HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Explanation for not reporting SC rally
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:54:53 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     In the 9/13/92 Louisville Courier-Journal's op-ed section,
an explanation was given regarding the lack of reporting of
the Clinton booing and heckling incident in South Carolina 
(obviously the newspaper received several complaints).  They
printed one complaint:

     "My concern is the tremendous liberal bias of the Courier
      Journal.  I just wonder why we can't get unbiased news
      coverage."

So what was their excuse, you ask?  They basically blamed it 
on the copy editor.  Here's a quote from the explanation:

     "It wasn't bias, in my opinion, but a question of news
     judgment and space limitations."

So, they're saying there just wasn't enough space in the
paper to talk about the incident.  (Note: they do claim some
early edition of the paper contained a line about the incident.)
     To make matters worse, I then started reading the opinions
and editorials on the same page -- and all of them are anti-Bush!  
They are entitled:
     Bush League Foreign Policy
     The Loop Tightens around Bush
     Look at the Record
     How to Value Families
     Questions for Bush  (semi-anti-Bush)
     No Tears for Marilyn  (anti Marilyn Quayle)

No mention of Clinton is given outside of a draft dodger cartoon!
This lack of BALANCE makes it harder to believe their
justification for omission of an anti-Clinton event.  Can any of
you who believe no bias exists try to explain this?

     Cary Perttunen
      
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:28:35 GMT

In article <ART.92Sep12223646@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> 
> In article <TOMSTER.92Sep12211205@wpi.WPI.EDU> tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:
> 
>    In article <ART.92Sep11122717@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> 
>    [much, much, much bickerring and tramping about deleted]
> 
>       Gee, Dr. when you sneer at others in public as ignorant louts you open
>       yourself up to public rejoinders.  I wouldn't have jumped on you if you
>       hadn't called them "beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth grade
>       educations".  I know everybody makes spelling mistakes, but when you hold
>       yourself out as somehow more intelligent or better educated you assume an
>       obligation to demonstrate this status.
> 
>    I'm sorry, but this is about the only thing significant I have seen come out
>    of this entire diatribe.  Such a truth, Dr!  Let me change it a bit:
> 
> 	   Gee, Dr. when you decide you want to rise above the crowd a bit,
> 	   whether as a movie star or a presidential candidate, you open yourself
> 	   up to public rejoinders.
> 
> Well, you'd have a point if the good Dr. were rising on the basis of
> something he'd accomplished.  Unfortunately all he can do is state
> opinion as fact and when pressed for documentation fail to deliver it.
> Then, after failing the most rudimentary evidentiary requirements he
> sneers at those less educated than he.
> 
> 

Actually, you have no idea what I have accomplished because you never asked me
and you don't know me. Furthermore, most of my postings have alot of facts in
them. The reason I haven't bothered to be as thorough on this thread is that
I make it a rule NEVER to debate with rude and obnoxious individuals. If
somebody with more class would like to debate this issue at a polite level,
I will be more than happy to continue.

Norman (for you anti-intellectuals)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:06:48 GMT

In article <ART.92Sep11024425@world.std.com>
   art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

> [highly offensive post deleted]

>Allan R. Thompson, Ph.D.

I guess they're giving Ph.D.'s to just about anybody these days.

I'm glad I never had this guy as a teacher.  Yeesh!

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

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4549 alt.news-media:1172 talk.politics.misc:44360
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 9 Sep 1992 17:41:50 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

|> 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.
|> 

As with all "hollywood elite" concerns, media bias is a non issue.  If people
didn't agree with the bent of newscasters, they would watch something else.
Buchannan has kept a job because there are a few people that like his bias.
He just can't find enough listeners to get as broad a forum as others.
-- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Sep15111836@world.std.com>
	<1992Sep15.175747.10799@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:23:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.175747.10799@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

   >   exactly, so calling Hills a liar is the same as me calling Thomas
   >   a liar. What I object to is the assumption that Hills made everything
   >   up, which seems to be what you are saying. 

