HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 17:53:55 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


In article <1992Oct6.165228.4298@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.162409.20615@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes:
> >In <1992Oct6.015255.24699@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> >
> >>In article <1992Oct5.210417.18366@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes:
> >
> >>>which one would face having once been admitted?  What's Slick Willy to do once
> >>>he finds the Oval Office beyond his desires or capabilities?
> >
> > 
> >>   Excellent question !
> > 
> >>   I'll answer that by asking,
> > 
> >>   What are we voters to do after we already found the Oval Office is indeed 
> >>beyond GHWB's desire and capabilities ? 
> >
> >I am no Bush apologist and congratulations on successfully evading the
> >question.  You don't determine the opponent's credentials by blasting the
> >incumbent.
> >--
>  
>    Well, if you are not satisfied with my previous answer, let me make it
> easier for you and maybe some others, 
>  
>    Realisticly, we have to choose eith Bush or Clinton. 
>    
>    Bush is already proven not up to the job.
>    
>    Clinton is an unknown as you feared. Since Bush is a no, Clinton is a 
>    maybe no, only logical answer is for Clinton.
>    
>    And if later he finds the office is beyond his capabilities, we'll elect
>    another one who maybe is another no. 4 years later, if this country still
>    has the same Constitution.

But its more than just surviving 4 years; its a question of how long it takes to
repair the damage done.. typically presidents try to leave a "legacy", and it 
looks like Mr. Clinton's legacy would be ..even more goverment.. gee, just what
i always wanted!

Bush is no gem, but i think the damage he causes will be shorter term and more
easily repaired.

>  
>    This is how American politics works. (well, this is how everything works,
>    you throw out the known bad one and try the best that is available)
>  
>    Is this clear enough ? 
>  
>   
> 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.210417.18366@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes:
>
>Clinton is a shifty little devil.  Of course, he _IS_ a lawyer by training.

So's Quayle.  His eyes shift when they lose that caught-in-the-headlights look.



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1420 alt.rush-limbaugh:5881
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Another was Re: Conservative bias example
Date: 25 Sep 92 21:57:24 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Sep21.192746.27036@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:

[...]
> 
> I propose three tests that would prove liberal bias,  if anyone can show
> that these three conditions are true I would be willing to except that the
> press is Liberal biased;
> 
> 1.  That there is a  group of persons who control the content of the entire
> news that the majority of Americans get and that other people or
> organizations can not effect the decisions of these people.  In other words
> the Media to be biased by a certain group must be controlled by that group,
>  this Media to be effective must not be regularly contradicted or its
> content effected from outside.
> 	
> Even if most reporters and writers are pro-Clinton you still have to show
> that they control the content of the news and that the President, PR firms,
> Spin Doctors, Companies, Lawyer etc do not have an input into the news
> content.  That is the people who run the press must be shown to control its
> content.  

Preposterous!  You don't have to prove a conspiracy to argue for media
bias.  You don't have to prove a conspiracy to argue for any bias.
Most academics are biased toward Liberal causes, as one can hear in
any classroom, but there is no centralized network of plotters to
bring this about.  

The problem with the media is always the same: in their better moments
responsible newspeople *usually* admit that media people have a general
pro-Liberal bias, *but* -- they hasten to add - "it doesn't affect our
reporting."  (You heard this yet again a few weeks ago on Ted Koppel's
_Viewpoiont_ )  What it boils down to is that the media are asking us
for a blank check: we're supposed to grant them a purity of motive
that we would grant no other group with comparable power.

> 2.  This group that controls the press must be commited to the promotion of
> rule by liberals in the Democratic party.

No knowledgeable person believes that a single group controls the
press.

> 3.  This political commitment or bias must effect their content decisions.

It does, and it's documented, but no one pays any attention.  Edith
Effron, who claimed she wasn't a Conservative, did a content analysis
of the Nixon campaign coverage which was methodologically impeccable.
She was on about three talk shows and then forgotten.


Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: Kevin Joyce: Info wanted
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:28:49 GMT

In article <30SEP199222260249@acad3.alaska.edu> fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan) writes:
>I was watching Crier & Co. this morning, and they were talking about DOS
>Perot (sorry, couldn't resist).  One of the guests that they had was a
>conservative talk show host from Detroit named Kevin Joyce.  He caught
>my attention with his comment that George Bush is not a conservative
>(which is true), so now I want to know more about him and his show. 
>Basically, general information would be helpful, but specifically:
>
>When and for how long does his show air?

Kevin Joyce has been kicking around the Detroit talk radio scene for
nearly 15 years on at least two different stations.  At present, I'm
pretty sure he's on WJR (AM 760) during the evenings from about 8-11 PM
(Except during Tiger baseball games).
>
>What's the general thrust of conversation on the show?  (I would assume
>politics)
>
You can hear politics, religion, entertainment, and probably a lot of
other topics as well.  He often has Professor Raymond Tanter on his
show.  Tanter is a distinguished professor of Political Science at
the University of Michigan.  He's Black, somewhat conservative, and was
a former advisor to either Reagan or Bush.  

>Has he come out publically in support for any presidential candidate,
>and if so, for whom?  (He did state that he felt Bush would win in
>November)
 
I've never heard him explicitly endorse any candidate, although he's
clearly a conservative.
>


-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:52:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.210417.18366@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes:

>which one would face having once been admitted?  What's Slick Willy to do once
>he finds the Oval Office beyond his desires or capabilities?
>
 
   Excellent question !
 
   I'll answer that by asking,
 
   What are we voters to do after we already found the Oval Office is indeed 
beyond GHWB's desire and capabilities ? 
 
   We have essentially two choices at this time, try Quayle or try Clinton. 

  Quayle was tested and called by a 12 year old as "stupid", finished 
   "public school" with grades no one will brag about, and his parents 
   earned him the admission into law school.

  Clinton was tested and earned himself Rhodes Scholar honor, was the youngest 
   governor and highly regarded as a governor by many other governors of
   both parties.


Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:46:45 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct5.202311.628@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Oct5.130527.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     It's difficult to attribute the title of "student" to Clinton
>>in his second year, since he really didn't show up for class on
>>a regular basis (if at all), he did not take the exams, and did not
>>graduate.
> 
> I never showed up to, say, Number Theory on a regular basis, if at all.
> 
     I'm assuming you did take the exams and did *pass* number 
theory.  Here's a more important question: did you go to Moscow 
on spring break -- during the winter time?  And secondly, would
the pages in your passport corresponding to these trips be 
"conveniently" missing?   :-)
     Now that I know you have expertise in number theory, I'm
becoming suspicious.  For all I know, you may be a KGB 
cryptographer.  What's the largest prime number that you know, huh?
I'm going to have to call the Republican Dirty Tricks Committee
to look into you. :-)

     C. Perttunen
From: nlns@igc.apc.org (New Liberation News Service)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: A WORD ABOUT BIAS...
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:23:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1638300010:000:1311
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!nlns    Oct  1 22:23:00 1992


This is from the editorial box of a progressive student newspaper at MIT,
*The Thistle*. They can be reached at <thistle@athena.mit.edu>.

A Word About Bias
	This newspaper is biased. Bias is not a deplorable state; rather
it is a human condition. People are biased in all that they speak and
write. The words or euphamisms we use, the actions we choose to report
on and those we relegate to the "unnewsworthy" file, are expressions of
our bias. In this culture, the term "unbiased" is misused to mean the
viewpoint of the majority. The danger arises when the mainstream begins
to label opposing viewpoints as being biased and thus somehow less
accurate, academically uncredible, and socially unacceptable. In this
way, the unstated biases of the majority have the greatest influence on
the readership. Since most Americcans want to be in the know and part of
a larger group, if not part of the mainstream, we tend to accept the
majority's "unbiased" opinion as the truth, while ignoring those minority
opinions labelled as "biased."
	We feel that an openly stated viewpoint is a more equitable
position to hold. It informs the reader that the human who is presenting
this information has an outlook on the world which may color the presentation.
This stand is an honest one, which is the most we may hope for.
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1465 alt.politics.clinton:8735
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:16:38 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Oct6.013406.24510@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.205324.17955@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes:
>>
>>Perhaps if the US and USSR were not at one of the iciest points in the
>>cold war it would appear that this was twisted reasoning.  Indeed,
>>questions DO need to be asked about WHY Willy was in the USSR then and
>>just exactly WHAT was he up to?  Anything else is just idle speculation
>>or wishful thinking.
>>
>>All Dornan was doing was bringing the matter to light so that it could
>>be properly scrutinized by the press and the public.  Why fear disclosure
>>of the facts in this matter?  Why pooh-pooh it as something routine before
>>the matter is properly examined?

Because I am familiar with Dornan's past (before I moved to Colorado).
>>
>>COVER UP!!!!!!
>>
>>--
>>"Yes, he really said that!"
>
> 


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:59:52 GMT

In article <BvMFyy.IF8@well.sf.ca.us>, casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton) writes:
> 
> 
> I understand that such educational exchanges were routine for Oxford
> students.
> 
> 

They were. This is another lame attempt to make Clinton look bad using
twisted reasoning.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,mi.misc
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Kevin Joyce: Info wanted
Followup-To: alt.news-media
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Fairbanks, Alaska...no wait, that's not right...
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:26:00 GMT

I was watching Crier & Co. this morning, and they were talking about DOS
Perot (sorry, couldn't resist).  One of the guests that they had was a
conservative talk show host from Detroit named Kevin Joyce.  He caught
my attention with his comment that George Bush is not a conservative
(which is true), so now I want to know more about him and his show. 
Basically, general information would be helpful, but specifically:

When and for how long does his show air?

What's the general thrust of conversation on the show?  (I would assume
politics)

Has he come out publically in support for any presidential candidate,
and if so, for whom?  (He did state that he felt Bush would win in
November)

Thanks in advance.  For those who are reading this on mi.misc, please
follow up to alt.news-media, as I obviously don't read mi.misc.  Or
better yet, e-mail responses to me.

************************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan*****Internet: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
WWIVnet: 220@9704*CFN: au414*IRC: RadioKAOS, Aoxomoxoa*Ph: (907)488-8365
BITnet: FSSPR@ALASKA****Snail: P.O. Box 83381, Fairbanks, AK  99708-3381
***"I'm gonna Kentucky Fried Chickenize your prostate surgery." - Oswald
Bates, In Living Color***Disclaimer?  BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!***
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Why do people read opinion journals?
Date: 4 Oct 92 08:28:05 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I have never seen this question addressed:  Why do people subscribe to
and read opinion journals, the viewpoint of which they are in
agreement with?  What are the reader motivations?  Mutatis mutandis
(I've always wanted to say that) for other media X if any really fit the
category of "opinion X."

I have asked this question of editors of such journals, including WFB
when he was editor of National Review and Emmet Tyrell (sp?), editor
of American Spectator, and I've never gotten a straight answer.  (It
dawns on me I've never asked it of a left-wing editor; maybe that's
significant.) 

The pat answer is surely: to get ammunition for the viewpoint,
whatever it is.  But what good is ammunition for a viewpoint that
comes from a source openly favoring that viewpoint?  We all know the
best arguments are those conceded by your opponents; second-best are
those supported by a neutral party.  If I want to support my argument
for foo the weakest source is one that is known to be pro-foo.

Is it some kind of comfort that people get out of sort of wallowing in
their own cherished notions?  To me it seems a lot more gratifying to
have people agree with you when you *didn't* expect them to...
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1438 alt.politics.clinton:8395 alt.conspiracy:10961
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
From: rotstan@husc9.harvard.edu (Karl Rotstan)
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:02:39 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <92278.154428MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>In article <1alv6bINNr4u@early-bird.think.com>, karlr@think.com (Karl Rotstan)
>says:
>>In article <92277.002500QAA@psuvm.psu.edu> QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
>>writes:
>>Nevertheless, I do find it interesting to discover that Clinton was hanging
>>out in MOSCOW in January 1970 at the height of the Vietnam war.  I wonder
>>what excuse we'll hear about this one, if any...
>
>Well, he's a Communist. Once elected, he will dissolve the Congress, ban
>all private business, and rule by fiat with the Central Committee. Gore
>will be out the window, replaced with Gorbachev (see, the names are similar
>so you won't notice the switch.)

At the very least, it shows poor judgement.  BTW, Clinton's aids admit he was there in Dec. 1969.  Probably just seeing the sites like any other tourist, at 
-20 deg. C

>
>Oh, didn't you know already?
>
>Also, I hear that in his spare time Clinton goes around kicking dogs
>and stealing lollipops from small children.

Actually, he's too busy with the bimbo eruptions.

>
>Cross-posted to alt.conspiracy, which is where stuff like Dornan's ravings
>REALLY belongs.
>

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton
From: joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle)
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:21:30 GMT
Distribution: usa

Last, lets take an equally plausable (sp?) inference from Dornan's
facts.  George Bush being president runs the State
department, FBI, and the Justice department.  He appoints the heads of
each department.  So, much like Iran Contra someone in these
departments conveinently looses some papers from the Clinton file,
then they release phony press reports accusing him to being
 a communist.
Does all this RING A BELL WITH OUR READING PUBLIC!!! THIS IS ALMOST
EXACTLY WHAT WATERGATE WAS ALL ABOUT, TRICKY DICK FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
AND ISSUED PHONY PRESS REPORTS ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.  So, let
me throw that out, as frivolously as Dornan and then require
George Bush to prove it all wrong and if he does not have access to
all the information, too bad because it is a plausable news worthy
factual report, RIGHT?  WRONG and that is why it is not worth the
print!!

-- 
Joe Mehrle                        ----------------------------------
Mead Data Central, Dayton, Ohio   |  **    CLINTON/GORE `92      **  |
Internet: joem@meaddata.com       ----------------------------------
UUCP:     !uunet!meaddata!joem    
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1443 alt.politics.clinton:8461
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:05:27 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct5.135952.26362@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> In article <BvMFyy.IF8@well.sf.ca.us>, casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton) writes:
>> 
>> I understand that such educational exchanges were routine for Oxford
>> students.
   ^^^^^^^^  
> 
> They were. This is another lame attempt to make Clinton look bad using
> twisted reasoning.
> 
     It's difficult to attribute the title of "student" to Clinton
in his second year, since he really didn't show up for class on
a regular basis (if at all), he did not take the exams, and did not
graduate.

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1466 alt.politics.clinton:8737 alt.politics.bush:7930
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush's long-term damage
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:38:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) said..
>
>But its more than just surviving 4 years; its a question of how long it 
>takes to repair the damage done.. typically presidents try to leave a 
>"legacy", and it looks like Mr. Clinton's legacy would be ..even more 
>goverment.. gee, just what i always wanted!
>
>Bush is no gem, but i think the damage he causes will be shorter term 
>and more easily repaired.

Here's some (only two -- there are hundreds more) long-term effects of 
Bush's damage:

[edited for brevity]

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- 
         [...] the government, in order to finance
 its massive debt, must borrow more and more. That drives up long-term
 interest rates. Increasing borrowing also takes a bigger bite out of the
 money supply, leaving less for the private sector to use for investment.
         "The deficit continues to be a real drag on the economy in the long
 run," said Wyss, who is research director for DRI/McGraw Hill in
 Lexington, Mass.  [...]
         In the current year, spending so far has totaled $1.27 trillion,
 while revenues totaled $972.86 billion.

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- 
	Gov. Bill Clinton's plan to overhaul the nation's
health care system would save more money and provide health insurance to
more Americans than President Bush's proposal, a bipartisan report
concluded Thursday.
        The nation would spend $2.2 trillion more on health care over the
next 12 years under Bush's proposal compared to Clinton's, and 27
million Americans would still have no health insurance, according to the
report from Families USA, a non-profit health care reform advocacy
group.  [...]
        Bush's plan would save $31 billion in spending on health care by the
year 2000 while the Clinton plan would save $211 billion, the report
said. By the year 2005, the Bush plan would save $46 billion compared to
a savings of $481 billion under Clinton's plan, the report said.
	[...]
        While Clinton's plan would provide health insurance to all Americans
by the year 2005, Bush's plan would leave 27 million Americans without
insurance, the report said. In addition, Bush's plan would leave 11.8
million more Americans ``underinsured'' than Clinton's plan by the end
of the decade, the report said.


Allan

If anyone would like the full text of either one of these, I'd be happy
to email them to you.
-- 
Allan Schaffer                                       Notice 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com       Due to budgetary constraints the light at 
aschaffe@netcom.com                 the end of the tunnel is being turned off.
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton
From: casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton)
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:59:21 GMT


I understand that such educational exchanges were routine for Oxford
students.
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1444 alt.politics.clinton:8465 alt.conspiracy:10976