HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:56:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>
>My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
>station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
>have expected them to.
>
>Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
>He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
>he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
>flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
>for president!".
>
>The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
>I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
>
>I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
>go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
>imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
>you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
>
>How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
>know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
>this knowledge?

   Hmm, I wonder how much it cost the Bush campaign ?

   Of course, it could have been a few slightly older bully-boy
Young Republicans like the jeering sections they send to heckle
Democratic speakers, like the ones they obviously had leading the
'spontaneous' cheering and the Republican convention.

   However, in all fairness, it is a useful tactic. When you don't
have anything truly positive to show for yourself, the next best
thing is to try and drown-out the other guy.




-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:34:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
	
	[re: clintons & health care]

|> More or less.  Does he not want to do away with existing health insurance 
|> companies?  Inaddition he will totally reshape the existing health care
|> system.  Do you not see how even a slight manipulation of something so
|> huge can reprocussions throughout the world?  These reprocussions will
|> not be positive!  It will have a negative effect!

	This is a totally inane argument. Clintons health care proposal
does not propose eliminating health car companies, if anything it would
create more of them through competition. Clintons health care plan is
spelled out in high detail, and you seem to have little knowelege of
any of it.

	If you want to critisize Clinton, why don't you just post: 

	"Clinton is a jerk! don't vote for him"

It conveys your attitude without exposing you in your ignorance.

-- 
                               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: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 1992 22:19:18 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Sep4.210204.9540@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> I beg to differ, I was here four years ago when a gaggle of insurance 
companies
> lobbied the state to allow a huge hike in premiums on the grounds
> of increased health care costs. They were
> allowed to do so. The next year they all posted record profits. This
> may not be the traditional definition of a monopoly but the result is 
the same.

Get rid of the regulations!   It's worked elsewhere.

> There is much more competition in the food industry than in medical
> care. The choice of what we eat, where we shop, and how much we spend is
> MUCH more varied. Achieving this same level of competition in the medical
> community would be difficult due to the massive overhead involved in
> setting up
> a new hospital or clinic.

I don't know.  I hear dozen's of radio commercials each week trying to 
entice people to go to a particular hospital or clinic.   The competition 
is there.   There are thousands of small business's in the form of 
doctor's offices.   The competition now is based on service though, with 
little regard to cost.   With most people covered by insurance, they will 
go for the steak instead of the hamburger even though the hamburger is 
just as nourishing.

>  Couple this with the near-monopoly of your major
> pharmecutical companies

The fact that you put an "s" on companies means that there is competition. 
 We only have 3 car companies in the US and they are plenty competitive.  
Don't discount possible foriegn competitors.

> These safety nets are not working. Go down to an inner-city hospital
> emergency room sometime for a day. My brother works at one. The stories 
of
> advanced cases of preventable maladies would astound you.

I admit..it is less than ideal, but if we can lower the cost through real 
competition, we can improve the availabiltiy of service for everyone 
including those caught in the safety net.

> By the way, Bush's plan presented at his state of the union address is 
not it.

This may surprise you, but I agree that Bush blew it here.   I'd rather 
wait 4 years for a real solution rather than rush into a quick-fix now 
that will be hard to change later, or hope that other ideas will be 
accepted by the administration.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Content of Recycled Paper (Was Re: A Dearth of Jobs)
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:59:43 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep8.080701.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> I would not recommend Gore's book to anyone with a weak stomach.... it's
> printed on recycled paper, or in layperson's terms, it's printed on other
> people's old garbage.  
> ... it is quite possible that the pages in Gore's book are made from old
> toilet paper.  

What kind of a person would say such a thing?

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:08:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.154516.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.161403.6417@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep7.103517.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep7.031815.25831@athena.mit.edu>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think that anyone else could have done any better.  Now, on the
>>>> other hand, a room full of monkeys could have done better than George.
>>>>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> -bert
>>>
>>>     Are you referring to Congress with that 'room full of monkeys' 
>>>quip?  The problem is Bush has to try to work with a room full of
>>>monkeys (Congress), and the only power he has over them is the veto,
>>>i.e. refusing them bananas.
>>>
>> 
>> Perhaps Sununu, Darman, et al., would qualify as the proverbial
>          ^^^^^^
>> "room full of monkeys".
>> 
>     NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....
>John Sununu is no longer Chief of Staff!  I guess news travels slowly
>to some parts of the country-- unless you're waiting for the story
>to appear on MTV Music News (the network that preps 18 to 25 year-old
>minds for the real liberal media).   :-)

Pfft.  My point was that the man was there when the economy was
collapsing around the monkey pens in the West Wing.  "Don't do
anything.  With those high approval ratings from the war, we could
have a depression, and you'd be re-elected," whispered one of Bush's
monkeys into said President's ear.  Paraphrasing a little, of course.
The word "Stupid" comes to mind.  No, "intensely stupid" would be more
appropriate.

And I don't have goddamn cable, so I can't watch MTV Music News
(though I hear from a friend that U2's Bono was trying to call Bush
during several of their concerts.  No one was home. :-) This lack of
cable irritates me, to say the least, since I'm being deprived of my
God-given right to watch MST3K, USA: Up All Night, and the Science
Fiction Channel, if and when it starts.

--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4896 talk.politics.misc:44793 alt.rush-limbaugh:4564 alt.politics.bush:4703
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:38:18 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>>>I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>>>paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons). 

I saw the a short blurb of Clinton's speech on one of the national network
newscasts.

What I thought was interesting was how the presented the story.

They showed a clip of Clinton standing at a mike lips moving.  No sound.
The anchor was telling us what Clinton was talking about.

They then showed a clip of the crowd cheering wildly, still no sound.
Anchor still talking.

It seemed to me that the news people wanted to give the impression that
the crowd was cheering Clinton.

It was also obvious to me that the crowd shots were taken while the race
was in progress.  (Little things like their heads moving from left to
right as they cheered.  Also they were all looking at different parts of
the race track, as if they were watching their favorite driver.)

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4406 alt.news-media:1153 talk.politics.misc:44189
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:32:41 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep6.091335.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:


>     Did anyone see the 9/5/92 'Reliable Sources' show on CNN?
>(This is a show that examines and critiques the media.)
>CNN anchor Reid Collins, who was a guest on this show, admitted 
>twice that he believes there is a pro-Clinton bias in the reporting 
>of this year's election campaigns.  He was, however, somewhat 
>apprehensive to give his reasoning behind this belief.
>     Two questions that come to my mind are:
>     1.  Does Reid Collins have some substantive, behind-the-scenes
>         evidence for this belief that he fears sharing?
>     2.  How much longer until CNN fires Reid Collins?

>     C. Perttunen

Actually CNN has one of the more balanced election coverages that I have seen
lately.  (Not saying much)  (Also a bit surprising given the Jane and Ted
connection.)

This past weekend Clinton attended a stock car race (SC I think).
CNN covered the event, they also managed to mention that about half the
crowd booed when Clinton took to the mike.

All the other coverages showed pictures of Clinton at the mike segued
with shots of a cheering crowd.  Implying that the crowds were cheering
Clinton.  If you've seen much stock car racing you would have guessed that
the crowd shots were of the crowd cheering the race.  (Little things like
the heads moving from left to right as they cheered.  Also everybody looking
at a different point.)

-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4560 talk.politics.misc:44370 alt.rush-limbaugh:4427 alt.politics.bush:4491 alt.politics.elections:12685
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:26:08 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
|> 
|> My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
|> station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
|> have expected them to.
|> 
|> Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
|> He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
|> he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
|> flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
|> for president!".
|> 
|> The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
|> I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
|> 
|> I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
|> paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
|> go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
|> imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
|> you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
|> 
|> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
|> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
|> this knowledge?

This was on CNN. UPI also had a report on this though I wonder how many of 
its subscribers published the report.


|> Jim Del Vecchio

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mok@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Charles Mok)
Subject: SF Bay Area Clinton campaign office?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 11 SEP 92 16:26:26 PST


Can someone give me a pointer to the SF Bay Area Clinton campaign office?

Thanks!

Charles

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pws2n@vision1.ee.Virginia.EDU (Philip Weaver Smith)
Subject: Just to keep things straight . . .
Originator: pws2n@vision1.ee.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:40:37 GMT


I sent this in once, but due to the recent spread of mis-statements on this
subject again I will repeat myself.

Clinton plans to raise taxes on those making over $200K to $250K ( top 2-3% ),
keep them the same for those making between $80K and $200K ( top 20-25% ),
and lower them for those that make less than that.

So as you can see, most peoples "mother and fathers" will benefit or at least
will not lose from Clinton's tax proposals.

Please check your facts more carefully before dealing misleading information.


-- 

Philip W. Smith                Office : Thorton Hall C318
			       Office Phone: (804) 982-2376   

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: cweyand@boi.hp.com (Chris Weyand)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:59:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
	<1992Sep14.005113.16938@cs.uoregon.edu>
	<1992Sep14.185735.24146@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>
	<CWEYAND.92Sep14165057@hpbs721.boi.hp.com>
	<1992Sep14.231302.27732@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: HP Boise Printer Division R&D Lab

In article <1992Sep14.231302.27732@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:


   Despite the hysteria which surrounded Prohibition, there's no doubt
   that alcohol consumption has become more widespread since its
   elimination (percentage, not gross). The same would happen if we
   legalized drugs -- and the consequences would be equally, if not more
   unfortunate.

Your missing the point.  No one doubts that alcohol consumption went up
following the repeal of Prohibition.  Ever since the first Model-T, car
accidents have claimed more lives each year. Should we ban them?   The world
is not a completely safe place.  A quote from I believe, Benjamin Franklin,
comes to mind here,
   "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety
    deserve neither"
For me, the freedom to choose what I may ingest is essential liberty.  Putting
aside all the pragmatic reasons to re-legalize drugs, for me it comes down to
a question of freedom and respect.  Current drug laws are based upon the
premise that the masses are incredibly ignorant and need "Big Brother" to save
them from their self-destructive vices.  Excuse me, but I can save myself, and
so can everyone else. 

Regarding your last line; the consequences of prohibition being repealed were
that people were given back some basic freedom and a whole class of criminals
(commiting *real* crimes against others) were eliminated.

   Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           


Chris Weyand
--
Chris Weyand
Hewlett-Packard Company
cweyand@mail.boi.hp.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:29:11 GMT

Michael Adams writes:

>Oh, I forget.  Apparently Bush thinks woment are supposed to stay
>at home, barefoot and pregnant, cooking and cleaning house, and riding
>herd over a dozen young'uns.

This is a bit severe, but watching the Republican Convention, Barbara's
and Marilyn's idea of the ideal mother and good wife is someone who
devotes her life to car-pooling and Little League games.


Yuna Huh
"Life is not one thing after another.  It's the same damn thing over and
over."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:42:38 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

: For example, a bill in the works now will force business to
: provide long term maturnity leave; this is an expansion of government
: to take more control of private business.  Bush has vetoed this bill
: in the past and will probably veto it again.  

What?!?!  The "Family Rights" candidate wants to deny new mothers
the ability to be guaranteed some time with their kids after
they give birth, without having to worry about losing their jobs?

Oh, I forget.  Apparently Bush thinks women are supposed to stay
at home, barefoot and pregnant, cooking and cleaning house, and riding
herd over a dozen young'uns.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:16:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.153709.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
>welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
>he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'
>
>     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
>     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
>     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
>     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
>     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
>     you toil on it forever!'"
>

It just shows that Gore is a closet "Religious Leftist" (tm)!
Put those people into power and NO TELLING what they'll do!

OOOOO.....I JUST SHUDDER to think about how these hypocritical Religious
Bigots use THEIR HOLY BOOK to pound their biggoted religion into all of us!

Mercy!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: THIS GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN BY A BUNCH OF NAZIS!!!
Keywords: aliens, clones, stollman, reagan, bush, clinton, invasion
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:16:26 GMT

In article <jcmnm!+.garys@netcom.com> garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
>It is a known fact about what I did, and I have told the truth.  Who are
>YOU to tell me I need help??  Are you a trained clinical psychologist?? 
>Do YOU know the difference between Pyschotic and Psychosis??  I don't
>either, but I DID take a psychology class at TCC in 1981 in which I got a
>"B"...And I ain't gonna run out and shoot people cause I know damn well
>better!!  I am going to SUE THE PANTS OFF EM'!!!

10 CIA agents sued pantless by court brief wielding madman, film at 11 :-) 
(I hope there cute)

Gary is a bit paranoid, but seems to be a reasonably decent person, if
I had to trust my life to Gary or a delegate from the RNC, Gary would
win hands down.

Gary Stollman vs. Pat Buchannan for president....

Gary would still get my vote.

-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc