HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Subject: Re:  What does sacrifice mean to Bill?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:00:21 GMT

Regardless of whether or not I want Bill to lose the
next election, if he raises taxes on business or the
middle class it will make things much worse.  I fail 
to see the problem with trying to find something good
from something bad.  I guess some people just brood
on the bad and let it eat them up inside.  

So Mr. Irvin, I'll ask you, will raising taxes on the
middle class and business make things worse or
better?  If they make them worse is it not better to
be optomistic about something?  Or should I put on
the old sackcloth and mourne for our country day and
night?  


			John R. Gonzalez
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13480 talk.politics.misc:69209
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What does sacrifice mean to President Clinton?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:02:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says:

>>I understood it, he intends to "grow" out of the deficit by spending
>      I swear I heard this during Reagan's term.

             yes. and I remember thinking it was 
             a bad idea then, too.,
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal    Div. of Cont. Ed. Information Services Group  UT, Knoxville
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu   "Of course the government and the newspapers
>                          lie.  But in a democracy they're different lies."
>

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael J Maggio)
Subject: Mr Clinton's email address on CI$
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:19:10 GMT
Keywords: CLINTON

I have recently Mr Clinton's CI$ account . . . If you would like this info
please email me for it stating that you will not go insane under any circum-
stances with using it. . . This is privileged info and should 
be used wisely.

--- MJM
mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:40:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.223618.15219@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.210053.38071@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>
>>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>>he sees.
>>
>>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>>
>He's guilty, if he commits the act of rape. 

*WRONG*. All crimes require a criminal intent, or _mens rea_. The man
under hypnosis has none. He acts merely as an instrument of the evil
hypnotizer.

>He may get off on the
>legal aspect if he can prove he was not in control of his mind, but
>he's still guilty of the act. 

"Guilty" of the act (which means nothing), but _not_ guilty of the *crime*.

>My understanding is that 'not guilty by
>reason of insanity' is the same as 'guilty, but not really his
>fault'.

No, they're not the same. There is a verdict of "guilty but insane". But
that's different. That just affects sentencing, not the question of
guilt or innocence.

Besides, Mr. Medicine Man, being temporarily under hypnotic suggestion isn't
technically the same as being "insane", is it? Is "insane" even a proper 
medical term?

>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>body from being violated?
>
>Yup, sure does, as far as I'm concerned. 

If she has the legal right to kill in self-defense (which has not been 
demonstrated to my satisfaction to be the case in ANY state of the Union), 
the evil hypnotizer is guilty of felony murder as well as rape, since he 
caused the whole situation. In fact, depending on how the statute was written, 
the evil hypnotizer might even be guilty of TWO counts of criminal sexual 
assault as well as the felony murder (since he forced the dart-victim into a 
sexual encounter without HIS consent as well). In any case, I don't think 
he'll be getting out of prison anytime soon... :-|

								- Kevin
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 22:03:10 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> >I don't know. But I'm pretty certain that, if there was such a thing as
> >a "god", it wouldn't give a rat's ass how you chose to enjoy yourself,
> >so long as you didn't hurt anyone.
> 
> Unless we can go ahead and invent God in our own image, this statement has
> no basis.  If there were a God (and there is), He would not (does not) simply
> conform to the way we would like Him to be.  If God does consider homosexuali
> to be wrong, it doesn't matter a "rat's ass" whether we agree with Him or not

Problem is here, that you're applying religious reasoning (hey! I just
invented a new oxymoron!) to people who are not members of your
religion.

Unless your "god" runs for office here, and gets elected, opinions and
beliefs attributed to him are no more valid than those attributed to
Garfield the Cat.

In other words, if *you* want to live your life according to a set of
rules, hey, that's just fine - as long as they don't interfere with me.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14143 talk.abortion:58517
From: madlemta@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Troy A Madlem)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: promises
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:31:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: madlemta@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Troy A Madlem)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g310b4.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu



Would someone please e-mail me the list of slick willies promises(  
the first 24).  I did have them all but my computer ate the first 24,  
it must be a liberal. I also need to know the date on which promise  
28 was made.  Thanks in advance.

