HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:50:35 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <schumach.718587049@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>Yeah! And who sold all that chemical and nuclear weapon technology to
>the Iraqis JUST ONE YEAR before the Gulf War? Where was Bill?

... and then there's the Hindenburg disaster in 1937.  Can Bill
Clinton prove that he wasn't in Lakehurst, NJ, on May 6, 1937.  Oh,
sure, some Liberals will say that Clinton wasn't even born in 1937,
but that's just the kind of soft headed thinking you'd expect from
Commie Fellow Traveler Baby Killing Tax and Spenders.  Life begins
before conception, you know.  Just because Commie Clinton's parents
probably hadn't even met yet doesn't absolve him of basic pre-fetal
responsibility.  And what about Gennifer Flowers?  Well, what about
her?  Huh?

							spl

-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Twit twit twit/Jug jug jug jug jug jug/So rudely forc'd./Tereu"
                - T. S. Eliot, "The Waste Land," III. The Fire Sermon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Re: Does He Get It?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:50:11 GMT

In article <athos-141092221437@kip2-4.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.192402.4912@news.columbia.edu>,
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) wrote:
>> 
>> Blurb on page A19 of today's NYT:
>> 
>> As Mr. Quayle stood on the stage after the debate taking the
>> congratulations of well-wishing Republicans, a supporter raised a
>> point.
>> 
>> "You did great, Dan, great," he said.  "There's just one thing.  This
>> abortion thing.  You've got to realize that the Democratic position --"
>> 
>> "Is extreme?" Mr. Quayle said, nodding in anticipation.
>> 
>> "No, is supported by 72 percent of the people in this country," the
>> man said.  "You've got to drop it, Dan."
>
>Ah, yes, asking a leader to change his moral beliefs for politcal gain. 
>I'd rather he didn't: it's more credible.

Let us remind you -- GHWB himself changed his position on abortion, as
he changed his position on "voodoo economics," as he changed his
position on what he knew about arms-for-hostages (2x in 2 days!), as he
has changed his position on Civil Rights, as he has changed his position
on the Vietnam War, as he changed his position on the tax compromise of
1990, ad nauseum.

Do you trust GHWB?  I don't.

Gary
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Organization: Clark University
Date: 8 OCT 92 22:23:13 GMT

In a previous article, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) wrote:
>  Boy, those Democrats sure know how to counter Bush's appearance on Larry
>King on Sunday.  They had Clinton and Gore dressed up in their blue jeans
>and rolled up shirt sleeves on Monday.  I guess these guys are common folk
>just like us!  Too bad they forgot to remove the price tags and iron out
>the creases from the store shelves which the clothes were sitting on that
>afternoon.  I'll bet they even had them eat supper at McDonalds before the
>show!

Mmmm. And Bush has obviously gotten alot of help in his commercials from
the "Hollywood Elite" types that Quayle has been laughably bashing.
Inconsistencies abound!

>"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
>for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!    

"My position has not changed. I'm still, uh, pro, pro, uh, pro-life."
						- President George Bush

-				|   "Don't torture yourself, Gomez.
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|    That's my job."
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    			- Morticia Addams
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 12 Oct 1992 11:21:18 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.

>What science fiction have you been reading???  Or perhaps you smoked something
>funny and inhaled!!

I guess Bill is proof that you don't need to breathe in order to
become President!  However, if you look at the polls, Clinton has had
a lead of anywhere from nine to twenty-one points in every nation wide
scientific poll since the Democratic convention this summer.

The election is over.  I'm just having fun watching the shrub flail in
the wind!  He's been a lame duck President since August!  Hoorah!

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
The white porcelain is screaming ayee! Thank god the boy's not alone. - Primus
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Polls on VP Debate
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:46:31 GMT

bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

>Who won the debate?

>      Gore  Quayle Stockdale    Sample 
>NBC    50     32      2          623 adults
>ABC    38     35      7          500 adults


I think it's pretty funny how both of these polls will state that 
this is how everyone feels (with a -+ 4% margin of error).  Now
since the Gore catagory is 12 different, there MUST be a better
than 4% error, eh?  I think these polls say whatever the guy
taking them WANTS to say....I have given up on the mainstream media
ever giving me news that hasn't been slanted toward their agenda.

Chad

CBS - 'Rather' biased!
s
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: I will not vote Democratic - here's why.
Organization: None
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:29:55 GMT

In article <Oct.16.13.54.39.1992.812@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct15.131708.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>>>In article <16880F99F.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>> In article <1992Oct14.182613.3469@fid.morgan.com>
>>>> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>>Its simple....I want to send a message about tax/spend politicians.
>
>There is a big difference between tax and spend and tax and invest.

>> relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by FORCING THE
>> RICH TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.  We will provide long-overdue tax

>>Now Clinton has since said the cutoff is $200,000 but what does that mean?
>>200,000 per person, per family? Granted, that is a much more wealthy
>
>That means "per family".  Everytime he makes this statement.  He says
>"increase taxes on families making over $200K"  Once or twice he mentioned
>a lower rate for singles.  Something like $150K.  
>
>If you won't listen when the man talks, then don't blame him when you
>don't know what he said.  

I stand corrected - an early message said he didn't clarify it and 
his PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST and the 1992 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM don't mention it.
But Clinton did say 200,000 per family. But he didn't say how much - so he
is still a bit vague, just less so.

But the OFFICIAL party line doesn't mention the $200,000 number.

Joe
joec@morgan.com



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:30:55 GMT

Wasn't Clinton one of the Watergate burglars? Come Bill,
come clean with the American people like Bush's fellow
Republican Richard Nixon did.

============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
CLINTON FOR PREZ, BOB ABRAMS FOR US SENATE, DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-22ND)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 11 Oct 1992 17:26:01 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Time for Presidential Debate Sunday, Oct. 11
Distribution: world

In article <1b7b1qINNftp@agate.berkeley.edu>, wchen@oreo.berkeley.edu (William
Chen) says:
>
>Someone please post the times and dates for the presidential debates,
>or reply by email.

6 p.m. Central Daylight Time.  7 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

4 p.m. Pacific Time.
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: AL GORE - The man with too many faces
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:38:32 GMT
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

>Did you know that Al Gore use to be PRO-LIFE....
>Now all of a sudden he is in the race for the VP slot.
>Gee, I think that there is something fishy going on here....
>Corrupt Politicians will pay someday!
>
>Jeff E

All BLATANT LIARS, like you Jeff, will pay someday!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:17:09 GMT

In article <Bvv7B9.JDr@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.153034.16313@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.043352.26843@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>
>>
>>Athens, perhaps, even if decisions were made by a small fraction of
>>the actual population.  Sparta was an oligarchy (archons?).  I think
>>this is one of the contrasts Thucydides made.
>>
>>
>>In any case, I was under the impression that this was a discussion of
>>modern democracies.  We have such sundries now as mass communication
>>(though this cuts both ways: we get to see the Other Side as not being
>>too different from us, making it harder to wage war.  We also may get
>>news more quickly, and may act before we have a chance to digest it.)
>
>i think it is relevant to modern times. from the descriptions of
>Sparta i would think (ex)East Germany was a good modern paradigm 
>of the Spartan society. hardly democratic.

But we're talking about democracies going to war against each other....

In any case, I didn't say that Thucydides wasn't relevant to our times.
I recall my Lit Hum professor pointing out such sundries as parallels
to the Cold War, etc.  There is a reason we read the classics after all.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17085 alt.politics.bush:9355 alt.politics.clinton:10729
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:21:08 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WHAT GORE REALLY SAYS in his book
 <1992Oct15.130015.16321@cbnews.cb.att.com>

In article <1992Oct15.130015.16321@cbnews.cb.att.com>, nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N.
Richard Caldwell) says:
>
>I have never said that Quayle was correct.  Amazingly enough, you seem
>determined to dodge the real issue here.  Does Gore advocate spending US
>funds on foreign aid for environmental projects or not?
>

Dunno.  Guess I'd rather it went to that than right-wing death squads.

Hope this helps!

Jeff Luck               *The opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University      "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU             -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: After Debate Press Coverage
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 14:31:10 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1bfrisINN6pp@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
|> Does anyone else get sick of the after debate coverage that the press
|> gives.  As soon as the debate is over, they tell you who won and who
|> lost.  Why don't they let the American people figure it out for
|> themselves instead of giving us their view?  Are we not smart enough to
|> decide for ourselves what was said and who came out ahead because of it?  
|> I'm not against press coverage, but I'd like to see them give the
|> American people a couple hours to work it out for themselves and to be
|> able to discuss the debate with family and friends before we get their
|> viewpoint of it.
|> 
|> Just a thought,
|> 
|> Dan

Just a thought - why don't you turn off the TV when the debate ends?  :):)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16549 talk.politics.misc:51487 alt.politics.bush:8991 alt.rush-limbaugh:7292 alt.activism.d:3843 soc.culture.usa:7760
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>George, let's not forget what happened to Nixon after he started listening
>to the nuts in his party.

But remember-George was Republican national committee chairman during Watergate 
(that's how he got to be appointed first ambassador to China afterwards) and 
never said a single even remotely critical word about it. He was one of the nuts
Nixon was listening to, or rather he was listening to the same nuts at the same
time. So I'm hardly surprised.

							Dan Case

						V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
						Prodigy: WDNS15D
	"America is one of the few places in the world where failure to promote						
	oneself is widely regarded as being arrogant"-Garry Trudeau.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.192520.5706@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Agreed.  Clinton is not a robotic construct made by the evil Democraticons,
|> programmed with information and the power to hypnotize or manipulate
|> the minds of us foolish Earthlings.  
|> He is a guy from a small state whose population thinks highly enough of
|> him to have elected him to their highest position five times, and whose
|> actions in that small state over teh last 12 years have improved that
|> state's development.  
|> No scandals I've ever heard of have come out of his Governorship, unlike
|> someone else I could mention.
|> When it comes to electing leaders, smaller populations usually do a much
|> better job than larger ones because by definition, the smaller population
|> has a much better chance of actually having contact with the candidates
|> and thus a much better chance of accurately gauging the candidate's
|> intentions, fitness to rule, and effectiveness.  
|> It's a case of the judgement ofArkansas' population five times over over
|> the last twelve years versus the judgement of the national press and/or
|> his political rivals over he last single year.  
|> I think the people of Arkansas are smarter than the press, and rivals
|> have their own ulterior motives.
|> Thus I percieve Bill Clinton to be the best person for the job this time,
|> and I will vote for him.
|> 

By this logic the Govenor of Rhode Island must be a god.

Doug

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17390 alt.politics.bush:9551 alt.politics.clinton:11063 alt.politics.perot:2309
From: pjm@isis (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Insurance
Summary: Why does trn drop the Subject: ?
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:38:16 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

In article <1992Oct16.192856.14847@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>On every issue this difference was apparent. Clinton wants to have Washington
>dictate THE solution to every problem and make people follow it. Bush wants
>to set the rules so people can pick their own way. Clinton wants to empower
>government, Bush wants to empower people.

NYTimes 10/16/92:

	The Bush Administration has decided to urge the Supreme Court
	to rule that employers may cut health insurance coverage for
	workers who develop costly illnesses.

Republicans have such a lofty vision of civilization,
i am so blessed to live in their world!

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: C/G First Release: GEORGE BUSH JUST DOESN'T GET IT
Organization: None
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:21:35 GMT

In article <29467@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com 
>                       RHETORIC VS. REALITY
>                   GEORGE BUSH JUST DOESN'T GET IT
>
>       The conservative Cato Institute called Bush "the largest
> spender to sit in the White House in the past 30 years" -- noting
> Bush "increased the domestic budget more in 4 years than Carter and
> Reagan combined did in 12 years." [Cato Institute, 6/19/92]
>
Dont' forget that Congress agreed also and they have been Democratically
controlled for the vast majority of the last 40 years or so.

Bush simply CANNOT spend money without Congress' approval - Its in the
Constitution. Granted, he went along with it. So blame BOTH Bush and the 
Democrats for our mess, which is what Perot says - they are BOTH guilty.

Joe
Perot `92
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17386 talk.politics.drugs:6851
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: drug wars (was re: VP debates)
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:05:33 GMT
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) says:
>
>For a PHYSICAL addiction to heroin, one that leads to withdrawal symptoms
>(which incidentally are comparable to a bad bout of the flu), one has to
>hit the needle very regularly with a very high grade of dope.  If someone
>desires escape enough, it's not hard for them to get there, but if a
>person is just trying to see what it's like they won't be instantly hooked.
>For cocaine, there isn't even any demonstration of any kind of physical
>addiction or withdrawal symptoms--period.

Excuse me, but I thought there was with "crack." There's that liar "I hear"
talking again, I guess.
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:54:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.
>
>Bullshit.
>

Just putting up Mr. Rosenthal's opinions, laddie.

Anyway, I've seen the "democracies don't go to war with each other" claim
made a number of times, and I haven't seen a refutation yet.

Democracies tend to share common institutions, and another country's
democrats can't be characterized as mindless drones.  Democracies also
theoretically allow public opinion to be voiced, of the population
disagrees with the war.  Not perfect, but it allows an avenue of
appeal.

>|> They do not sponser international terrorism.
>
>Well, the USA was a democracy when it imported slaves.  Can anybody think
>of a more modern example?

Well, arguably, the CIA can be construed as a terrorist group in some
cases (Phoenix program in Vietnam, etc.)  That's a more recent
example.  Again, the structures of democracies allow an avenue of
appeal if the public disagrees with the actions of the elected
officials.  Doesn't work all the time, but it's better than nothing.

>
>|> They do not threaten to destry other nations with weapons of mass destruction.
>
>"We will systematically destroy Japan's ability to wage war..."  Harry Truman.
>

Weren't we at war, and aren't we supposed to things like this during
total wars?

>And France's nuclear weapons arn't exactly a gesture of good will either.
>

They're not pointed at us.  Isn't that nice?

Anyway, we're allowed to lodge complaints.  We did have an
anti-nuclear movement.  The British, Germans, etc., had various
protest groups that were upset with American nuclear deployment.
Again, not perfect but better than nothing.

>|> Democracy abroad helps protect economic and security interests at home. 
>
>Can you say Vietnam?  I thought you could!  For the advanced lesson, try
>saying Nicaragua, Panama, and South America.
>
>
>Live in the real world.

Listen: the point of this article was the make a case, albeit not
wonderfully strong, for what Mr. Rosenthal calls democratic realism,
and its superiority over realpolitik (I believe I've called it
"realism" in past posts).  I'm sympathetic towards the former school
of thought: realpolitik seems to be an empty, amoral game without
clearly articulated ends beyond the accumulation and retention of
power for power's sake.  I'd prefer our foreign policy to have at
least some grounding in a moral system, and promoting and supporting
fledgeling democracies is far, far better than propping up despots to
gain positioning in a global game of chess.
--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16604 talk.politics.misc:51541
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:50:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <92287.152431MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>

>Eh, be fair, anyone who advocates legalization is committing political
>suicide...
>
>Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu

So the avoidance of "political suicide" is a blank-check excuse for
hypocrisy.

And people wonder why things are FUBAR.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections