HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up!  Press Reports It!
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 00:06:11 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep12.134013.21372@eskimo.celestial.com> mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:
]> on military weapons systems and brought up the Patriot which "can fly
]> through doors and down chimineys."  Hmmmm.  Probably just an honest
]> mistake from somebody who doesn't know a good offense from a bad
]> defense...
]> 
]
]True! And Danny boy came back with the stunning rejoinder that Clinton was
]really talking about the cruise missile. Both were talking about the 
]so called 'smart bomb'

Cruise missiles can indeed go through doors (or windows). 
Quayle was probably talking about the TLAM - Tomahawk Land Attack
Missile - a cruise missile.

It would probably be harder to put one down a chimney.... 


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:29:49 GMT

In article <BuCGIB.CFy@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>
>And I find it VERY difficult to accept Clinton's sudden conversion from
>dove to hawk.
>

Cheney and Bush were key players in the Nixon-Ford adminsitrations where
US defense was devastated once before...and you are going to trust these
two to downsize the US military in the post-Cold War era.  Carter
continued the Nixon-Ford policies until the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan when he began the rebuilding of the US military, which
was then accelerated under Reagan.  

Gerald
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Organization: SPS
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 22:22:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.235132.28300@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
|> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
|> 
|> >For some reason left out of this discussion so far:
|> >What makes Quayle's draft record less agreeable to some people than Clinton's
|> >is that it seems to be in conflict with his stated opinions about the war.
|> 
|> >Quayle was/is (?) apparently supportive of the Vietnam War and its purposes.
|> >He did not enlist to do the work of fighting that war.  This is not in any
|> >way intended to demean the service of those in the National Guard.  (And why
|> >is it I should have to even state this?)  But someone who genuinely supported
|> >the war, who was young and able-bodied, might have wanted to make himself 
|> >available to serve directly in it.
|> 
|> While this is an almost plausible reason for differentiating the two,
|> (and I notice that we have moved quickly onto a another reason besides
|> the family influence thing) it does present a bit of a logical reach.
|> Because one supports a war, or any government policy for that matter, 
|> it doesn't obligate some kind of personal sacrifice for that cause.
|> Are you really implying that anyone who supports a war should go down
|> and enlist immediately?  Kind of a "put up or shut up" thing?  Should
|> we then assume that if somebody were against the war that they must
|> have been out marching in peace rallies whenever possible?  I haven't
|> noticed any clips of Clinton doing that.

It's entirely honorable to advovate dangerous policies but not want to participate.
Fires have to be fought but I don't want to be a fireman,  thugs need to be jailed 
but I don't want tobe a cop,  and wars are sometimes necessary but I don't want
to enlist.

Clinton's draft status should be scrutinized as intensely as Quayle's.  
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4618 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3595
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:25:43 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
# In article <6227@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
# ->  For a conservative, that's a very liberal capitalization of "liberal."
# ->  Who is Democrates, some Greek philosopher?
# ->  Don't forget to put an apostrophe in your contractions.
# ->  Your penultimate word was a gaffe.
# ->  Don't end a sentence with a preposition, especially when you want an adverb.
# 
#  Thank you. I have been wondering how long it would take for someone to notice
# this. And I will continue to do it. I learned how to tweak elitist from RUSH 
# and Danny Boy.

Well, doesn't that take the cake? We're supposed to dumb-down now to avoid
being considered elitist by Rush's numbskull army. Thank you for confirming
that Rush's appeal is to the lowest common denominator.

John
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:10:21 GMT

bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.131807.1836@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>
>>                          Amendment 6
>>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
>>to a speedy and public trial before he is found guilty.  He is
>>entitled to the assistance of counsel for his defense but not for
>>any appeals.
>>
>You're too lenient here. The accused property should be seized before 
>trial. Only those who can afford counsel should have it and there should
>be no appeals.

May I ask how forfeiture laws have come to be blamed on conservatives?
This law was passed by the Congress in it's on-going effort to fight
the drug war.  It had broad bipartisan support.  The Supreme Court
upheld its legality.  Does *everything* have to be pinned on one side or
the other?  Can't we do anything as a country anymore?
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:15:43 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep8.195440.20888@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
->Curiously,the reason Michael Dukakis is so rejected now by everybody (remember
->he once had a good 55-60% of voters in hand) is because he didn't fight back.
->(And he was humorless and unlikable in lotsof other ways apart from his ideas)
->While Democrats screamed about the Republicans' dirty campaigning in 88, the
->lesson learned was:  If you can't beat em,join em.  So, we have Clinton openly
->telling all the world how he will hit back.  And doing it.  He may have had a
->head start with the earlier convention,but the Republicans got in their licks,
->and now we'll have trash talking all the way to November.  We must all like it
->a lot, because we continue to cheer them for good hits.

 If memory serves me right, the democratic strategy was based on attacking
Bush's VP decision, Dan Quayle. They said that since bush obviously couldnt
make a good VP decision, he obviously couldnt make any good decisions. They
made a major mistake here. The public is always more interested in the top
man. They have also made a martyr out of danny boy. They should have concen-
trated more on Iran-Contra and the CIA dealings. It appears that again the
media and democrates are making Dan Quayle one of the main issues. This time
however, Quayle forced the issue.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Suburbs swing to Clinton in Time magazine poll
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:21:56 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep8.210831.22819@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>In article <campaign-pollU2S5130pe@clarinet.com>, clarinews@clarinet.com
>(UPI) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> 	NEW YORK (UPI) -- Suburbia has been a bastion of Republican support in
>> past presidential elections but a poll released Saturday showed Bill
>> Clinton well ahead of George Bush in four key counties in the nation.
>> 
    Rest of post deleted.

 So, is this why polls are radically differing in results. The popular at 
random polls show a very close race, and the selected (key county) polls
are showing a greater than 10 percentage point Clinton advantage ?
Obviously, the people selecting the key counties are selecting ones with
a built in bias. Finally an answer for the chaos.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Carter bad, Bush good?
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:36:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.223749.27102@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

|> You neglected to mention that more money has been spent in each succeeding
|> year of the Presidencies of Reagan/Bush due to legislated spending increases
|> on the "Great Society".  In spite of ever increasing largess, the poverty
|> problem is not going away is it Alex?  So shall we continue on the same
|> road we've being trying for the last 25+ years?  Hasn't this been tried
|> long enough?  

	Ok. I'll mention it. I think we should revamp welfare. I haven't 
heard Bush suggest this in the 4 years that he's been president. Clinton
wants to do it in the first year. Bush has has an excellent man (Kemp)
in charge of housing policy, but has been totally unwilling to let Kemp
actually do anything except for some enterprise zone stuff. It's going
to take more then fat trimming to change the welfare program, but neither
Reagan nor Bush has offered any real goals in this area (except for
"limiting entitlements" which is pure buzzword).

-- 
                               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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:37:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.170742.35@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that Limbaugh is kidding
>when he says that. Listen to him for a bit and you'll realize that he
>is very much an entertainer. By the way, I was also listening to that
>show, and I heard it too, but I recognize humour.

I used to think RL's bilge was tongue-in-cheek, but after listening
to his fans call up other talk-radio shows and C-SPAN, there are
lots of people who take his every utterance very seriously.  
These must be the people with < 1/2 brain you refer to.

My first sighting of RL was on Macneil/Lehrer (perhaps in attempt
to increase their ratings to those of Geraldo) during the House
banking scandal.  He began his tirade with the statement that
the members of Congress used the House bank to steal millions of
taxpayers dollars, with a strong implication that this was
a Democratic plot.  The token Democrat and the token Republican
in the discussion told how the House bank works, and how
no taxpayer money was involved, but ol' RL could not be
distracted by facts; he screamed twice more about the poor
ripped-off taxpayers.  

Under similar circumstances, Our Boy would have tried to
cover his butt by explaining how he could be excused for getting
his facts wrong, and/or gone off on some totally unrelated topic
(like Jimmy Carter's grain embargo) to provide an opportunity
to bash one of his preferred enemies.  This (to me) is
much funnier, and helps to explain why the Dandroid is
a greater font of humor than RL.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:44:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.235132.28300@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:

@ For some reason left out of this discussion so far:
@ What makes Quayle's draft record less agreeable to some people than Clinton's
@ is that it seems to be in conflict with his stated opinions about the war.

@ Quayle was/is (?) apparently supportive of the Vietnam War and its purposes.
@ He did not enlist to do the work of fighting that war.  This is not in any
@ way intended to demean the service of those in the National Guard.  (And why
@ is it I should have to even state this?)  But someone who genuinely supported
@ the war, who was young and able-bodied, might have wanted to make himself 
@ available to serve directly in it.

>While this is an almost plausible reason for differentiating the two,
>(and I notice that we have moved quickly onto a another reason besides
>the family influence thing) it does present a bit of a logical reach.
>Because one supports a war, or any government policy for that matter, 
>it doesn't obligate some kind of personal sacrifice for that cause.

	This is from someone who presumably professes to believe in
individual responsibility.

>Are you really implying that anyone who supports a war should go down
>and enlist immediately?  Kind of a "put up or shut up" thing?  Should

	That's right. If one does not fight, one should be willing to
finance any others who may be willing to fight the war for one. And
considering that the typical flag-waving conservative _hates_
taxation, even _that_ option would seem to be out.

>we then assume that if somebody were against the war that they must
>have been out marching in peace rallies whenever possible?  I haven't
>noticed any clips of Clinton doing that.

	Maybe he just wasn't into that kind of activism.

	And are we going to be told now that those who opposed the war
were all traitors and Commies?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:09:45 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

Pardon me, but if I hear any more snivelling from "conservatives" about
the so-called "liberal bias" of the media, I think I'll have to puke.  

A true conservative would recognize the fact that the media are operating 
in the free market, and quit whining about how that market has shaken out.
After all, you're free to start your own paper, radio station, etc., where
you can spout your own brand of bias.  Because, in the final analysis, 
that's exactly what the whiners want - something with a conservative bias.
What makes one bias any more "right" than another?

There's no such thing as an "unbiased" person.  Reporters are people, drawn
generally from the communities they report in.  It stands to reason that
those reporters will have views that generally reflect the views of the
population where their articles are read.  If they're too far off the mark,
the readers will complain or quit taking the paper or tune in to another
station, etc.

Do you really think that poorly of the population, that they can't think
for themselves, that they are mindless robots who believe everything they
read?  I take EVERYTHING I get from the media with more than a grain of
salt, liberal or conservative.

In the immortal words of Ed Grimley, give me a major break.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drp@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Randy Peterson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV Station List?
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:04:13 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


You bet we need to get the word out. All that I have heard is that
The Enlightened One will be in every TV market except Washington D.C.

I will try calling some of the local stations ( San Jose California )
to determine where it will be in Northern California.

"An EIB infection is a terrible thing to waste !"

Randy Petersen
(DITTO-HEAD)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:40:08 GMT

rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>While Johnny Hart's comic strips haven't been relegated to the editorial
>page YET, as has Doonesbury, there may be a reason for it.

>Doonesbury (G Trudeau) had the temerity to criticize the Governor of 
>Arkansas, now democratic nominee for president, and the PRESS for their
>fawning over him, during the primaries.  Makes me wonder about those
>who claim there is no bias in the press, when Gary Trudeau (flaming lib)
>saw it.

>When Hart crosses *that* line he'll probably get canned totally or put 
>on the editorial page.

Actually, Trudeau wanted to be put on the OpEd page.  It was part of his
new arrangement when he came back on-line several years ago.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:10:13 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

# And was it a "slip of the tongue" that Clinton claimed Reagan and Lincoln
# were never in the military? Is it a "slip of the tongue" that a prepared
# speech that Clinton read repeatedly to learn, and which went through who knows
# how many handlers during its preparation, has such an error? If he makes
# errors of fact such as these, which are trivial to check, how many errors
# is he making in his policy statements, his economic plan, etc. etc.? 

Considerably fewer than Bush.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Suburbs swing to Clinton in Time magazine poll
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:36:11 GMT

In <1992Sep10.184736.24331@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) indignantly:

>O.K STEVIE,  I'M GOING TO TRY THIS REAL SLOW AND IN BIG LETTERS AND SMALL
>WORDS.  FIRST WHEN YOU GENERALIZE FROM A RANDOM SAMPLE GROUP TO THE GENERAL
>POPULATION THERE IS A MARGIN OF ERROR THAT IS A FUNCTION OF THE SIZE OF
>YOUR SAMPLE SET.  IN STEVIE TERMS YOU PICK NAMES OUT OF A HATE,  YOU ASK
>THESE PEOPLE THAT YOU PICK OUT OF THE HAT SOME QUESTIONS AND YOU THEN SAY
>ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE HAT ARE LIKE THIS.  NOW THE MORE PEOPLE YOPU PULL OUT
>OF THE HAT THE MORE CERTAIN YOU ARE THAT WHAT YOUR SAMPLE TELLS YOU IS WHAT
>IT IS LIKE IN THE HAT AS A WHOLE.  THIS WE CALL SAMPELING.

Whoah! Someone turn down the volume!

>NPW STEVIE,  EVEY POLL, WHICH IS A SAMPLE HAS A SAMPLELING ERROR,  SO SAY I
>TOOK A POOL OF YOUR BRAIN CELLS AND CONCLUDED THAT 93% OF THEM ARE DEAD. 
>IF I HAVE A SAMPALING ERROR OF 3% THAT MEANS THAT I AM PRETTY CERTAIN THAT
>89% TO 97% OF YOU BRAIN CELLS ARE IN FACT DEAD.  AND THAT IT IS VERY VERY
>UNLIKELY THAT 33% OF THEM ARE.

How about a margin of error estimate on that last figure?

>NOW THESE POLLS HAVE AN ERROR MARGIN OF 3 TO 4%.  SO A 16% POLL SAYS THAT
>THE POLL TAKERS ARE VERY CERTAIN THAT CLINTON IS LEADING BY ANYWHERE FROM
>13% TO 19%.  A 10% POLL IS VERY CERTAIN THAT CLINTON IS WINNING BY 13% TO
>7%.  SO CLINTON COULD IN FACT BE WINNING BY 13% AND BOTH POLLS ARE CORRECT.

Gee, I don't understand. Lemme grab my calculator...

>THE 6% POLL THAT YOU MENTION IS A TIME POLL IN WHICH "LIKELY VOTERS" RATHER
>THEN "REGISTERED VOTERS" WERE POLLED.  THEREFORE IT REPRESENTS THE FACT
>THAT BUSH IS DOING BETTER AMOUNG THE SUBGROUP LIKELY VOTERS THEN REGISTERED
>VOTERS.

>THE 5% POLL,  LAST TIME SUCH A POLL CAME OUT WAS AFTER THE CONVENTION WHEN
>PEOPLES CHOOSES WERE VERY VOLITILE.

Like your spelling. (Ouch.) Sorry, but it had to be said. Punctuation, too.

>STEVIE,  BEFORE YOU GUESS THAT MAYBEE THESE POLLS,  MANY OF WHICH YOU ADMIT
>YOU WON'T EVEN READ, ARE BIASED,  IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO LEARN ALITTLE
>ABOUT POLLING.  
>>  

Is yer CapsLock stuck, or what?

ORQ: "Hear the men's sighs as they sit on cow pies
      The brown and smelly substance stains the fabric of their
jeans..."
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Carter bad, Bush good?
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.193430.20528@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>In article <6177@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>>Yes, how "poor" is someone who OWNS their own home (as 40% of those
>>in the latest group of poverty stricken people do), have air
>>conditioning, color TV, own automobiles, etc.

>			 Kind of like that old sham about the welfare
>queen picking up her monthly check in a cadillac, whick RR so loved to tell.

	Careful, Josh *believes* that story, and believes that it is
typical of the underclasses to drive new cars and live in fancy neighborhoods.

	He's right, though. I live 4 doors up from a welfare mother, and 
she has a house that will be paid off this year. I think that she paid almost
$15K for it, too. She also has a color TV and an alcoholic husband whos
never paid child support for more then 6 straight weeks, even after they
locked him up. Her house has no furnace, or interior doors, and the kids
piss in the sink upstairs because the toilet doesn't work. They heat the
house with the stove and some kerosine heaters (I gave her those), and 
they leave the lights on to scare the rats away. I guess its a good think
that she bought the house, because you could never rent it legally, and
if she hadn't bought it, it would just sit empty like the one next to it.
Ain't it great being poor?



-- 
                               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