Troy Madlem
madlemta@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
   

-- NewsGrazer, a NeXTstep(tm) news reader, posting --
M>UQR=&8P7&%N<VE[7&9O;G1T8FQ<9C!<9FUO9&5R;B!#;W5R:65R.WT*7&UA
M<F=L,3(P"EQM87)G<C$R,`I<<&%R9%QT>#DV,%QT>#$Y,C!<='@R.#@P7'1X
M,S@T,%QT>#0X,#!<='@U-S8P7'1X-C<R,%QT>#<V.#!<='@X-C0P7'1X.38P
M,%QF,%QB,%QI,%QU;#!<9G,R-"!<"EP*5V]U;&0@<V]M96]N92!P;&5A<V4@
M92UM86EL(&UE('1H92!L:7-T(&]F('-L:6-K('=I;&QI97,@<')O;6ES97,H
M('1H92!F:7)S="`R-"DN("!)(&1I9"!H879E('1H96T@86QL(&)U="!M>2!C
M;VUP=71E<B!A=&4@=&AE(&9I<G-T(#(T+"!I="!M=7-T(&)E(&$@;&EB97)A
M;"X@22!A;'-O(&YE960@=&\@:VYO=R!T:&4@9&%T92!O;B!W:&EC:"!P<F]M
M:7-E(#(X('=A<R!M861E+B`@5&AA;FMS(&EN(&%D=F%N8V4N7`I<"E1R;WD@
M36%D;&5M7`IM861L96UT84!.95A4=V]R:RY2;W-E+4AU;&UA;BY%9'5<"B`@
$(`I]"F5M
`
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:43:31 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Straw Man, Take Two( WAS Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
 <mjenkins.727221839@cunews> <1993Jan17.112958.19449@husc3.harvard.edu>
 <1993Jan19.073259.25121@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
 <C1AAp4.MIr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <15626.2b60cce6@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>

In article <15626.2b60cce6@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu says:

>[BTW, there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat in the Rush/Reagan
>ideology, it is impossible for a Democrat to be moderate. Moderate is
>such as Jerry Falwell, Phylis Shafly (sp?), Pat Robertson, etc...]

Not true.  Those are conservatives.  What planet did you just get back from?

>Oh please! I thought this kind of juvenile name calling Nazi fear propoganda
>went out with Ronald Reagan. Rush seems to be doing a good job keeping
>the faith it seems!

If name-calling is a Nazi tactic, then most of the posters here are using Nazi
tactics.  Talk about name-calling...

>Is it true that Rush urged his listeners that Clinton wasn't really the
>president, that the US didn't have a president now, and that Clinton should
>be assasinated? It wouldn't surprise me if it was! He had better be careful
>making statements like that...

At least you had the sense to (pretend to) ask if Rush had said something he
didn't say here, before attacking him for saying it.  Progress, within a
single post.  Good job.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Inherant characteristics of inanimate objects
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 01:31:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.165254.23658@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.014923.21332@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners) writes:
>|> 
>|>      I saw on one of the Network newscasts that President Clinton is using the
>|> same desk in the newly redecorated Oval Office (I wonder how much that cost)
>|> that was used by former Presidents JFK and Ronald Reagan.
>|> 
>|>      When I heard it, I didn't know quite what to make our of it- almost hoping
>|> that there was a possibility that President Clinton would draw some powers
>|> from the desk. I started to ponder what he could get from the previous owners
>|> of the desk.
>|> 
>|>      My results? From Ronald Reagan- pride in America, a strong defense and
>|> good economic policy. From JFK- phone numbers of old girlfriends that were
>|> carved in the top.
>
>Are you kidding?   Ronald Reagan was arguably the WORST president in the
>last 60 years.  The Reagan administration wasted tons of money on worthless
>military projects, destroyed the economy by running up a HUGE debt, let
>our cities go straight to hell, ruined the public school system, and sold
>weapons to Iran and gave the money to bandits.  And you think that this 
>man is worthy of accolades?  The final crime, the selling of our country
>to Japan, was his worst, and he had enough gall to accept the payoff in
>public!!
>
>Jared Dahl
>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.


I always have to laugh when someone says "x is arguably y," to begin
with. It is a true statement to say that Jared Dahl
is arguably a floor lamp, but I digress.

Reagan wasted tons of money, huh? Like spending millions to have
the 411-phone info line for the district of columbia moved
to west virginia? oops. sorry, that was Senator Byrd... Like having
money appropriated for a Lawrence Welk museum in North Dakota? oops.
it was the profligate congress again.. sorry.
our cities went straight to hell because of reagan, huh? yup. he tacitly
encouraged drug use when he was caught smoking crack in a d.c. hotel.
wrong again... that was marion barry.
boy, that damned reagan. what a mess he made.
--
 !         \                                                                    !      1------1                     
 !\     1______1            __1__     "And my mind was filled with wonder,
 ! \    1______1      /   ____1____    when the evening headlines read:
 !      !   \        / /  1__|_|__1    'Richard Cory went home last night,
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Broken Promises/Anit-Clinton sentiment growing
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:09:40
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: libwca@emory.edu's message of 21 Jan 93 16:35:26 GMT

In article <1929@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
-> gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gary James Patalsky) writes:
-> : 
-> : As well they should, many Americans are asking "What have we done" in
-> : reference to the election of Bill Clinton.  With him breaking at least 5
-> : promises before serving 1 day, I've seen numerous anti-Clinton articles
-> : and letters to the editor of our local paper.  What should really scare
-> : you people is that we are one heartbeat away from having Al Gore as
-> : president.
-> : 
-> : ------------------
-> : Broken Clinton Promises: here are the broken promises that come to mind
-> : - add to this list as it grows (and it will grow).
-> : 
-> : 1.  A 10% middle class tax cut.  Clinton has already nixed this idea.
-> : 2.  No middle class tax increases.  Clinton is working on raising the
-> : gasoline tax (a regressive tax that will affect the poor the hardest)
-> : and the unseen value added tax.
-> : 3.  Reduce the deficit by 50% in four years.  Slick Willie is talking
-> : about a 44% reduction now.  The evils of Reagan and Bush are already
-> : affecting his policy :)
-> : 4.  Less special interest in his administration.  He then nominates Ron
-> : Brown, one of the biggest special interest corporate lawyers in the
-> : country.
-> : 5.  Open up the US to the Haitian refugees.  He has already said that he
-> : will send them back.       
-> 
-> I'm not going to argue that Clinton is not a liar- all politicians
-> are liars, in my experience, and I'm just grateful that he seems
-> to be less of a liar than George Bush.  He may yet prove me wrong.
-> However, two of your five points of light don't wash.  Clinton
-> could appoint ten Ron Browns and still have a less corrupt cabinet
-> than Reagan or Bush, and he hasn't said he will send all Haitians
-> back; only that he won't change the policy at once, for fear of
-> a massive boatlift for which nobody would be prepared.  He will
-> change the Haitian policy in some way, shape or form.  
-> 
-> Bill
-> 

	It's interesting that even now people are trying to defend
Clinton not on his own merits but by putting down Reagan and Bush.  It
worked during the campaign, but he's the big man now and must be
examined completely on his own actions.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:55:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.221703.18990@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.212832.18977@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>
>>> In article <1993Jan19.073259.25121@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
>>> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) says:
>>> 
>>> >But you know the old Republican Duck Test;  if it looks like
>>> >a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a liberal.
>>> 
>>> Clinton walks looks like a pig, runs like a hippo and brays like an ass.
>>> So, what the hell is he?
>>
>>Your twin brother?
>
>If it resorts to personal attacks what is it?  A liberal.

You know, I find it fascinating that the liberals on the net make the
most personal attacks of all.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crum@fcom.cc.utah.edu (Gary Crum)
Subject: WHO will be back on CNN on February 1st?
Organization: University of Utah
Distribution: alt
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:04:57

Pat Buchanan?  On Crossfire perhaps?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Supposed Bentsen Quote
Keywords: 4 names
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:06:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.045842.26236@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>Today Rush played (twice at least) what he claimed was the recorded voice
>of an interview with Senator Lloyd Bentsen, now Secretary of the Treasury.
>In this supposed recording, a voice said something on the order of
>"Those middle class voters will fall for a lie about tax cuts every time."

	So what?

	They fell for Bush. They fell for Clinton.

	Personally, I wouldn't want to vote for anyone who makes too
big an issue out of tax cuts. That's because here is one promise that
is just too hard to keep.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: Pichardo@Fwva.Saic.Com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: CLINTON PROMISE LIST
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:54:30 GMT
Organization: Science Applications Int'l, Corp. - Computer systems operation

Does anyone know were to obtain a list of the promises?  Sorry if this is a FAQ.  I'm new to the group.
 
 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13543 talk.politics.misc:69316
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:59:09 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
 <93022.034317MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <93022.034317MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs
<MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> says:

>>I think (as one of Rush's callers theorized) that Clinton -knew- that Baird
>>would not get confirmed.  He wanted to make a pretense of wanting some
>>conservatism in the cabinet, so people wouldn't think he was a liberal.  He
>>never intended for someone like Zoe Baird to be attorney general.  He just
>>wants you to think he did.  Ingenious little ploy of his.

>Brilliant conspiracy theorizing! [...]

You've got a funny definition of 'conspiracy.'
Can ONE MAN be a conspiracy? (Though, I'd guess it was TWO people, probably
Clinton and Biden.  Still not much of a conspiracy.)

>Conspiracy. I'd say that if Clinton could come up with and put into
>operation a plan as Machiavellian as that and watch it come off perfectly --
>well, the man must be an unparalleled political genius! Wouldn't you agree?

I don't deny he's a political genius.  He had to be to fool people into voting
for him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Larry King (daytime?) he he
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:49:10 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, aj234@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Woolard) says:

>
> 
>Does Larry really think he has the heart (he he) to compete head to head
>with RUSH. I think not, but I bet the main stream press will give some
>serious coverage to this competition. In the end we will see who the 
>real king is. Stay tuned, Febuary 1, 1993, Larry King goes head to head
>with RUSH. Can you believe Larry is giving up his comfortable throne to
>Jim Bohanan in the late nite market. While I sure he will have a formitable
>market share, he won't touch Rush. 
> 
>Reply on this board and E-mail since I can't log into here often....

Just one small point here...

Since when does is a nominal 12p-3p EST (Limbaugh) time slot head to head with
a 3p-6p EST time slot  (King)?




-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:10:44
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
Distribution: usa
	<1993Jan7.155136.18478@asl.dl.nec.com>
	<C0I3J6.4s6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<dlhanson.31.726451977@nap.amoco.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: test22
In-reply-to: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com's message of Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:12:57 GMT

In article <dlhanson.31.726451977@nap.amoco.com> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:

   I too have read studies (I don't have the sources, sorry) that show that
   drug education programs (such as DARE) increase drug use, and sex education
   programs increases fornication. IF parents taught their children
   moral values instead of heathen relativism AND IF the parents shelter their
   children, there wouldn't be a problem to talk about.

Or at least we wouln't talk about it.  Yes!  Ignorance is Strength!!!

   It is just that a large number of people don't get the connection
   between sin and its consequences.  Adult examples of the kind of
   seared consciences this kind of child rearing produces are becoming
   more and more common, it seems.

Seems to you.  Seems less clear to some of us.  I doubt there is a
scientific study that shows a correlation between sin and anything.

-- JC
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics,alt.politics.elections
From: tspila@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tim Spila {Romulan})
Subject: What's in a democracy? (Was: Campaign funding a joke
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:15:44 GMT

In article <C17owo.EH6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>
>   Just because we have the technical capacity does not mean it is a good
>idea.  The public gets far too rapped up and emotional over issues, and
>a more delibrate process is necessary.  
>
So, what could be a good deliberate process?  I agree that people get
rapped up in issues, but they also tend to be stubborn as well.  Will
any deliberate process help either of these things?

I guess the point I am trying to make is:  Do we have a government that
rules by what the population says it wants?  OR Do we have a government
that rules by what "it" thinks is good for the population?  Also, which
is truely better?

Tim.
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Keywords: 4 names
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:20:54 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C17C00.KMr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>
>
>>   Rush said on one of his TV shows that Bill had 4 names just like
>>George Herbert Walker Bush.  Is there any truth to this?  Would be
>>funny if true, considering all the heat George took over 4 names.
>
>William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
>
>>   
>>   Another question about Bill:  From what I understand, his educational
>>history is as follows.  Prep School, Georgetown University (undergrad), Yale
>>(law school).  Is this right?  If so, doesn't sound like a man of the people
>>to me.

This is not quite correct.  Bill Clinton went to a public high school
in Arkansas and was one of its star pupils, hence his acceptance into
Georgetown.
Chris
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion