
> >> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
> >> this knowledge?
> >> 
> >> Jim Del Vecchio
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> >Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
> >grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
> >
> >Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
>    ^^^
>      Talk about fifth grade educations....please....:)
> 
> >irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
> >some of the people most of the time.
> >
> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> 

Oh, I'm so sorry I didn't run my post through a spell checker. I was a very
naughty boy and the net.spelling.police should take away my license.
:-/

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5536 alt.politics.bush:5212
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:10:51 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Gratuitous Carter Bashing
 <nate.555@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> <1992Sep14.182441.15949@den.mmc.com>
 <z1ynkyb.howard@netcom.com> <1992Sep14.232111.9187@rchland.ibm.com>
 <1992Sep15.160706.13227@den.mmc.com>

In article <1992Sep15.160706.13227@den.mmc.com>, sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John
Sims) says:
>
>Yup, Jimmuh "Ah seriously underestimated the Russians" Carter.  He
>completely bungled the Iran rescue attempt, but insiting on the makeup
>of the team.  He attempted to micro-manage the rescue attempt instead of
>giving the military a mission and letting them do the job.  THAT's what
>was wrong with Carter's approach and what was right with Reagan and
>Bush's approach.

Their approach didn't keep 300+ marines from getting blowed-up in their
barracks, a tragedy that *no one* was ever held responsible for (this
still drives my father - WWII vet - crazy!).  At least Carter took
responsibility for the botched rescue attempt.

>Face it bud.  War has been accurately described as organized chaos.
>Yeah, its dirty, its messy, and its not fun.  And mistakes happen then,
>just like they do in all other endeavors.
>
>John

So why are you criticizing Carter for his handling of a difficult and
tenuous rescue mission?

Jeff Luck                                  *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University               "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:51:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <PETONIC.92Sep9185935@daisy.hal.com>, petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep09.230151.21511@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
|> >Well....yeah.  When did medical care become an inalienable right?
|> 
|> Persuit of happiness, buddy.  Tough to do it if you're 6' under.
|> Unless, of course, you're Hindu.

In that case, my pursuit of happiness requires that I be a millionaire.
When can I expect my check from the government?  Sorry, it doesn't
work that way.  The government isn't obligated to finance your rights.
Health care is a commodity like anything else.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Novak, Charen, Limbaugh: What do they h
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:40:40 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article N3cDqB5w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>Seriously, though, Novak comes off as just a right-wing crazy, and Limbaugh is
>a right-wing crazy.  Charen is funny to watch on TV.  Whenever someone says
>something she disagrees with, she looks like someone in the room just farted.
>If anyone's got a redwood up her butt, it's Mona.

Funny, come to think of it, she does get that look on her face.  I couldn't
quite put it into words, but you have succeeded.  :-)

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
From: grohol@novavax.UUCP (John Grohol)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Small Businesses???
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:48:19 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

A friend of mine has argued to me that if Clinton were to be
elected, more of a tax burden would be shouldered by small
businesses such as his. He claims Bush has made things good
for small businesses.

This bothers me if it is true, as I also believe small
businesses provide a crucial role in our economy and that
they are taxed enough as it is.

Does anybody have any commentary they'd like to forward to me
on this particular point and where Clinton stands on it?? I'd
be interested to hear other people's opinions and whether or not
what my friend says is likely true. Thanks in advance,

-John (grohol@novavax.nova.edu)

-- 
  John M. Grohol, M.S.    grohol@novavax.nova.edu     Nova University
--::--::--::--::--::--::--  the indigo girls:  --::--::--::--::--::--::--
   "Dark and dangerous like a secret that gets whispered in a hush,
    When I wake the things I dreamt about you last night make me blush." 	
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: starwatcher@uiuc.edu (starwatcher)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: starwatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: actuarial science program at uIUC
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:39:27 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

abandon hope, all ye humor-impaired who enter here...

john@anasazi.com (john r. moore) writes:
: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:

[ kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (kenneth mitchell) writes:]

: ]: 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. 

[...]

: ]And we can thank george bush (I capitalize neither "george" nor "bush",
: ]because he doesn't deserve the honor, even though it is poor grammar
: ]to do so) for this?
: 
: What a silly slam. George Bush is a human being, and as such deserves
: the honor of having his name capitalized. You dishonor yourself, not
: GHWB, by this tactic.

hmmmm.... i seem to have forgotten to put a smiley in my parenthetical
comment.  my "slam" was intended as a "slam" against mr. mitchell's
non-capitalization of "congress" or "democrat," even though it is
a grammatical error to do so.  come now, can't we be creative (and
attempt to be somewhat subtle) in our senseless flames?  :)

--
michael adams (aka starwatcher) 		"i stand by all the
internet:  starwatcher@uiuc.edu			 misstatements that i've made."
bitnet:    free1217@uiucvmd				-- dan quayle
anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
uUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!starwatcher     

marrou/lord in '92

(e. e. cummings, eat your heart out!  ;)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:11:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.190004.20879@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

[article deleted]

A small contribution to this debate: a magazine column I was reading last night
opens with the lines: "I have listened to NPR for many years; in reach and
scope it is far and away the best news radio operation. However, I am sometimes
driven to distraction by its persistent leftist bias..." (somewhat paraphrased)

The columnist: Morton Kondracke
The magazine:  The New Republic


Don Pajerek


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5592 alt.news-media:1325 alt.rush-limbaugh:4935
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Pursestrings
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:09:44 GMT

I have a question-
	Which body of government 'controls the purse strings?'
	Who then, in fact, is responsible for the 'legislation'
	which costs us so much?

	Would it not be the job of the executor to 'beat-back' that money-
hungry mob?  And isn't Bush the one ready and willing to beat back
those porkers?

				J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Sep5.232708.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
	<1992Sep7.061915.9261@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <37821@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:34:42 GMT

In article <37821@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>...  I don't doubt that Clinton is a very smart man, just a bad
>>candidate for president.  Why is it that in their eagerness to get rid of
>>Bush, people are willing to elect the ultimate car salesman?  Tsongas would
>>have been the best Democratic candidate (I would have voted for him and I
>>voted for Bush in '88).
>
>Same here. Tsongas couldn't get the nomination because 1) he wouldn't pander
>to the special interest groups, as Slick Willie has, 2) he doesn't look (or
>sound) good on TV, as does Slick Willie. 3) He campaigned on the most
>important issue - the defecit - that both Slick Willie and Bush are running
>from, 3) he did not have the backing of the power left of the Democratic
>Party, as does Slick Willie.

Shouldn't the above be #4? And I don't think that Clinton had much backing from
the left before his nomination.

You also missed 5) He wouldn't have had the slightest chance against George
Bush.

>I voted for Reagan 4 times (twice for governor, twice for President) and I
>still would have voted for Tsongas, if I had been given a chance.

And that's why. In 1984, Mondale said something like "he will raise taxes, I
will raise taxes, but he won't admit it, I just did". That strategy worked for
Reagan in '84, it worked for Bush in '88, it would have worked for him against
Tsongas in '92. As principled as Tsongas may be (And I highly admire his
courage to declare his decision for running at a time when many considered it
ridiculous for the Democrats to even try running somebody against Bush), he
just would have lacked the charisma to prevail against a George Bush in
campaigning mode.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "A technology whose lethal products last 100'000 years is not the
    way to boil water" -- Jerry Brown
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: When we lose the media...
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:27:40 GMT

In article <IefHqsG00iUxE8_JpX@andrew.cmu.edu> "Michael J. Keating" <mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>When we lose the media, we are in some major trouble!  I have been
>reading the statements concerning the CNN anchor admitting to a
>pro-Clinton bias in the media.  Do any of you realize how bad that is? 
>That means that every fact we hear about the election is tainted, which
>in turn means that any argument we make based on those facts is also
>tainted; biased.  WE NEED AN OBJECTIVE MEDIA!  Without it, we may as
>well believe every fact we hear directly from the candidates' mouths,
>which is in effect what we will be doing!  I have not yet made an
>irrevocable decision about the candidate I will vote for, but I know
>this; I would not take anything I hear from either candidate without a
>grain of salt.  Every statement is designed to paint a rosy picture,
>minimizing the faults of the speaker and deliberately dodging the issues
>in some cases.  Without an objective media, one that has not sold out to
>either election camp, we have no way of making well-informed, educated
>decisions.  I hope, that with only 57 days remaining until the election,
>that some journalists out there can hold out -- dor all our sakes.


