HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: MY VIEW OF THE DEBATE
Date: 13 Oct 1992 16:23:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   I have no problem with Clinton protesting the war. My problem is that he
always attempts to stay on both sides of issues. Go ahead and SAY you protested
the war. I probably would have done the same thing had I be old enough at that
time. I don't support Bush. There really has nothing to do with him. I'm
simply saying that you have to have views on different subjects. You can't
pander and then expect people to believe you stand for something. Clinton stands
for whatever is going to get him the most votes on any particular day. It all
depends on who he is talking to at that moment. I can respect a man's views,
even if they don't agree with mine, but I can't respect a man that will kiss
anybody's behind to get what he wants. I knew enough people like that at work.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
From: tdboyce@cco.caltech.edu (tdboyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton waffling?
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 10 Oct 1992 22:35:01 GMT
Organization: caltech
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.215.139.52

I have heard quiet a bit in the news that Clinton has waffled or been less
than forthright on various issues and events that have come up from time to
time during his presidental campaign.  Consequently, according to opinion
polls he seems to have a trust problem with the American people. 

As an undecided voter, this is an issue I will take into account if it can
be verified. My request is for someone on the net to substantiate these
claims with a series of Clinton quotes (with dates and sources of quotes)
that clearly show him waffling, or appearing to show him being less that
truthful until being confronted with facts to the contrary. 

Thanks in advance,

Tom
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:45:27 GMT

In article <1bcj28INNper@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>No, but the Constitution is a written code of law. To read into it
>>whatever one wants, would be equivilent to throwing away the whole
>>thing. Wherever possible, it should eb interperted to mean what it
>>was written to mean (e.g. what the framers intended the provision 
>>in question to mean.) This helps remove modern political bias, etc..

>It helps remove modern political bias, but it may restore old
>political and social biases.  

But these "old" biases are ones to which the people have formally
consented (by ratifying the Constitution or its Amendments.) They
are not biases imposed by the whim of nine old, unelected men. 

>Progress is making *new* mistakes.

But the mistakes should be made by the people themselves (by amending the
Constitution to reflect modenr, not archaic, biases and stupid ideas), not 
by having the Supreme Court impose its biases on the people, without 
their consent.

                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52005 ca.politics:8692 ba.politics:6112
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:04:05 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct9.214739.1488@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>Your view of the employee/employer relationship is substantially
>different than mine, as well as being substantially different
>from that in the laws of the legal system of the US.
>Then, I guess you can find another country. 

Why should he be forced to leave in order to find a country more to his
liking.  Why can't he work to change this one.  This arguement sounds to
close to the old love it or leave it arguement.

My country. 
Love it, leave it, or change it.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton will clarify
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:26:10 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct9.152414.15518@linus.mitre.org>, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
> 
> And for those with "that far in the past doesn't matter":  Care to vote for
> Nixon?
> 

Ahh.... damn... too bad he's not eligible... you can only be elected 
to the presidency twice... his was 68 and 72...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:09:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Oct9.233136.23011@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>In <MATT.92Oct7115038@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>]In<1992Oct7.022226.19164@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>]> He WAS in the SU in '70. He admitted it on TV last night.

>]"Admitted"?!  It's an "admission" to say that you travelled during
>]your Christmas vacation?  

>Yes, admitted. He never brought it up until he was asked as a result
>of Republican digging. This is the same guy who has been slippery about

Oooh. Took a lot of digging there.  He also never brought up the fact
that he studied arithmatic in elementary school.  If you ask him about
it, maybe he'll "admit" it, though.

>the draft business, dishonest about the Jennifer Flowers business, and in
>general lies a lot. All sorts of stuff about his anti-war stuff is now

Proof of lying?

>coming out. I have no problems with him being against the war, but when
>he (a) demonstrates against the US in a FOREIGN country, and, the same

He didn't demonstrate against the US.  He demonstrated against the war.
He was *in* a foreign country.  It would have been awfully expensive to
fly home just to demonstrate and then come back, and really silly, since
there were already demonstrations going on in England.

>year (b) travels to the capital of the main enemy (which, by the way, was the 
>term used by the Soviets when discussing OUR country) while we are in a war,
>I have real problems with his judgement.

I *really* don't understand this one.  

We weren't *at* war with the USSR.  Yes, there was the Cold War.  So?  The 
State Dept estimates that 40-60 THOUSAND people a year visited the USSR 
during the Vietnam war.  What's the big deal?  *Everyone* who's at Oxford who 
can afford it tours Europe during Christmas break.  Why is it odd that Bill 
Clinton did?

>[ Bush doesn't deserve to be elected. The american people don't deserve
>  to have Clinton elected. ]

I have real problems with the judgment of anyone who would send emissaries
to a country which has just massacred thousands of students demonstrating 
for democracy.  While at the same time telling the public he wasn't doing this.

And *then* undermining even this policy by violating agreements with
this country in order to sell fighters to Taiwan in order to prop up a
sagging reelection campaign.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: States in which Clinton leads by 15% or more
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 03:00:11 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
:    States in Which Clinton Leads by 15% or More
: 
:    EV  State Bush Clinton Perot  Poll End Date

[...]

:   247  (270 Needed for election)

You need to add the latest CBS/NYT poll results for Illinois (reported on
the CBS Evening News tonight):

     22    IL   32    51     11         ?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Stupendous favors regulation? (was Re: Cable Regulation)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.143009.4636@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	Laying cable, or electric wires, etc.  Should only be done once.  But
>there is no reason to only let one company use them once they are there.  Cable
                       ^^^^^^^^
>signals can be multiplexed.  Electric companies can bid on service areas.  Etc.
>
This looks like a prescription for government regulation.  I can't
believe this came from Brett.  BTW aren't most cable lines essentially
privately owned?  If this is the case then regulation would be necessary
to allow other companies to use the lines.

Paul.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52195 alt.politics.elections:17158 alt.politics.bush:9397 alt.politics.clinton:10790 alt.politics.perot:2246
From: blp@hotel.berkeley.edu (Brad Palmquist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: The Mathematics of Error
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:05:16 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hotel.berkeley.edu

In article <1bkskhINNiqe@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu
(Brad Sherman) posted a note I had sent him.  In one section where I switched
the subject from confidence intervals to significance levels I didn't make
the associated switch in values.  I wrote:

> ...This is not significant at the .95 level.
>
>It is interesting to see what the "p-value" of this difference is.
>The p-, or prob-, value is the probability of finding the sample value actually
>found, assuming the null hypothesis to be true.  Here H sub 0 is that the
>difference is 0, that the two are tied.  If this were really true the
>probability of finding a difference as large as 6% is .13.  So if somebody
>set the significance level at .9, the difference would still be insignificant.
>At .87 it would be significant.  Now really, our best guess is, of course,...


The counterpart to a .95 confidence interval, for example, is a significance
level of .05.
Obviously instead of .95, .9, and .87 in the above passage I should have written
.05, .1, and .13.

-Brad Palmquist
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:54:04 GMT

In article <BvpGHt.Lnz@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>    A man who sexually abuses boys can not be HETEROsexual.  He is definitely
>    a pedophile,

Pedophile != heterosexual?

>    either homosexual or bi-sexual.

If you knew what sexuality is, this statement might be worth
responding to.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman)
Subject: Am I unpatriotic?
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:35:58 GMT

In 1969 and 1970, I attended anti war demonstrations.  Eight years
ago, I visited the People's Republic of China, a communist country,
and home to George Bush's buddies, the butchers of Tianeman Square. 
I do not remember most of the people I met during my visit. Am I
unpatriotic? 

James L. Heilman
__________________
enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Why is Clinton Soooo Slick?!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:08:53 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
: 
: Why does Bill Clinton insist on being so slick?
: 
: Why doesn't he simply come out and say:
:   "If you vote for me, everyone earning less than $200,000 a year will be
:   paying less in taxes at the end of my term than they do now."

Because if he made this kind of a promise, he would be making one
he knows he cannot keep.

At least Clinton hasn't said, "Read my lips!"

: What is it about that man that he insists on talking around the issue [...]

He's a politician.  What do you expect?
--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50988 alt.conspiracy:11172 alt.politics.elections:16156
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Twist Slowly, Slowly in the Wind
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 20:35:53 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <MATT.92Oct11132515@physics.berkeley.edu>

>...At this point, the big-money donors---the large corporations---are
>giving more money to Clinton than to Bush...
>
>Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
>(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
>austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!



    Best Corporate Sponsors: Democrats

    The GOP has really fallen down since the Republican Women's
    Federated had a gala reception sponsored by the Teamsters in
    1984.  There was something about the blue-haired matrons of
    Westchester mixing with the bullies of the interstate that just
    made my hormones race.  But the Democrats, the party of Congress,
    now enjoy a fling with corporate America made all the more intense
    by the fact that they can't be seen in public together.  All the
    better to denounce corporate interests by day and to really get to
    know them over champagne and caviar at a candlelit table by night...

     -- from "Fat Cats to Pussycats: Rating the Political Conventions"
        by Thomas W. Hazlett, _Reason_, November 1992


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:46:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <MATT.92Oct14124320@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <Bw4EqH.7M4@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>   Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the voters WANT the huge
>>   deficits they've been running, based on their willingness to elect 
>>   Congressmen based on their ability to "bring home the bacon" while
>>   opposing new taxes to pay for all these goodies.
>
>I think Peter is almost right here, but not quite.  My interpretation
>is that the people want high government spending, low taxes, *and* no
>budget deficit.


  What is your evidence for this?   There is no concrete evidence that
  deficits are an issue for voters (except maybe in a mom&apple pie
  sense).  Judging people by their behavior makes it clear that only
  lots of government goodies and "no new taxes" are what makes their
  little political worlds go round.  

  It's hard to even argue that the American public has even a philo-
  sophical aversion to heavy debt when you look at how they manage
  their own personal finances or those of the companies they own or
  invest in.   So basically I think your "interpretation" is drawn
  out of thin air.


---peter



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Why is Clinton Soooo Slick?!
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:23:25 GMT


Why does Bill Clinton insist on being so slick?

Why doesn't he simply come out and say:
  "If you vote for me, everyone earning less than $200,000 a year will be
  paying less in taxes at the end of my term than they do now."

What is it about that man that he insists on talking around the issue but never
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: BRAVE BILL's excellent (commie) Vacation-from-Viet-Nam...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:54:00 GMT

In article <ld8kieINNjql@spim.mti.sgi.com>, 
mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes...
>Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
>This is really good stuff Stephen.  

Thank you.

>You ought to send it to "National
>Enquirer."  It doesn't meet their quality standards but it sure
>meets their "try to create something out of nothing standards.
>Please tell us about Elvis's new home in arlington also.

You know... I have been hearing a melancholy sax streaming in and out 
of the city sounds down here... After midnite in amerika. 

It sorta wafts along like a hobo clown... and then trips and splutters 
-- but always returns with a jerk, to either "Back in the USSR" or a
solo "Heartbreak Hotel." < da da  da da  dadada...>

Just the sorta tune the Piper always plays to the lonely patchwork hearts 
busted flat down here in the "Broken Promised Land." 

Rag paper, confetti, and that same-old-song are all that's left now for 
the people to cling to since the Party broke the Spirit by hobbling the 
American Dream with government-surplus red tape.

And I think I'll send Norma Jean a faded black ribbon.

-- Sdt
From: markr@seqp4.sequoia.com (Mark Roddy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:30:48 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.


The relevant points here seem to be:
	1) going on a vacation to the Soviet Union was and is a
	normal activity;

	2) protesting against the Viet Nam war was a legitimate
	expression of political beliefs, and it was not an
	unpatriotic act;

	3) protesting against the Viet Nam war in a foreign country
	is no different than doing so in this country; I'd like to
	be pointed at the section of the Constitution that limits the
	people's right to peacably assemble to the confines of the
	borders of the United States, I guess I missed that amendment.

	4) "Viet Nam war" is a misnomer as our government never had
	the courage to declare war against Viet Nam, Cambodia, or
	Laos - any argument based on 'War time' 'aid and comfort to
	the enemy' such as the crap originated by Bob Dornan (see
	CSPAN just about any night) is baseless. There was no national
	emergency, no state of war, no 'enemy' to aid and comfort.

In case you are too young to remember, or have developed generational
amnesia, (a common syndrome amoung the 30/40 something crowd), the Viet Nam
war put my generation in a moral quandray. We were forced to choose between
our love of country and our moral obligation to resist what the overwhelming
majority of us viewed as an immoral military action against the countries
of Viet Nam Cambodia and Laos. Some of us choose the path of active resistance,
many others choose to simply lay low and hope for the best. For some of our
generation, mostly the poor, the path was to serve and obey. None of us were
left unscathed. But I think that for most of us, the question of what you did
durring that period of time is no longer of much interest. You did what you
had to do, and that was that.

I think it's time that we got on with the job of building the future.
-- 
-Mark Roddy
Sequoia Systems, Inc.          (508) 480-0800 x1284
markr@seqp4.sequoia.com        m2c!seqp4!markr
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
From: rgrodr1@pb2esac.uucp (Robert Rodriguez)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, CA.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:00:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.164807.681@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
>Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
>Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
>Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

Of course they would still have a calendar, advanced agriculture, and be able
to perform open heart surgery on each other.

Robert Rodriguez

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We need to preserve our Western Christian Civilization" -- Pat Buchannan

"Somehow I get the feeling that don't include me Pat." -- Robert Rodriguez

Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, and they are worth what you paid for 'em.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre