HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:20:52 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>Jeff Davis writes:

 [a post which praised Elayne Boosler's appearance on Crossfire defending 
  Hollywood's handling of the Dano-Murphy Brown tiff: deleted] 
      
>
>Well, I hope others see the irony in having a comedian represent the
>liberal viewpoint.  I saw this show too, and came away with the opposite
>impression.  I note that you left out the other person being interviewed
>(I think he was a Republican from California).

Please note lines 3-5 of my original. I don't remember his name,
but I did discuss him. But he was such a non-noodge that you remembered
His Fireballness's name, yes?

>Boosler was most certainly rattled when Sununu said
>conservatives are blackballed in the entertainment industry now and
>asked "Name one persn in your field who is conservative."  She looked
>clearly befuddled and after 2 false starts finally said "Well my
>field is not very conducive to conservatives."  She also added alot
>to the debate by saying "Comedy takes intelligence and that's why
>conservatives can't do it."  More smug and vacuous comments from
>one of our leading liberal thinkers, Elaine Boosler.

She also said that in 10 years of writing scripts for Warners,
no one ever asked her her politics. "No conservative comics" is
hardly a problem for the field of comedy. It isn't up to the entertainment
field to tell people what is and isn't funny. You make people 
laugh, you get asked back. That whole Friars Club list of aging
comics -- I'd imagine 90% of them would have been comfortable
oh-dearing w/ the Reagans. So, did liberal comics in the 50s get
blackballed? Woops...I guess they did. Is that a point for your side
or my side? 

>The other guest
>pointed out that in the past, people like Bob Hope have been accepted
>by the entertainment industry although they were conservative.
>It is only recently that blackballing of conservatives, which is
>well accepted in Hollywood (ask Charlton Heston), has crested.

That assumes 2 things: first that conservatives get blackballed:
David Lynch? Kevin Costner? Tom Selleck? These guys don't get work?

And 2nd: Crested? You mean the Liberal Era of the 80s and early 90s is
over? And now were going to have a Conservative Era? Where was
I when we had a liberal era? And why wasn't I told?

>Kinsley tried to claim that the networks are all owned by conservatives
>and thus the networks are conservative.

Kinsley was weakest on this. But, no one ever asked Sununnu what TV
sells. It sells people to advertisers. No people. No soap suds. TV
puts on the air the cheapest thing that people want to watch. People
watch that stuff. People laugh at liberal comedians. But people watch
anything. Snap quiz: Is the Golden Girls a conservative show or
a liberal show?  
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance.
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:24:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>> I'm telling you again.  The deficit is MUCH LOWER than it would have been
>> if a Democrat had been President!
> 
>The only problem with that statement is that both Bush and Reagan
>have run considerable higher deficits than the last Democratic president.

I vaguely recall reading something (this was back in '88) that the rate
of deficit increase during the last several democrat pres's was much less
than the rate of increase during the Reagan/Bush era.  Does anyone else
remember this?  I MUST dig up this article (I'm going to get inundated with
"references please?" postings).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: mtgreen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Michael Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: The Budget Deficit
Keywords: Budget, Deficit.
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:53:47 GMT
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

Hello All,

	I have a question about the budget deficit for everybody regardless of
which candidate you support.  I have heard various conflicting statements from
numerous people who are supposedly in a position to "know" about just how
"real" the current budget deficit is.  Some say that it's real because we are
paying interest on it and others say that if we wanted to we could just write
it off and forget it.  I'm not looking for political "hot air", I'm interested
in facts.  Thanks in advance for for any contributions.

Michael T. Green
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: The Real Reagan Record
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 16:39:53 GMT

Wrong, wrong, wrong, this is a continuation of everything Reagan
did to this country while in office.  The lying continues.  These
people are trying to sweep the blame for the problem which the Reagan
administration swept under the carpet during its stay in the White House.

These guys still don't see anything wrong with lying.  The 1980's were
great, now we have even bigger bills to pay since the Reagan administration
stuck it head in the sand, the sand up its anus, and lied about how
the amazing economic recovery had saved this nation.  All we did was
buy more weapons, sell more weapons, and use more weapons than in the
8 years prior to the Reagan administration.  'bombs may fall, bombs may
drop, but it surely will keep the economy up!'.  Reagan you putz!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche (Mo.L.)         |   labiche@bnr.ca
Bell Northern Research          |   Part of Northern Telecom 
Richardson, Texas               |   i'm really in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No opinions herein expressed have anything to do with the opinions 
of Bell Northern Research or Northern Telecom or CIA or NSA ...
These statements are mine and mine alone, well i guess my wife 
agrees with some of them?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3381 soc.women:15914
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Keywords: big guns
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:09:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Aug27.181640.2485@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.210715.24108@ncsu.edu>,
>
>I don't think this is a real person.  I think it's a program that takes
>people's replies and randomly puts in the statement "The Bush administration
>fully supports fetal tissue research," and reposts it.
>
>Would somebody PLEEEEZZE tell me how to put this guy in my kill file
>with rn.  Better yet, post it so we can all know.
>
Maybe you could use on of those "most protected by the 2nd amend." guns of
Richard Crisp. You know the RKB uzi, machine guns and rocket launchers.


Stan Knight
-----------------------------------------------
|"I never could spell." ----Cpt. J. L. Paccard|
---------------------------------------------- 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: roger@wrq.com (Roger Fulton)
Subject: Aren't KILL files great?!
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:59:39 GMT

I just started reading this newsgroup today, and the
first thing I did was:

/^From\: crisp\@netcom\.com/hK:j

Yahoo for KILL files!
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 29 Aug 1992 23:35:40 CDT
From: M. Jacobs <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: NPTN
 <mjc.715010074@NL.CS.CMU.EDU> <14399@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>

In article <14399@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU
(Timothy B. Reynolds) says:
>
>Could someone post the net address for NPTN.

You can reach Dr. Tom Grundner at tmg@nptn.org

Mary
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Mary Jacobs          | This is MY view;not |Another Internet Volunteer|
| U45301@UICVM         | the view of the "U" |for Dialogue and Public   |
| U45301@uicvm.uic.edu | nor of Clinton/Gore |Information and Education.|
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: AMERICA'S BULLSHIT WATCH
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:09:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.212607.16984@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes (
Steve Novak) wrote:

> >You mean like attacking Iraq last Monday?  Gee, last week, that was you
> >guys' mantra.  "Bush will do whatever it takes to be elected!  He's
> >going to sacrifice the lives of our brave military for political
> >ambition!  Oh the shame, the horror!!  Bush is so terrible!!"  Well,
> >here it is, Thursday, and you folks have been awful quiet on that one.
> 
[INSULT DELETED]
> 
> The U.N. team ON MONDAY decided suddenly not to do ANY inspections at all,
> much less the Ministry of Defense - this was less than 24 hours after the
> story broke.

That's because the story notified Iraq ahead of time.  You don't do that.
 
> Now, just why would they do that, especially if they thought something
> really valuable was in there?  Can you say, "hit the nail on the head"?

Doesn't matter.

> Face it.  The media saved Bush's ass from immediate censure for provoking
> a confrontation for political reasons.  Pretend it didn't happen if you
> please; the facts say differently.  

Not really.  Bush doesn't get to stop being president just because of the
election.  He has to do what he thinks is right, no matter what you or the
media feel.
 
> I'm beginning to doubt if Hussein has ANYthing valuable hidden; Bush,
> unable to admit he pulled up short in Op Desert Storm, is trying to divert
> Americans' attention from his basically Dean Martin approach to his job (I
> just read a review of a book on Dino :).  He's a status quo, what's-in-it-for-me,
> no-risk Wimp.

So what you're saying is that Bush should have told the UN to screw off and
just kept on going in Iraq?  I think not.  Had he done that, you probably
would have bitched about that too.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush and Baker
Keywords: State
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:27:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.182014.27092@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.183657.20774@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Clinton supporters can't have it both ways.  If it is unreasonable for
>>Bush to remove Baker from state, it is unreasonable for Clinton to do
>>so.  Was Clinton going to keep Baker on?  No?  They were going to
>>remove Baker for THEIR political reasons?  Then they don't get to
>>complain when Bush removes Baker for his political reasons.
>
>That's stupid!  You're talking about the difference of a five-month,
>temporary appointment by Bush and Baker, as opposed to a period of service
>of at least four years, possibly many more, by whomever Clinton would choose.
>There's no similarity between the two.

The similarity comes from the actual complaint, not Borden's revision.
Clinton claimed that Baker at state is irreplacable.  That doesn't
change with who's elected.

However, does Borden really want to argue that the US representative,
as opposed to the checkbook being represented, let alone that changes
in that representative, actually matters?  Better yet, does he want to
credit Clinton with that sort of foreign policy stupidity?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:52:20 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


>Face it, the Republicans are running scared !
>


The nation should be running scared.  It is more spending and HIGHER taxes that have
put us in the current (ending) recession. 

>Look at it this way.  Clinton has created for himself a very tall
>order to fill.  If his term becomes like Carter's, the Republicans
>will be running against the last TWO times the Democrats had
>both the White House and the Congress from then on. If Clinton
				                     ^^When	
>screws up, it'll be the last time the Democrats have the White House
>for a LONG time. ~

 
The tax and spend government involvement that the Democrats push will continue to drive
jobs abroad and cut the income of working class Americans.  The Democratic Party has
since LBJ had one goal: To make as many people possible dependent on grovernment programs
as possible.  Democratic welfare programs are like drugs once they get you hooked all
you want is more.


##############################################################################


The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not shared by my 
employer or my friends. However, they should be.

If you receive more than one copy of this notice please pass it on to a 
friend.

Fred Seals
409-845-2298

##############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight AGAIN.....
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:47:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.162345.3055@rock.concert.net> black@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:
>
> ... One of the posters said ...
>that if he has no jobs and he creates 1 job that this is a 100% increase.
>
>Way to go Einstein! ...

Einstein (aka the poster Mr. Black refers to) got it wrong, btw.  A 100% in-
crease means that (old * (100/100)) + old = new.  if old = 0, you can't ex-
press new as a percentage of old, because you're both multiplying by and add-
ing with 0.  If you start out with no jobs and someone creates 1 job the in-
crease is 1, not 100% or 10000000000000000% or any percent.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "I have NOT lost my mind:  it's backed up on tape somewhere."  - Anon.   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:23:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep3.173414.3837@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
> 
> 	Jim, I don't know how Bush is supposed to lead; but I did not
> 	run around the country telling everybody to vote for me because
> 	I could do what, apparently, couldn't be done!
> 
> 	Now, for the present campaign ala Bush:  I think I'll start
> 	calling him Santa Bush.  

     Didn't Paul Tsongas call Clinton, "Santa Claus," when he proposed
his middle-class tax cut during the primary?

>                               I'd like to start a list of Xmas  
> 	presents he's been handing out lately.  Please, anybody,
> 	add on for the fun (a little black humor) of it!
> 
> 	1) 9/2/92, told the farmers he'll relax grain export regs
> 	to help them sell wheat; a farmer interviewed on the news
> 	said "that`ll help the grain warehousers but not the farmers.
> 
> 	2) Told the airplane factory workers in Dallas he'd approve
> 	the selling of a bunch of planes to Taiwan, in direct opposition
> 	of agreement with China.
> 
> 		Judy
> 
     Didn't Paul Tsongas call Clinton a "pander bear" when he made
sector-specific promises during the primary?  The point is:
Santa Claus and Pander Bear characteristics lead to political success.
From: dorham_r@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: What is Clinton? by Hillary
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:36:33 GMT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC













       "CLINTON IS A SOCIOPATH...AND A CRUSTY BOOGER"

													
					HILLARY CLINTON
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: tertium@milton.u.washington.edu (l boyd)
Subject: Re: If Bill were in George's place
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:27:22 GMT

<MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>If Clinton were in George's precarious political place, a sitting president
>fighting tooth and nail for a second term generally perceived as someone
>who does not really care for anything happening within the USA and needing
>to demonstrate compassion to save his political skin; then he probably would
>have called the FLA Governor on the phone MONDAY and said, hey, request help
>NOW!  Don't wait.  Why didn't George just call and ask the gov to make the
>request.  I don't get it.  Someone had to be aware of how damning the pictures
>out of S FLA could be for him, whatever the protocol.  You have to ask yourselv
>es, what other opportunities are eluding GHWB grasp?     Melissa Brown


Well said!

GHWB really blew it on that one.  More evidence that he is out of touch with
the average American experience -- even when it is plastered all over the
media for FOUR DAYS!

I vastly underestimated the extent of the storm, yet I wrote a check that 
night, knowing it was going to be a long haul for those folks.  I just don't
understand how GB could have missed it  -- HE WAS THERE!

Time to retire, George!

Lauren
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: covenants and character
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:52:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.143002.6354@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>Covenants do matter.

Really?  HOW do they matter?

>The issue is not if Bush's convenant was legally enforceable.  A
>promise to not sell your house to any of "those people" is a repugnant
>promise.  A man who is supposedly going to provide is with "moral
>leadership" has to meet different standards than that to get my vote.

One problem with this argument is that Bush didn't agree to the
covenant.  He bought a piece of property.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3075 soc.women:15791
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:50:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Aug26.175008.21615
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

In article <1992Aug25.215128.8329@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>AIDs patients are taking experimental drugs, and the government funds
>the RESEARCH needed to develop those drugs.  Likewise, the Bush
>administration supports funding of fetal tissue RESEARCH.

AIDS patients are taking experimental drugs.  That means that people are
being used in the research.  The fetal tissue research ban explicitly
precludes the use of government funds for research using tissue from
aborted fetuses ON HUMAN BEINGS.  The government says "sure do your
research on rats, guinea pigs, and monkeys, and we'll give you money
for it.  But don't do any research using humans or we'll cut you off."

Why do we have AIDS patients taking experimental drugs?  To find out
if the drugs work ON PEOPLE.  Fetal tissue research also needs to be
tested ON PEOPLE.

I'm willing to bet that were Barbara Bush (or anyone of Bush's relatives)
to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or Breast Cancer, good
ol' George would lift the tissue ban in a second.  Just another example
of how Bush takes care of his own but damn the rest of them.  Of course,
that's the beauty of hypothetical cases, most of the time they don't happen,
so you don't have to worry about being seen as hypocritical.

  bills
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:02:00 GMT

> = (ERHART, WESLEY RONALD) writes:
>> = kyvx.louisville.edu writes...

>>     "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!'"

>Not having read the book, I would be tempted to say that he just included this
>because it was interesting.  Somehow I doubt that normal blood poisons 
>the ground.:)

I've been waiting for someone to notice the quotes Gore put around the
word 'pollution'.  To me, that indicates he himself didn't consider it
pollution, thought that God guy sure indicates otherwise.       

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc.
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:16:57 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <BtIouK.Fvp@acsu.buffalo.edu> blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:
>In article <183137@pyramid.pyramid.com> glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert) writes:
>>In article <wa0m75f.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug17.211933.27226@gozer.mv.com> klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride) writes:
>>>>I am not saying if you remove the means for the people to defend
>>>>themselves from internal fascism that it WILL happen, only that it
>>>>COULD happen.  Why take chances?
>>>
>>>
>>>Precisely the point......
>>>
>>No, it isn't.  This is no longer a reason for supporting the RKBA.
>
>Completely unfazed by David Duke were we....
>
>This is an excellent reason for supporting the RKBA.  Why are you
>afraid of the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, the NSA?  Because if
>they come to take you to a private chat and you resist...you haven't
>the means to do a damn thing.
>
>Lie down quietly while your government buries you.
>
Yep.  I'm sure you get a call from the IRS for an audit, you wave a Luger at
'em, and they just go away.  Dream on.

George Lambert