HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Quayle, and the draft (Was Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!)
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:30:37 GMT

hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>   jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>
>>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?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>Break out of your campaign fog for a minute and look at the facts.  Do
>>you think this is right?

>The issue here is that Dan Quayle has well placed parents who were able to
>help him, while Bill Clinton had to help himself.  Clinton had the grades
>to get a Rhodes Scholarship, Quayle did not.  Clinton was able to avoid
>Vietnam by himself, Quayle was not.

Actually, that wasn't the issue.  You've conveniently redirected it.
The issue was: if it was OK for Clinton to do *anything legal* to get out
of going to Vietnam, why was that not OK for Quayle?  (You can talk about
how you scorn people with connections in some other post.)

>This is the same issue as how Quayle got into a law school that had a
>2.60 GPA requirement when his was 2.16 (figures from memory).  He had a
>rich, powerful family.

Get real.  He may have had friends in the right places, but he certainly was
not brought up in a rich, powerful family.  You've been reading too many
newspapers.  But I digress.  This wasn't the original subject... 

>hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
>An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Well, I don't know what TBDBITL means, but if you want to talk Rose
Bowl, I'm game!  I believe the Huskies *own* that little bit of hollowed
ground.

Chip Switzer, counting the days 'til I *leave* Ohio for the Emerald City.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:54:19 GMT

In article <ART.92Aug30122635@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

|> 	   In 1973, the precidents for childrens rights simply did not exist.
|> 
|> Whaaaaaat?  I remember plenty of cases of child abuse being tried.  There
|> were also plenty of cases children being removed from homes for a variety
|> of unhealthy reasons.  The issue didn't have the aura of hysteria that it
|> has today (remember the McMartin case).

	No, and it was also far more arbitrary. I said the precidenents didn't
exists, I didn't say it wasn't happening. What has happened in the last 20
years is that the law has attained some coherency.

|> Are you saying Hillary's writings influenced law?  Care to cite some proof?

	Well, it was printed in the Harvard Law Review, which is read by people
who make law, so it follows that her writing was read by people who later
made some decisions. She was not alone, of course, and her work is only a 
part of a larger body, but she was clearly influencial, if you look at her
career as a lawyer.

	Ironicly, few people would have disagreed with that until recently.
I citing advances in childrens welfare, Barbara Bush once heaped prais on 
a program that was defigned by Hillary Clinton. She's probably forgotten 
about it by now, though.

|> There are plenty of laws on these subjects on the books already.  Why not
|> inforce the ones that exist instead of asking the government to get even
|> deeper in our domestic beds.

	Your getting desparate, try to slow down. Yes, laws exists, and yes,
enforcing them is a good idea, but even more emportant is to try and give
the law some consistancy but establishing guidelines for making law in the
first place. If you don't do that, the law becomes dependent on the disposition
of individual judges, and changes by the hour. This process is exactly
what Hillary Clinton has dedicated her carreer to, and she has received
high marks for her work. 

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Clinton's connections (was Re: Clinton, Quayle, and the draft)
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:45:14 GMT


JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.201259.13950@dbsun.uucp>
>hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>The issue here is that Dan Quayle has well placed parents who were able to
>>help him, while Bill Clinton had to help himself.  Clinton had the grades
>>to get a Rhodes Scholarship, Quayle did not.  Clinton was able to avoid
>>Vietnam by himself, Quayle was not.

>Bwaahahahahahahaha!  Boy this is true justice!  I always thought that this
>endless badgering of Quayle might come back to haunt the Demogogues.
>Now as it just so happens, as reported in the LA Times today, what
>Slick Willie did was have his uncle pull some strings to save his
>quaking, quivering, wet pants from going to Viet Nam.

>Now, the honorable Demogogues will be sure to stick to their moral
>posturing on Quayle and throw Clinton off the ticket, won't they? Uh-huh.
>After all, what has been said of Quayle and used as evidence that
>Quayle shouldn't be on the ticket (pulling strings) is even truer of
>Corporal Clinton.  I think consistency and fairness here demands
>that Clinton be publically ridculed as Quayle has been for 4 years on
>this issue.  Right!  It will be cute to see the Demogogues slip and
>slide their way out of this one.

It will be very interesting, indeed, to see how this is played.  I will
also be interested to see if this turns out to be a "non-issue" as it
certainly was not four years ago (and even this year) with Quayle.

By the way, the story ended with, "There was nothing illegal in these
steps.  One function of local draft boards was to use discretion in
unusual circumstances, even if that meant giving favorable treatment."

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: perry@bluemtn.COM (Perry Minyard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: WANTED: Tape recording of SEPT 1 Rush show
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:19:22 GMT
Organization: blue mountain software

I am looking for somebody who taped Rush's Sept 1 show.
If you have a tape recording of it, please let me know so I can arrange
to get a copy of it from you.  Thanks,

Perry Minyard

P.S.  I was told by a few friends that he read a letter of mine on the air
      and that he really *BLASTED* me!   I wanna hear what he said!


perry@bluemtn.com

-- 
*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
| A mind is a terrible thing to taste.  0 0  | perry@bluemtn.com           |
| Oh yes!  I feel it now.. I'm ZANGIN!   V   | 71020.3073@compuserve.com   |
*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:27:43 GMT

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

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4064 alt.activism.d:2960 alt.news-media:1075
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:02:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Eric Titmas, in response to one of my comments, asks how a liberal can be
for abortion-rights but against capital punishment.  The answer to this
question seems fairly obvious: pro-choice people obviously do not really
believe a fetus in the first (and maybe second) trimester really is a
human being, but they think a mass murderer IS a human being and hasn't
sacrificed his/her humanity by committing heinous crimes.  I don't see
why this is so inconsistent.  And Eric is right, pro-life and
pro-executions go together OK too if you qualify the positions by saying
pro-innocent-life, but then I question whether it is really such a
fundamental position.  It amounts to the following: humans have no
right to take another human life, unless the other human is really bad.
Is this really any more fundamental than pro-choice, which equals
pro-reproductive-choice?  Probably not.

By the way, before Chip jumps in and starts assuming I'm revealing more
liberal bias, I should mention that I personally am not one of the
many who are both pro-choice and anti-capital-punishment.

steve
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3982 alt.news-media:1019 alt.activism.d:2910
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Family Values, the GOP\P\O\GDemocrat way
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:39:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.214750.13550@csc.ti.com>, dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:

|> Isn't it the Federal Reserve/S&L "reform" that Jimmy Carter gave us great?

	In it self, it's not so bad. Freeing up the S&Ls to do other
things had more then a few benifits. The problems came when the Reagan 
administration refused to do the little bit of regulation that remained.
There's nothing wrong with flexible S&Ls, as long as they stay solovent;
It's the kind of blatently irresponsible behavior by people like Neil Bush
that got everybody into trouble.

	The Reagan administration supervised the regulatory agencies that
were supposed to watch the S&Ls. They had two options in hte early 80s,
they could either enhance the regulatory effort, or they could kill
federal responsibilty. They did neither.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3969 alt.news-media:1008 alt.activism.d:2900
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:56:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

If PRO-LIFE is such a fundamental position, then why are there so many
pro-lifers who support capital punishment?

Steve
From: sn@mindvox.phantom.com (SN/DPAK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:48:32 GMT
Organization: [Phantom Access] / the MindVox system


  
     A 50 % tax bracket ??  Who wants to work hard to make $250,000 a year
just to give half of it to the spend-happy pork-barrel Government, where
there is no incentive for efficiency??


     And if Clinton just wants to raise the top rates a very few percent
(4-5), that is not going to be enough to fund his 200 Billion Dollar
Tax&Spend fantasy.


SN/DPAK

sn@mindvox.phantom.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:21:49 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep2.130521.18346@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> 
> fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu writes:
> 
>>I guess this points out the fact that Bush is a reactive
>>President.  I doubt that he's done something to prevent a situation
>>in his life.
> 
> I guess we can count on Clinton to be more *pro-active* about natural
> disasters?  I haven't heard any of his plans for making sure hurricanes
> or earthquakes don't strike during his administration.
> 

     Clinton may not have a plan to eliminate hurricanes, but I believe
Gore does.  In his book "Earth in the Balance," Gore (obviously) "proves"
the existence of global warming.  The beginning of Chapter 5, entitled
"If the Well Goes Dry," discusses how global warming causes warmer oceans.
Then, on pg. 106, the Gospel according to Gore reads as follows:

     "Warming oceans are also likely to cause the average hurricane to
     be more powerful, scientists say, because the depth and warmth of
     the ocean's top layer is the single most important factor in
     determining the speed of a hurricane's winds.  More powerful and
     more frequent storms coming into the land from the ocean would in
     turn greatly exacerbate the damage from rising sea levels, for
     it is during storm surges that the sea advances farthest inland
     from the coast."

I'm surprised Gore is not blaming the Bush administration for their
lack of action regarding global warming--  if Gore were president,
there would be no global warming, thus giving us cooler oceans,
which would have resulted in Hurricane Andrew being "a gentle
late summer shower."

     C. Perttunen

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: NASA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:50:30 GMT

Stephen D Brener writes:
> Did the Republican convention look like a large circus of red-necks
> to anyone else on the net?

  That was my impression as well.  And it wasn't limited to the delegates and  
audience; I wish I had taped every nameless speaker who regurgitated the same  
worn-out line about those bad old liberal democrats in Congress.  A compilation  
of these clips might make for a really funny Democratic 30-second spot.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.activism.d
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:54:24 GMT

hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.190513.10843@afit.af.mil>,
>  jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>>
>>>Maybe you are the one who should question your rock-solid opinions and
>>>judgmental demeanor.
>>
>>If I sounded judgemental (to you or in any other post) it was not 
>>intentional.  I admit I get carried away sometimes, but not usually 
>>in a partisan way.  What I rally against is not necessarily the liberal
>>agenda.  It is (and you can check my other posts) against the arrogance
>>of "my opinion is the only G*d d*mned opinion that makes *any* sense
>>and anybody who disagrees with me is ignorant."  Not that your post 
>>sounded like that, but media bias has a tendency to come off like that
>>(as in your making the "accurate" choice about labels) and that is why I 
>>hate it so much. 
>>
>>And I don't think I need to question my opinions.  I have them and so
>>does everybody else.  The free flow of these opinions on the net is a
>>great thing.  I have a problem when those opinions work their way into
>>a news story, though.

>Why not?  Your opinion could be wrong.  I had the opinion that the U.S.
>should do something like air strikes to help the Bosnians.  I have since
>changed my mind.  This is why I don't understand all the criticism of
>politicians flip-flopping, if they are really changing their mind on
>an issue.  Flip-flopping for political gain is another story.

Well, that didn't come out quite the way I meant it.  Maybe I
misunderstood Steve's dig.  I change my mind frequently and would hope
others are open to a change in their own opinions.  I really meant that
I shouldn't have to question the fact that I *have* strong opinions--
not the opinions themselves.  To never change one's mind is, in my
opinion, truely a waste of that mind.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:41:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug26.190115.15019@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Give me a little credit.

Credit for what?  Intelligence?  I think not.

>I think the universe is a closed system.

Irrelevant of course.  The Earth is not a closed system.

And the tiny little places on Earth where evolution took/takes place are not
at all closed systems.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: misinformation from the right
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 19:33:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.182510.12769@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> 
> 
> 	Back in the days when Mike Schwartz and Don Palmrose were willing 
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to follow Dan Quayle's lead and insist that there was 12% unemployement
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> under Jimmy Carter (You remember, the one who is going to be implemented
> in the BCCI scandle real soon now), there were several requests for the
> yearly unemployment stats for the last 20 years. Hear they are, up to
> 1988, I trust we can agree on the numbers for the last 4 years ...
>
  [other info not related to my comments deleted to save space] 

>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
> The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
> encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
> witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
> 
> 

Thanks for the info, I also notice that you changed your signature from some-
thing like "if you believe me, you get what you deserve...".  I find that 
interesting since **I never said umemployment was 12% under Carter**.  What I 
did state several times was that if one is willing to declare Bush guilty on
no evident for the "October Surprise", then the same can be said of Carter 
concerning BCCI.

If you are going to use my name and what I state incorrectly, please make it 
humorous so I can have a couple of laughs over it ;-)    I will assume that
the unemployment figures are better than your memory of events ;-) ;-).

Yours truly,
Don Palmrose

P.S. How is one implemented by a court of law.... :-) :-) :-)
(I know, I know, its a typo.  I know because I are a Engineer.  Remember, to
quote David Letterman,  "IT'S JUST A JOKE....")







========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.clinton
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:05:21 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida

fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu writes:

>I guess this points out the fact that Bush is a reactive
>President.  I doubt that he's done something to prevent a situation
>in his life.  The only time that I can recall him setting a policy
>that wasn't a _reaction_ to an event is his giving agricultural 
>credits to the Iraqis.:-)

>-MeatHead

I guess we can count on Clinton to be more *pro-active* about natural
disasters?  I haven't heard any of his plans for making sure hurricanes
or earthquakes don't strike during his administration.  But perhaps
it's in keeping with his general policy to keep vague on the details...

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Info on Dan Quayle's camera coverage during Buchanan's speech
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:32:41 GMT

martinn@mksol.dseg.ti.com (niels r martin) writes:
>Translation-----The only thing scarier than Slick Willie becoming president
>is that he wouldn't manage to live out his term!

    Strange, I thought George Bush was the one whose health we should all 
be concerned for (even us commie-libs) (maybe *especially* us commie-libs).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:16:54 GMT
Summary: Not only through, but to....

In article <6006@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
> The best way to "transfer" federal Medicare/MedicAid money to the states
> for them to use as they see fit (in health care) is for the federal 
> government to stop collecting that money and let the state do that part
> of the job too.
> 
> The less money that passes through Washington, DC, the better we'll all be.
> 
Only if our guy Bill & Co. get in the White House, not only will more money
flow *through*, it'll sure as heck flow TO........Can we send Clinton 
backers a billing statement for his increased taxes???

                                                 H.R. Holm

*standard disclaimers, comment my own*
*pls post replies to the group only*       **********************************
                                            Bill & Al have what it takes...
                                             to take WHAT YOU'VE GOT.
                                           **********************************