There is no such thing as an "objective" media...the most one can
hope for is that the media will be "fair" and "factual".  I actually prefer it
when the media is more open about its biases, rather than protest
its objectivity...objectivity is a myth.  I don't mind an editorial
slant as long as it treats the opposing point-of-view fairly and
factually.  In fact, I tend to see such reporting as inherently
more honest...since the reporter has examined their own biases,
and made them clear to the reader (or listener or viewer).

As a non-American, it is somewhat amusing to watch commentators
argue about a liberal or conservative bias in the American media, 
when the greatest bias is how "provincial" and "parochial"
American news is compared to news in other countries...even
in the so-called media with the liberal or leftist slant.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: The blame game
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:26:36 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

: You don't just point at the White House, say "So and so was President,
: look at years <X> through <X + 3>" and say "So and so did such and
: such."  Reagan entered the White House with the economy is bad shape
: and getting worse.  He left the White House with the economy in good
: shape and getting better.

By the same reasoning, the argument could be made that the Republicans
are to blame for our current recession.  After all, who's been in the
Oval Office, exerting pressure on the Fed and supposedly making
policy decisions for the the past 11.67 years?

Seems to me it's about time for a change.

--
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     			


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:45:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.037 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <1992Sep7.200625.14617@leland.Stanford.EDU>  altman@leland.Stanford.EDU (John David Altman) writes:
> One of the original sources of the recent spate of "media bias" was Brit
> Hume of ABC news, a regular tennis partner (or is it jogging partner) of
> the president.  Then there is Thomas Friedman of the NYT, a good buddy
> of James Baker.  And the MacNeil-Lehrer Administration Forum News Hour.
>
> In this era when the media think that the major requirement for carrying out
> their job is to cultivate sources (cocktail party journalism), the
> accusation of media bias is ridiculous.

Exactly!

>
>
>                                 John
>




Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
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: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:06:31 GMT

In <1992Sep6.091335.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>     Did anyone see the 9/5/92 'Reliable Sources' show on CNN?
>(This is a show that examines and critiques the media.)
>CNN anchor Reid Collins, who was a guest on this show, admitted 
>twice that he believes there is a pro-Clinton bias in the reporting 
>of this year's election campaigns.  He was, however, somewhat 
>apprehensive to give his reasoning behind this belief.

>     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
think its any kind of organized conspiracy to support Clinton, but its
just the natural biases of the people making the decisions.

>     2.  How much longer until CNN fires Reid Collins?

Why should CNN fire Collins for that? What's the difference between
Reid Collins admitting that, and Elanor Clift appearing *every week*
on the McLaughlin Group spewing her pro-abortion, liberal, left-wing
garbage, and then going and writing "objective" news stories for
Newsweek?

Michael Jenkinson
Graduate Student
Journalism, Carleton University, Ottawa
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4635 alt.news-media:1192 talk.politics.misc:44438
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Campaign final few days' conservative slide
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:20:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T

dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>But you can't generalize from 1988 to the American system as a whole.

OK, but that election could be worse as a yardstick... it provides data
with at least one common factor: Bush/Quayle. Other than that, caveat
emptor.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark)
Subject: Re: Anti-Clinton posters
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:22:02 GMT

In article <14735@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> 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.
>


Give us a break.
Would you propose that there be no Bush-bashing here, then ?
Why one and not the other ?

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:06:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
      [...]
>> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
>> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
>> this knowledge?
>>
>> Jim Del Vecchio
>>
>>
>
>Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
>grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
>
My supporters are thoughtful, caring people; yours are beer-swilling
rednecks. Do I detect a value judgement? Very unmutual of you.
 
>Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
>irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
>some of the people most of the time.
 
Selective reporting is irrelevant? Only to those whose decisions are not
affected by factual reporting, I suppose. I'll bet this is one of the
same posters who denied there was any tilt in the convention reporting,
too ;-)
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh