HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:37:11 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 24320@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Clinton (bald faced liar that he is) has since _ADMITTED_ that he knew
>about his uncle's efforts.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Wrong again.  Clinton stated that he became aware of his uncle's efforts for
the first time in March of this year.  He has consistently denied knowing about
his uncle's efforts before that time.

>An Arkansas attorney who was very close to Clinton in his college days
>has said that Clinton _HAD_ACTUALLY_RECEIVED_AN_INDUCTION_NOTICE_ and
>somehow had it invalidated, and _THAT_ was the reason why he sought to
>"join" ROTC.  (The _Los_Angeles_Times_ is reportedly working on this
>story.)

Sounds like you have a rock solid source there.  ;-)  A bona fide friend of
Clinton's, who steps forward now, in the heat of a campaign, to offer 
important new information.  I was a draft counselor back then, and I never
heard of a draft notice getting rescinded.  If anything occurred, it was
probably a notice to report for a physical.  That normally portended an
induction notice, and it was a time, in many a young man's life, when the
scramble to find an alternative ensued.  Desperate attempts to find a post
in the National Guard, the Coast Guard, a seminary, perhaps even ROTC, if
that would delay conscription.  But there is no evidence, other than this
one individual's claim, of even a draft physical summons having triggered
Clinton's actions.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Canadian vs US health care
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 11:48:12 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Sep11.142553.27021@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep11.132745.10732@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
|> >
|> >  I always thought externalization of costs and internalization of benefits
|> >  was something to be avoided. We read all the time about how polluters
|> >  should pay for the costs of their pollution, rather than externalize those
|> >  costs to the rest of us. Does the principle still apply when it comes to
|> >  health care, or not?
|> >
|> 
|> I suppose that you would heartily support the notion that all employment
|> benefits should be treated and taxed as income so that employees of
|> companies that can't afford health care don't have to subsidize the
|> employees of companies that can.  In the US, the poor subsidize the
|> health care of the rich.
|> 

Would you care to back that statement up?  Most people in this country
have health insurance, most get it through their employer where it
results in a tax free benefit.  I would dare say that most people who
have employer based insurance are not 'rich'.  As far as those who
don't have insurance, most are not 'poor' but are in fact younger
workers.  To say that the poor subsidize the health care of the rich
is at the very least a gross overstatement.

I do heartily support the notion that health care benefits
provided by an employer should be taxed.  I also support the notion
that people who purchase their own insurance should get a break.  I
want a system which encourages people to own their own insurance 
rather than relying on employer (or government) provided insurance.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:38:29 GMT

In article <l981hbINNg3b@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>        ``The trend says we're heading for a dead-even race,'' he said.
>        Goeas, agreed, saying ``We're now acknowledging from both sides,
>we're looking at an extremely close race.''

In article <5072@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>It not only a trend but in the end it may not even be close.  For any one that
>watched PBS' coverage of the convention they spoke of several polls that didn't
>directly deal with Bush and Clinton but still may have an impact on the race.

Historical precedent indicates that any time there are 3 successive Republican
administrations that totally fuck up the nation's economy with its Keynesian
economic pseudo-science, then speculation increases, merger mania gets out of
control, banks are deregulated, and then collapse en mass, the stock market
crashes, a severe recession ensues, followed by a lengthy economic depression.

Then the Democrats will the next 4 elections by a landslide with an enormous
Democratic majority in the Congress for nearly 20 years after.

However, most of the ambitious programs it proposes and enacts are shot down
by the Other Guys -- the Supreme Court, because over the prior 12 years it had
been stacked with conservative ideologues.  Maybe for the better, maybe not.

On this basis, Clinton will win over 60% of the popular vote, and will win in
a huge electoral landslide, and the Republicans will face virtual extinction
(if only the US would exist past 1995, which it won't)

>Clean the House!

You got that part right.

Clean the entire US Federal Government.  It is time to declare bankruptcy,
relieve the population of the oppression of the Federal Debt, and reorganize
under a newer, more modern, and more humane Constitution, or just decentralize
all together and replace it with nothing.

By the way, most people see through the lie of blaming a Democratic Congress
for Reagan's fiasco.  It wasn't even Democratic in the first place.  The Senate
was majority Republican initially when Reagan came to power.  Fortunately,
the House wasn't, or we'd all be going to Falwell Mass on Sundays, praising the
virtues of the Holy Presidency.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Research Cuts
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep13.170656.17625@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>	Bill Clinton claims he will cut taxes,
>	balance the budget, and increase social spending.
>
>	We all know those are empty campaign promises,
>	but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>	hostile to technology and research spending.

Er, from whence comes that last statement?

If you mean cuts in military spending, well, yeah.  We're converting
to a civilian economy, and military research doesn't produce quite the
same quantity and quality of commercial spin-offs as it once did (who
needs a photocopier that can survive in an NBC environment?)

If you mean civilian research, then you're absolutely deluded.  For
instance, Clinton's advisor Robert Reich emphasizes how the US has to
move into a high tech economy to compete in the global economy.  Part
of the infrastructure spending will be on a high-speed data network.
There are other fun things like a modern railroad system, and so on.
So, where did you get the last statement?  Ah, thin air, I see.



--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45629 ca.politics:7824 ba.politics:5346
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:56:58 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>A person who showed up AT any straight parade carrying a sign for
>>something equivalent to NAMBLA would not only be ejected from the
>>parade, but perhaps from this world.

	I applaud your wanting to go after child molestors.
On the other hand, you don't seem to ever want to devote any energy
to the non-gay child molestors.  If you are really so intent on
curbing sex with minors, why aren't you doing anything within your
community?  Most teenage girls (read under 18) experience some
sort of sexual harassment/date rape/coersion from over-zealous
boys.  Seems to me there is a LOT of work that could be done there...
Then again most active pedophiles are heterosexual, the "silent" support
of this in your community Cr*m*r is incredible.  (In most cases
of incest, the other parent is usually *VERY* well aware that things
are going on, but usually doesn't confront it, or otherwise enables it
to continue occurring.)  

	Why is it that you never mention this?

	Of course in attacking those people, you woulnd't have
any need to post to soc.motss.

	Clean your own attic first, and *then* you can comment on mine.

	I notice you still having been able to come up with a list
of "special rights" yet...  Dont' worry I'm not expecting one in the
forseeable future.

BBC
	FYI, NAMBLA is barred from almost every GBLO*-Pride parade in
this country.
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: On-Line Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM desired!
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:18:15 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep7.042150.10890@morrow.stanford.edu> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
]In article <1992Sep6.224308.21494@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>In article <5d2yk_j@rpi.edu> buckmr@vccnw02.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
]>]We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority
]>]receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
]>]and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.
]>
]>So what is wrong with this? Why SHOULD a sexual preference be a "protected
]>minority receiving preferential status?" This goes far beyond equality
]>or lack of prejudice, to the point of preference. Perhaps you would favor
]>making sexual preference as a protected minority if the preference 
]>favored was heterosexual, or perhaps pedophilia?
]
]Preferential status, yeah.  Like being able to marry?  Like being able
]to serve in the military without fearing that you'll be one of the
]1500 people they kick out every year because they're lesbigay?  Like
]not receiving security clearance because you're lesbigay and you can't
]come out because you can't get security clearance because you're
]lesbigay?  Like losing your job when your supe discovers you're
]lesbigay?

Read the words! The platform is talking about "protected minority
receiving preferential status" and you are talking about discrimination.
There is a hell of a difference. I take it that you agree with the
republican platform, then.

]>Those voters are already there. These quotes are quite a bit more moderate
]>than I had been lead to believe by the media, who told me that the
]>platform was absolutely antiabortion from the moment of conception (not
]>supported by those quotes) and that it opposed any form of anti-discrimination
]>against gays (which is also not supported by those quotes). Sigh, but then
]>what should I expect from our mass media?
]
]Really?  You and I must have been watching different versions of the
]GOP convention.
]

Again, I am talking about the platform. Apparently you are not.


-- 
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
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:15:06 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Anwar Mohammed writes:
>
>The point isn't so much that he [Clinton, not Quayle now] dodged the draft.
>It is that he has lied about it.  Repeatedly.  
>
Blather. In a world of sound bites politicians have a right of survival.
Jeez. Who in the hell is fooled by his statements? A two year old? Maybe,
but only just. Do you believe Quayle's explanation? Or Newt Gingrich's?
Or George Bush's sons? Jeez louise. Clinton's statements are pro forma.
He is no saint. No one running makes us forget Mother Theresa.  


-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Season: 0-1 Lifetime: 0-3 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Originator: forgach@gemini.tuc.noao.edu
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:50:20 GMT

From article <1992Sep1.172707.10759@crd.ge.com>, by keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr):
> ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
> -> What annoys me is that, although the
> -> "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem to think that
> -> their arguments are superior, they evidently do not
> -> trust women to see this for themselves.

Of course not.  Not with 1.5 million of them aborting their babies a year.


> which is why many consider them misogynists.

Crap and malarky.  Every one of those babies had a male father as well as
a female mother.  There is nothing misogynist at all in the observation that,
evidently, parents need to be restrained from killing their children.


Suzanne Forgach
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45151 alt.rush-limbaugh:4701 alt.politics.elections:12991 alt.politics.clinton:5172 alt.politics.bush:4923
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Is the Honeymoon Ending?
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:23:35 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <BuI7x4.CC9.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
]OK, so the press has had a love affair with Clinton-Gore.  Big deal.
]As long as it ends some time before the election.  The signs are already

Note.... my comments below apply primarily to the TV news.
It won't, although they may start looking a little more critically at
Clinton-Gore. If a scandal comes up (bimbo eruption or more lies about
draft dodging are exposed), they will find it hard to ignore it. Certainly
before it became clear that Clinton was the democratic nominee, the
press hated him - they went after him with a vengeance (probably because
they preferred Cuomo). They even were saying that he was marginalized during
the time that Perot was in - perhaps in an attempt to force a draft of
Cuomo during the convention. Once Clinton was in, the press coverage
changed radically - all of a sudden Clinton was the leader of a new
Camelot! The change should have been terribly embarrassing for them,
but I don't think they noticed.

]I'm just glad economic issues are finally being discussed fairly and honestly 
]by the press.  Newsweek's honestly is especially encouraging, being a little
]more in the mainstream that TNR.  Hopefully, TNR's analysis will be picked up,
]because, as I'm sure you've all heard in that recent poll, there is very little 

Yes, it is good that the news magazines are starting to be responsible
about it. I'll be a lot happier if the TV media starts doing it too,
because there are so many people who depend on them for their news.


-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 01:23:28 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <lbaf19INNbn7@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham) writes:
    >In article <_7wnvxr.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>>And BTW -- the only real life actual case of sexual
    >>>discrimination I have ever witnessed personally involved a
    >>>hetersexual not being hired by an all (apparently all)
    >>>homosexual company.
    >>>
    >>>Although I did see a pre-op transexual being denied
    >>>employment (and was otherwise greatly qualified) by a well
    >>>know company that proudly advertises its search for
    >>>"diversity".
    >>>
    >And my uncle once saw a pink elephant fly!
    >
    >Great hearsay. Could you give specifics or do you have such
    >an overwhelmingly small amount of evidence that this is the
    >best you can do. If you want nothing more than hearsay I
    >think you would be drowned out in the din of counterexamples,
    >not to mention the counterexamples that are openly and
    >blatantly (even admittedly) instances of homophobic
    >discrimination. Can you say BSA?

Umm, comprehension problem mate? I see what I see. It's not hearsay, I
was there, and I saw it.

BSA is not practicing homophoboc anything. You need to stop equating a
lack of love for a lifestyle with a phobia about it. I guess you just
don't want to let organizations associate as how-they-will, eh?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45086 ca.politics:7704 ba.politics:5251 soc.motss:38937 ba.motss:1605
From: tmohler+@cs.cmu.edu (Tim Mohler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:57:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BuHurL.49B.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep12.184456.28203@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire joe straight,
>> but not john homo because he may file suit) that other people don't have,
>> yes, it does confer de facto special rights.
>
>Amazing.
>
>Duh, Phool.  The phrase 'sexual orientation' covers 
>heterosexuals and bisexuals, too.
>-- 

And he could only make this statement if, somewhere in his primordial
ooze, he realized that NO ONE gets fired for being straight.

And don't give me anedcotal evidence. I want something reliable.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Health care will-o-wisps
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 06:15:53 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>> Canada is not a poor country.  The standard of living is fairly similar
>>> to the U.S.  It is a democracy.  Do you seriously believe that Canadians
>>> would put up with a system that wasn't serving their needs?  Why do you
>>> rarely hear *Canadians* complaining about their system?
>>
>>	When I was in North Conway, NH on vacation, I heard plenty of
>>complaints about Canadian health care.
>>
>>	Too-high taxes, mediocre care.  Assembly-line like conditions.
>>Waiting lists.
>>	Yes this was from Canadians.
>
>They were complaining about what they know...not about what they
>don't...they have no idea that if they were in the States that they
>might not be able to get any care at all because they couldn't afford
>the huge deductibles, or because their HMO would limit their choice

On the other hand, they may have figured that they had a live one with
him ... you know how we like to pull American legs down here (there
was that thread on Soc.culture.canada where we were trying to top wild
ones we told to people in bars down here) ... it's not like we don't
know what Americans tell each other on this topic ... if people can
take the one about throwing water out a window and having it land as
an icicle, anything is possible ... I'll have to tell the story about
the Trudeau Youth League (uniforms, Maple Leaf armbands, salutes, etc.)
the next time that thread rolls around (it was to a group of Young
Republicans; disappointing, since I like Jack Kemp ...).

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: speed, police, crime, hell
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:40:43 GMT
	<Sep.14.09.59.40.1992.29737@romulus.rutgers.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <Sep.14.09.59.40.1992.29737@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <NEERI.92Sep7181248@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>
>> In article <55979@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> scaruffi@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Piero Scaruffi) writes:
>
>>> The effects are devastating: the U.S. is the only Western country
>>> whose citizens (the honest ones, not the criminals) are afraid of
>>> their own police.
>
>> Are you joking?  I'm *definitely* afraid of Swiss police, I am
>> reasonably honest, and I'm not the only one.
>  ^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^
>       +-- [i.e., dishonest when you think you can get away with it]

No, honest enough not to pretent that I stopped at every red traffic light I
met in my life.

Matthias
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Research Cuts
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:00:13
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu's message of Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:06:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.170656.17625@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:

> 	but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
> 	hostile to technology and research spending.

I have no reason whatsoever to think that.  I see no hostility at all
from either of them, and, in fact, I have every reason to think that a
Clinton administration will be a good deal more sensible about
research spending than the Reagan and Bush administrations have been.

To the best of my knowledge, Al Gore is the only Presidential or Vice
Presidential candidate to have written an article for Scientific
American.  
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals