HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Republican's Bullshit Movement
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:54:10 GMT

In article <92282.183938JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <haudlrs@Unify.Com>, tsv@dbrus.Unify.Com (Tim Vannaman) says:
>>
>>The Press are a bunch of "Liberals" who say they tell the public everything,
>>but only report what they want.
>>
>
>This continues to be bullshit.  The press did nothing in the '80s except
>report what was fed to them on a Presidential spoon (to borrow a phrase).
>
>Hope this helps,

Look at Walter Karp's essay, "All the Congressmen's Men," originally
published in Harper's, 7/89, for the sources of most reporting by
the press (deliberate "leaks" by executive and legislative branches
for political manuevering, etc.  The so-called independent press
would be ostracized by offical sources if they misreport what the
gov't tells them to say; i.e., become an outsider)

The essay can also be found in the mostly excellent collection of
Karp's writings, _Buried Alive: Essays on Our Endangered Republic_.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
From: k4372@moncol.monmouth.edu (RICHARD KUS)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - Important
Date: 10 Oct 92 11:55:18 GMT




In article <Oct.4.01.05.38.1992.21212@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>
>     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
>live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
>protests during his college days.
>
>    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
>to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
>this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
>be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
>knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
>with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.
>

I remember back when I was in Germany back the late 60's there were ads
for traveling to several USSR cities as part of tourist package. I 
know that I could have applied to take the tour, but I was under
travel restriction by my own government. 

I thing Dornan is just desperate because the Repulicans are still going
to the minority in the house.


rich


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8878 alt.politics.clinton:10059
From: larose@dinah.cs.utk.edu (Brian LaRose)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Followup-To: lat.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:54:02 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
Reply-To: larose@dinah.cs.utk.edu (Brian LaRose)
NNTP-Posting-Host: dinah.cs.utk.edu

Speaking of bush.  Isn't it nice how his memory works.  He can't remember
working for the CIA, he can't remember CONTRA-GATE, he can't remember meeting
with arms dealers in Israel, he can't remember what the chinese government
did to the students uprising.

We now know why he has not dealt with domestic policy so far.  He has yet to
remember what that string tied around his finger is for.



DISCLAIMER:  This post should not be viewed as one 
             questioning George Bush's patriotism, 
             only his memory loss and domesitic 
             policy which are the essence of
             his miserable failure as president. 
-- 
   
    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Subject: Republican platform and the Abortion issue
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:30:10 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Has the full text of Republican platform been posted anywhere?
(I apologize if this is a repeat question.)

The reason I ask is that my colleague and I have a disagreement
over the platform words on the abortion issue.
Does the Republican platform explicitly rule out abortion in ALL cases.
Or does it simply say that it is against abortion.

The first is a radical position.  The second is simply vague.

-- 
--
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Too Close for Comfort
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:55:20 GMT

Quan vi Luc <ql00+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Just wanted to say it's getting way too close for comfort.  Bush better
>pull it off in the end.  

but first, Bush better pull his head out of his end.  i can't see this
happening.

>Anyone else out there with immense trepidation
>about having a Democrat in the White House, especially B*** C******. 
>Can't bear to write it 'lest it be true.

no, i'm looking forward to it more than i ever looked forward to 
Christmas as a child.  this country has suffered long enough under 
Republican tyrrany.  we need to elect someone who cares about the
People of this country, not just the Rich and Influential.  Bill
Clinton is that person.


-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9479 alt.politics.clinton:10966 alt.politics.elections:17286
From: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Right to health care?
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:21:33 GMT
Reply-To: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Group 101, MIT Lincoln Lab.
Originator: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)


In article <1992Oct15.215209.18298@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
|> Just a couple of questions regarding the dream of giving everyone in the US
|> health insurance:
|> 
|>   If it's mandated that everyone receive coverage, what incentive is there
|> for the person who is living a lifestyle not in the best interest of their
|> body to clean up their act?  Right now insurance companies have the option
|> of either dropping or charging higher premiums to the guy who smokes three
|> packs of cigarettes a day and downs a 12-pack of beer before going to bed.
|> If it's his "right" to receive coverage, will he change his ways?  And if
|> he doesn't, will the money that goes for treatment of problems caused by
|> his lifestyle be well spent?

   This typical blame-the-victim claptrap is partly why we are in the mess
we are currently in.  The motivation for a healthy lifestyle is not, never
was, and never will be the economics of insurance.  The nicotene addict
does not think about his/her health insurance bill when lighting up.
He/She might think about quitting if the price of cigarettes goes up 25
cents, as they are about to (voters willing) in Massachusetts.  *That's* how
we can discourage destructive behaviors, along with education efforts.

   The other strong motivation is the desire to avoid a slow, degenerative,
*painful* premature death.

    I haven't heard of any great disparaties in Canadian vs. US rates of
alcoholism, smoking, etc., at least for similar segments of population.  I
am aware that dispossessed native American populations tend to have
alarming alcoholism rates.

   GO GET A CLUE, RICH.

-- 
Dr. Marty Ryba                     |	Generation X:
Group 101 - Air Defense Techniques |
MIT Lincoln Laboratory             |  Too young to be cynical,
ryba@ll.mit.edu                    |		too old to be optimistic.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 13:41:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Oct9.030620.3141@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct5.220240.8299@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
|> > In article <1992Oct3.202943.15437@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
|> >    harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
|> > >In article <1992Sep27.174415.23122@rchland.ibm.com>,
|> >    jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|> > >>  green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
|> > >> |> 
|> > >> |> : Seems Boy Clinton was a little more than a draft dodger.
|> > >> |> 
|> > >> 
|> > >> Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
|> > >> for doing what he thought was right.  Danny Boy, on the other hand, 
|> > >> just got his daddy to get him into the national guard.  Quayle was 
|> > >> the coward here, not Clinton.  
|> > >> 
|> > >WOW--------could have been *arrested*!!!  Does getting escorted by 
|> > >a London Bobbie to an English jail cell mean you come home in a 
|> > >bodybag?
|> > >
|> > >Qualye still got in uniform, however tacitly.  That's still closer
|> > >than Clinton ever got to military service. 
|> > >
|> > Four students came home from Kent State in bodybags, and not all of them
|> > were even protestors.
|> > 
[Holm claims the Kent State protestors attacked
the National Guard.]

[Holm brings up the SDS and New Mobe]

[Holm brings up the Weathermen]

Could somebody please explain to me what this has to do
with Bill Clinton?
-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Bush in Fantasy Land
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:17:20 GMT


I couldn't beleive it when I turn on the TV last night and saw Bush seriously
suggesting that Clinton went to Moscow as a 22 year-old student and organized
a demonstration aginst US involvement in Indo-China.  The only people who
could organize demonstrations in the USSR, at that time, were those appointed
to do so by the Soviet government.  Anyone else trying to organize a
demonstration would be arrested.  That was made perfectly clear when I visited
the Soviet Union in the Andropov era.

Peter Lauren.
From: p00078@psilink.com (FLAMETHROWER)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: PRACTICAL USES OF INNUENDO, RUMOR, LIBEL AND SLANDER
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:08:11 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

Washington Post  Thursday, October 8, 1992

reporting about George Bush on "Larry King Live"

	"What do you make of the Clinton Moscow trip thing?" " I don't
	want to to you what I really think," Bush said, but then added
	"To go to Moscow, one year after Russia crushed Czechoslovakia,
	not to remember who you saw there...".  He then called on 
	Clinton to "level with the American people."

SOAPBOX ON...

OK, folks; so this is how its going to be?

As I recall, one of the great practitioners of calling the challenger a
forincator of swine was a President who was actually from the great state
of Texas, one Lyndon Baines Johnson.  As I recall, the idea was to:
"make the bastard deny it."

FINE

Hypothetically of course...

Let us take a few "facts", string them together, and try to start some rumors.

1. George Bush was at one time Director of the Central Intellegence Agency.
2. George Bush was at one time the U.S. envoy to RED CHINA.
3. George Bush was at one time chairman of the Rebulican National Committee.

4. George Bush has consistently supported keeping restrictions from being
   applied to RED CHINA, even after the student uprising, when the central
   govenment slaughtered hundreds of studentd seeking DEMOCRACY.
5. Not too many RED CHINESE spies have been caught in the last few years.
6. RED CHINA was exporting weapons to the middle east, especially IRAQ, and
   is still doing so.  Yet, George Bush has not endorsed embargoes against
   RED CHINA in the same way that he has against NORTH KOREA.
7. George Bush supported building up IRAQ prior to the Gulf War.
7. The CIA has not been very effective in analysis of RED CHINA.

Now if I was going to libel George Bush, I might have to string these "facts"
together and ask the American People to come to the following conclusion:

George Herbert Walker Bush is a ...(draw your own conclusion).

Hypothetically, of course...

SOAPBOX OFF

I can see the next 25 days are really going to be on a high plain.  :>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9168 alt.politics.elections:16807
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:36:34 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Oct13.195417.6323@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.182621.20464@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>>
>>In any event, has Clinton come out and stated that this was his reason
>>for opposing the war?  Having lived through that period, I recall that
>>most of the opposition to the war centered on the belief that we should
>>not be involved in a "civil war" and that we were fighting for the wrong
>>side!
>
>Stepping into the usual minefield...
>
>Oh, but it was a civil war in the sense that the Government of South
>Vietnam had no legitimacy.  It was a US creation.  We feared that if
>the Vietnamese were given free elections in the '50s, Ho Chi Minh
>would win big time.  After all, the Vietnamese saw him and the Viet
>Minh as their liberators from the French (As opposed to Diem, who was
>simply put there by the US.  Worse and worse, he was a Catholic, and
>so was part of a small minority.  Even worse, he persecuted the
>Buddhists.  Since you were around then, dontcha remember the
>self-immolating Buddhists monks?  They were protesting Diem's
>policies.)  We were fighting to impose our own Government on the
>Vietnamese.
>
>--
>"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....

 And of course, after the Communists seized power then instituted a
new government based on freedom for all political and religious groups.
No one was put into "re-education" camps or anything like that.  Since
the new government was so popular, hardly anyone risked their life
trying to escape from it.  It became a workers paradise.  People from
all over the world now praise the "Vietnam miracle."

Sorry, 
I heard all the arguments you list back in the 60's and 70's.  The 
government of South Vietnam had the legitimacy of not representing
a totalitarian ideal.  That Vietnamese would have voted for Ho in
the 50's simply suggests that they hadn't yet learned enough about 
the guy to make a good decision.

In any event, people can argue back and forth about this.  We needn't
try to change each others minds about the war.  The point is, however,
that I suspect that Bill Clinton agrees with you -- that a Communist
led Vietnam was better for the people of that country than the 
potential democratic alternative.

Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush- a sleazy scumbag!
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:30:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <machman.718565627@milton>, machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The
Machman) wrote:
> 
> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
> 
> >In article <92281.231404RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
> ><RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >{lots of screaming deleted}
> >
> >I agree with Bush: protesting your country from another country is sleezy. 
> 
> Clinton was not protesting his country, the United States.  He -was-
> protesting the war that his country had gotten tangled up in.  To suggest
> that Clinton is unpatriotic because he opposed the Vietnam conflict is
> EXTREMEMLY sleazy.
> 
> >Lying about it is worse.
> 
> And can you provide direct quotes in which Mr. Clinton has lied about
> his involvement in protests of the Vietnam conflict?  No?  Then "SIT DOWN
> AND SHUT UP."
> 

Clinton claimed to have met Father <can't remember name> by accident at a
Norway train station.  This same Father, in a book printed in 1979, says
that he travelled WITH Bill Clinton to meet with objectors and help
organize rallies.  This same Father said today that he understood why Bill
Clinton couldn't tell the truth since he was running for President.

I would call this a "lie."  Either the holy man is lying or Bill Clinton is
lying.

I will get you perfect quotes if you so desire.

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Too Close for Comfort
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:32:18 GMT

"Bill Clinton."  Actually I'm enjoying myself tremendously.  Now the
Republicans know how so many Democrats have felt for the last 12
years ... as far as Bush pulling it out, don't hold your breath.
I've been there; it's hopeless.  I suggest you put it aside and start
thinking about Jack Kemp to make yourself feel better.

Any other Dems out there feeling unexplained emotional highs from
time to time?

*********************************************************************
     Feinstein                   Clinton                   Boxer
*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:41:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.164420.28118@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

>Clinton
>  Had his chance to give a definitive "People making under $200,000 WILL
>NOT pay more in taxes under a Clinton administration".

Clinton can't say that. Clinton is promising $100 billion in new spending
and $150 billion in deficit reduction. That's a quarter trillion $$ he
needs to come up with. He claims he will get the money by making the rich
pick up the tab yet his tax proposals will only raise $15 billion. This
leaves Clinton about $235 billion short on his promise.

The only thing which makes Clinton's policies even possible is jacking
up taxes on everybody. If he made the statement you expected above then
any cursory examination of his economic program would show that it is a
house of cards.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------194 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8795 alt.politics.clinton:9950 alt.politics.elections:16337
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
Date: 12 Oct 1992 23:38:00 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <BERG.92Oct12142817@logan.cass.usu.edu> berg@logan.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg) writes:
...
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, demand for cable has also skyrocketed.  This would also
>have driven rates up.


Why?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer



>
>
>--
>----------------------------------------
>Glenn Berg (berg@logan.cass.usu.edu)
>CASS, Utah State University, Logan, Utah


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8849 alt.politics.clinton:10020 talk.abortion:42231
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: DOD - lying again
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:56:32 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct12.210648.9901@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
#In article <1992Oct12.184104.732@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
##
##On a side note, several pro-choice women on talk.abortion 
##have been viciously attacked by radical pro-choicers for 
##their support or non-opposition to third-trimester abortion 
##restrictions. I wonder why these radical pro-choicers rarely 
##attack men (such as yourself) who express the same opinion? 
#
#Hey Doug, you sexist wimp. I just did call Stan on his opinion.
#Or do I, as a non-white woman, not count?

I doubt that DOD thinks that you count, Nadja.  I also doubt
that it would have mattered if every supporter of legal 
abortion had just called the guy on his opinion.  Holtsinger
lies for the pure pleasure of it.

Susan
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9398 alt.politics.clinton:10791 alt.politics.elections:17160
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:17:37 GMT

In article <5881@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)                      writes...
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>=shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>=>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>=>>shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>=>>>
>One: I don't think that the President/Executive Branch will unilaterally
>start a war. I don't recall any war in which the first aggressors
>fighting were from a democratic country. I doubt that any President will
>be so bold or stupid as to say, "Let's invade Canada!"
> 
Obviously you aern't majoring in history, so I'll take this slowly.
1) We have invaded Latin American countries dozens of times without
   any prior Congressional approval. This doesn't include such actions
   as mining Nicaraguan harbors. BTW, how would you explain Vietnam?
2) I almost choked on your second sentence. Have you considered any of 
   the wars against the Indian tribes of this nation? How about 
   the Mexican/American war? Don't forget McArthur in the Philipines
   (ie. the order "Kill every man over 14"). Then there was Grenada,
   Panama, and of course Vietnam (just becuase the first two were short
   doesn't explain the loss of life). 
	But let's not limit ourselves to just America. Remember that
   Great Britian was, for all intents and purposes, a democracy from
   1688 onward. How many third-world countries did they exploit?
   And don't forget France from 1789 to 1799. And of course there 
   Rome from about 500 b.c. to 50 b.c. (approximate dates). But
   then this is just a small list. Given a little time I could
   make a much larger list and email it to you if you want.
3) Speaking of Canada, do you remember the quote "54'40" or Fight."
   You don't? Then possibly you should ask someone about it.
   Also, we invaded Canada in both the Revolutionry War and
   the War of 1812. 

>Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
>Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
>I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
>good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8775 alt.politics.clinton:9925 alt.politics.elections:16297