   >Sure, Ms Flowers produced a tape recording of a phone conversation with

   Excuse me?  No one ever denied they KNEW each other.  That's how the
   rumor started.  The tape recording didn't prove ANYTHING, given that it
   consisted of Clinton telling her to just deny the allegations.  How is
   that proof or even evidence that they DID have an affair?

Well, if they didn't have an affair, why didn't he tell her to tell the
simple truth?

   >Slick.  If Anita Hill had produced such a tape Thomas would not now be
   >one of the Supremes, he probably wouldn't have even been able to stay on
	   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >the appellate court.

   Boy, Diana Ross is going to be shocked to find this one out.

   >Did Ms Hill make up what she was saying?  The only documentary evidence
   >is that she reported sexual harassment to Hoerschner a full six months
   >before she ever met Clarence Thomas.

   No one denied that there wasn't documented evidence, but believe it or
   not, very few people tape record conversations just in case their boss
   gets appointed to the Supreme Court in 10 years.

No, no, no that's not the point.  The point is the distiguisehed "Judge"
Hoeschner revealed that her talks with Anita Hill about Prof. Hill's
sexual harassmment by her boss took place six months BEFORE she ever even
met Justice Thomas.  Care to refute that?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.thlingon
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Election '92
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:58:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.203926.1843@natinst.com> bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne) writes:
>In article <RBQIWZ2@taronga.com> kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
>>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>>- Does anyone know where this came from:
>>- 
>>- 		If I fool you once, shame on me!
>>- 		If I fool you twice, shame on you!
>>
>>	It's a bastardization of an old Klingon saying: 
>>	"Fool me once, shame on you;  Fool me twice, prepare to die." 
>>
>How can this be an "old" Klingon saying?  The Klingons won't exist for another
>couple hundred years or so!

	Yah? Yah? Well, how do you know Worf won't visit 1920's Earth
in a future of ST:TNG, like Captain Kirk did in one of the TV
shows? Huh?  And another thing-I liked the intro the way it used
to be, 'man,' not 'one.'  Sheesh. Like an alien is not a 'one.'

				Boo!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Originator: cs911461@a03.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:25:44 GMT


In article <1992Sep14.203429.11847@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>> The Libertarian party has already wised up.  Vote for them this election
>> (Hell, Bush and Clinton are a couple of puppets being played by the same
>> hand that's been screwing us for 30 years.).
>> 
>> I believe that Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord are on the ballot in all
>> 50 states, so everybody should be able to vote for the one 
>> candidate who is for legalizing drugs, cutting government, 
>> eliminating the income tax and returning our freedoms.
>> 
>> -- 
>> "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
>> no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
>> committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
>> gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda


Fortunately, the American public is too sensible to listen to this
nonsense.  I should know; I'm a Canadian and all I see is stupidity
in politics.  Canada is touted as a free and tolerant nation.  This
is garbage since there is nowhere on Earth where each citizen is 
"watched" (of George Orwell fame) as much as here.  Canada has a 
large secret service, which never gets publicity like the CIA does.

As far as this pertains to the USA, you fortunate people have the 
benefit of sensible levels of freedom.  No other country on Earth
can claim as good a balance of public duty vs. personal freedom.

Legalizing drugs is not a question of personal freedom.  It costs
society too much in terms of lost production.  Therefore, this cost
far outweighs the importance of the individual's so-called "right"
to destroy his mind and body.  Eventually, America will be moving
towards a more socialized health system.  When this happens, non-
addicts will have to pay to keep drug users alive.  I don't mean to
sound like some form of "red", it's just that the current profit 
based health system just can't work since society has a stake in the
good health of it's citizens.

Clearly, drug use has to be controlled now.  This means a rebalancing
of the scales is needed but, that's progress.  Since they will never be
eliminated altogether, we can only focus on stopping the spread of 
narcotics.  Don't let the world down; we're all depending on you to 
make the right choice.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5606 alt.politics.homosexuality:6002
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 00:53:27 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep6.223548.20021@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> A little chart in this Sunday's NYT:
> 
> Change in private sector employment by Presidential term:
> 
> Carter:	+13.92%
> Reagan 1:	+ 7.30%
> Reagan 2:	+12.05%
> Bush:		- 0.04%
> 
> --

     Based on this chart, we must have been living in Utopia during
the Carter years.  I sure wish that someone would have invited me to
that quadrennial jubilee.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs 
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:48:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

Jude Federspiel writes:

> In article <CKD.92Sep6184416@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher
Davis) writes:
> Jude G. Federspiel in a previous article writes:
> >
> >Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for drugs, and that no
> >one would defend their legally bought drug supply from somebody
> >out to steal it, possibly resulting in death.
> >
> >>Tell me again that no one will kill or rob for money, and that no one
> >>would defend their legally earned money supply from somebody out to
> >>steal it, possibly resulting in death.
> >>
> >>Time to outlaw money, I guess.
> >>--
>
> What percentage of people growing up with constant exposure to and use
> of illegal narcotics like cocaine, for example, would kill or rob for
> them?  I don't pretend to know, but I bet it's a hell of a lot more than 
> would kill or rob for money, which _everyone_ lives with.  But nice try.

If you can provide some sort of statistics on violence and use of drugs,
I'd be interested.  Of course, I would ask that these statistics be independent
of laws against these drugs.  

Apparently, heroin was a fairly common and legal drug in the 1800's and early
1900's.  There was no widespread murder or crime just to obtain a drug that
was easily obtainable, and tended to mellow a person out in the first place.
A good, unbiased report on drugs of all types is the Consumers Union
(the people
who do "Consumer Reports") report on drugs, _Licit_and_Illicit_Drugs_.  Check 
out the chapter on heroin - it's very interesting to contrast the facts with
current popular mythology of the drug and its effects.

The real problems for society begin when the drug is illegal and expensive.


Jeff Oesterle

================
"No, I don't know that atheists should be consedered as citizens, 
nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
                                         - George Bush
<choke> <cough> Say WHAT?!?!?!?
================

(Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:23:10 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

>
> 1.  There is no absolute proof that he did this (Flowers is *not* a
>     credible witness, she received $$ for her story which was full
>     of holes).
> 2.  If he did do *something*, his wife has at least forgiven him.
> 3.  Would it have been better to get a divorce or to work out his marital
>     problems?

Given that Bush's own daughter got divorced instead of working out her marital
problems, it would seem that divorce is OK in the Republican 'family values'
pantheon.

> 4.  How a person acts in the personal life is not a guarantee of how they'll
>     act in the public life.
>
> >
> >     Would I trust someone who had convictions, but seems to have been
> > afraid to stand up for them?  Nope.
>
> Are you talking about Bush or Clinton?  Must be Clinton since Bush has no
> convictions :^D.

Sure he does.  He firmly believes that he has a God-given right to be
President, no matter how bad a job he does.




>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:48:03 GMT

>As for the preachers, let me clear up one thing.  No Biblical Christian 
>who has a firm conviction that the Bible is the word of God can ignore what 
>it says:

>"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done
>what is detestable"
>	--Leviticus 18:22

>"In the same way [as women who had turned to lesbianism] the men also 
>abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
>another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in them-
>selves the due penalty for their perversion."
>	--Romans 1:27

>"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
>adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor
>the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
>kingdom of God." 
>	--I Corinthians 6:9-10


Now, lets put on our clothes made of multiple fabrics and eat some
shrimp.  Then we can get back what this has to do with the economy
and how to get rid of discrimination for any reason.  By the way,
not all Americans are Christian and there's no reason that the U.S.
government should not be representative of non-Christians.  If I want
to be closer to my faith then that's up to me and I can seek out a
spiritual leader.  If I want my civil rights honored and the U.S.
economy to shape up, I will hopefully look towards my government.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:01:51 GMT

In article <9105@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
> In <BuL8xu.FpE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> 
> >It is really something that you can't quite believe until you've
> >seen it.  Of course, I could make some comments about the
> >stereotypical rural person in Illinois, but I doubt that
> >I would be believed.... ;)
> 
> I could also make stereotypical comments about New Yorkers, college
> professors or people with Phds.  They would all be equally wrong.  I found
> the good doctors response to be offensive.  Any comment that lumps all
> people of any group into a single category, positively or negatively
> is nothing more than bigoted claptrap.
> 
> Since the good doctor is not prepared to apologize for the statement
> that started this thread, I agree with him.  It is time to let the
> thread die.
> 
> Peace.
> 
> -- 
> --Mark
> My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
> 
> 

Have you actually READ this thread Mark? I never said that everyone in small
towns was like this, just most of them. Since I grew up in one of these
towns and I am not like that, I guess I know this now don't I. The reason
I won't apologize to people who have redneck attitudes is: 1.) Much of
their bigotry is offensive and hateful to other groups, 2.) They base most of
their warped prejudice on strict stereotypes, and 3.) Their irresponsible
voting is
hurting alot of people (including themselves) and they should be taken to task
for it.

There is a relative of mine who won't watch basketball or
football anymore because "There are too many **** playing these days".
According to him **** are all lazy and we were better off before equal
rights. Most of the people I grew up with agree with him. Now do you understand
why I will not apologize Mark?

Norman (for the anti-intellectuals)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<1992Sep10.210606.21998@gtephx.UUCP>
	<1992Sep15.050616.2901@tygra.Michigan.COM>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:56:53 GMT

   In article <1992Sep10.210606.21998@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
   "
   "These poor Americans live in homes which are on average 150%
   "the size of the average Japanese worker -- think about that.

It boggles the mind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: SF Bay Area Clinton campaign office?
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Francisco
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:44:46 GMT

In article <2442@unet.UUCP> heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.232844.4114@PA.dec.com> mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles
>Mok) writes:
>>
>>Can someone give me a pointer to the SF Bay Area Clinton campaign office?

The Pacific Bell operator, when you dial 4-1-1, is just waiting
for requests like this, and would be happy to give you all kinds
of information, including:

Clinton/Gore Campaign Volunteer Hotline: 415/978-9392

San Francisco Democratic Party:          415/626-1161.

Clinton for President        Boxer for Senate        Feinstein For Senate
P.O. Box 615                 625 Polk Street         909 Montgomery Street
Little Rock                  Suite 402               Suite 202
AR 72203                     San Francisco           San Francisco
                             CA 94102                CA 94133
1-800-827-6922
                             415/771-3700            415/433-1333
75300.3115@compuserve.com

So why don't you try 4-1-1 yourself, next time?
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 17:13:23 GMT

>What? The whole point of this restructuring is that the healthcare system
>is crippling the US economy! 12% of GNP is about double what anyone else
>spends (and for no better results), and that money is *wasted*. It doesn't
>provide jobs, just goes to insurance companies and a small number of
>shareholders who invest their money mainly abroad. That 12% is a huge drain on
>the US economy, even without taking into account the limits the system placeson workforce mobility, the horrendous social consequences and the burden thatthe spiralling insurance costs place on most every business in the USA!

>Will that do for starters?

NO!

The legal system is the one wasting the money.  Needless lawsuits & 
exorbitent claims.  Clinton does not address this at all.


high because malpractice insurance is high.  Malpractice insurance is high
because doctor's get sued a lot more than they should.  The people who sue
are... lawers!  Besides the most preferred option... killing all the lawers,
what needs to be done is limit the amount sued for.  Thus malpractice rates
will drop and thus doctor's cost.

Making a socialistic style of health care will not make the world a happy
place, as infered from above.  It would lessen the quality of health care.
No longer would doctors have an incentive to produce more.  They will be
paid a flat salary (as understood from Clinton's proposal).  What is
their incentive to do more?  Sure being humane is a reason, but it only
goes so far.  Do you think they want to be on call 24 hours a day?

jason
--
Any questions... just ask me.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou