HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,bit.listserv.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush Exposed For Lying About Lying--CNN
Supersedes: <92236.022243U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 23 Aug 1992 02:41:13 CDT
From: Brady Woodward <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>

CNN Transcript

"About Bush's hyperbole on Clinton's taxes:  Charles
Black, senior advisor to the Bush campaign,
almost admitted that Bush was lying about the taxes and argued
that Bush was trying to make a "rhetorical point."  (!) *

Fred Barnes, conservative writer, asked Black why Bush was saying
things about Clinton's proposals that are not true.  Barnes pointed out
that Bush said Clinton's plan would raise taxes for everyone holding a
job -- which is simply false.  Black tried to say that Bush did not say
that, but Barnes informed him that Bush did say that.
Black then mentioned the rhetorical point and shifted attention to
something else.

Anyone who supports Clinton should disseminate the fact that the Bush
campaign has launched itself with a fundamental strategy of deception.
It is amusing that they are not only getting caught lying,
but are also being exposed for lying about lying!"


                                           *Evans and Novak, 9.22, CNN
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of my employer.  Brady Woodward U56503@uicvm
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2315 talk.politics.misc:40812
From: bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd)
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:20:52 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

>Date: 20 Aug 92 11:20:35 EDT
>From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Note from Gov. Clinton
>
>
>Thanks for all the birthday greetings!  It's great to hear from computer
>users throughout the world.  
>
>I look forward to taking my Putting People First message throughout the
>country as we head through the final phase of the campaign.
>
>Thanks again for the greetings and and all your help.
>
>I look forward to hearing from you!
>
>Bill Clinton
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2587 alt.politics.bush:2499 talk.politics.misc:41266 soc.culture.usa:6777 talk.politics.guns:19874
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Keywords: joke, very funny, haha, etc. 
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:30:42 GMT

In article <sc0LPB2w164w@opus.mcds.com> speers@opus.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:

>Bullets help make this process
>move along quicker esp when fired from a gun - and even more 
>efficient when fired from a semi-automatic hunting rifle.
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...

>   So, does the NRA really believe that people who go squirel
>hunting need to use a rifle that'll fire so many bullets in
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>half a second to have removed every bit of meat from the bones
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You're talking about full-auto, not semi-auto.  Don't feel too 
bad, the media have done a splendid job of blurring the distinction
over the last few years.  You're just a victim.

A semi-auto gun fires ONE bullet per trigger pull.  What makes it
semi-automatic is that no manual cocking of the gun is needed before
pulling the trigger again for the next shot.  Since most shooters can
pull the trigger about four times a second at best, a semi-auto will
fire two bullets in half a second, maybe three.  Many hunting guns are
indeed semi-automatic; you just need to learn about more about guns.
Are you aware, for instance, that a good duck-hunting gun (a 12-gauge
shotgun) is a hell of a lot deadlier to humans than an AK-47?

To answer your specific question, no.  The NRA has never tried to
defend the ownership of full-auto weapons on the basis of hunting,
that I'm aware of.  You might try getting your information about the
NRA from (wow, what a concept) the NRA, instead of from Doonesbury.

P.S. I am not an NRA member, and I've never owned a gun.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 15:48:32 GMT

lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

>In article <DLB.92Aug19102759@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>}In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
>}lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>}...
>}   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
>}...
>}By all means, support this assertion too.

>You want proof that restricting supply doesn't increase prices?

 Eliminating the supply to the honest citizens will not restrict the
supply to the criminals in the least. So support your assertion that
eliminating our guns would make it more difficult for criminals to get
them (hint: look to the drug trade for clues).

>} Guns are NOT more expensive
>}on the street in areas of strict gun control in the US (the only area
>}in which I am aware of studies being made). ...

>There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
>of.  Anyhow, we have free commerce among our states and cities, so
>this sort of comparison can't prove anything.

>You pro-gun people are something else.  You'd argue that down was
>up ...

 Greg Lee is lecturing on a subject he knows nothing about. He doesn't
know that there is no free trade of guns between states for starters,
and doesn't understand how the Chicago gun ban or the New York version
work. Then he claims that WE are something else... Sheesh...
-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.african.american
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Subject: Re: The Simpsons answer Bush!
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:05:33 GMT

barnhart@netcom.com (Aaron Barnhart) writes:

>Many of you may recall George Bush saying this week that his idea of
>family values is closer to that of the Waltons than of the Simpsons.

>Last night, on the Simpsons, Bart Simpson said, "We're a *lot* like the
>Waltons.  We're praying for the Depression to end."

Those guys at Fox are really on the ball to be able to prepare a response
that quickly. Maybe Barry Diller should run for president (I know he is
no longer running Fox, but his fingerprints are all over the company).
_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 17:55:36 GMT

In article <92231.032653MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter
<MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>Ah, then what is the "ultimate recall power" that "liberals" find
>>appropriate?  Surely they don't believe that "lie back and enjoy it"
>>is the appropriate response to a tyrant?  (That is be the "liberal"
>>response to rape, but that's another argument.)
>
>If you believe that last sentence, you're insane, but that's another
>argument.

Why is he insane?  When women are told that they should not resist
rapists because resistance will get them killed, what do you expect them
to do?

A town in Florida had a problem with a high rape rate and instituted
a high profile program to teach women how to defend themselves with
handguns.  The rate of rape occurence dropped to virtually zero.

   don

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2579 alt.politics.perot:1326 talk.politics.guns:19866
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:11:31 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <1992Aug21.002306.23159@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
}...
}We know how well Federal drug control is working, want to predict
}how well Federal gun control would work?

Federal drug control restricts the supply of drugs to some extent, as
compared to what the supply would be now without any controls.  So far as
I'm concerned, this is practically a tautology, since the legal bans impose
extra costs on production and distribution.  (I have learned through this
discussion, however, that pro-gun nuts are perfectly willing to argue
vehemently against tautologies.)  Similarly, Federal gun control would work
to some extent.  Neither could work well, because guns and drugs are things
that lots of people like to have and because the government has no business
telling them they can't.

I'm sure I'm boring you all by repeating the obvious.  I'm boring me.
I'm signing off now.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2368 alt.politics.perot:1315 talk.politics.guns:19724
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:18:07 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <DLB.92Aug19102759@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
}In article <1992Aug7.214140.29061@news.Hawaii.Edu>
}lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
}...
}   If guns were made illegal, that would increase their price, so
}...
}By all means, support this assertion too.

You want proof that restricting supply increases prices?

} Guns are NOT more expensive
}on the street in areas of strict gun control in the US (the only area
}in which I am aware of studies being made). ...

There isn't any place in the US where guns are illegal, that I know
of.  Anyhow, we have free commerce among our states and cities, so
this sort of comparison can't prove anything.

You pro-gun people are something else.  You'd argue that down was
up ...

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2451 talk.politics.guns:19776
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control (was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:52:51 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:

>In article <183135@pyramid.pyramid.com>, glambert@pyramid.com (George Lambert)
>writes:
>
>> Find another excuse for the RKBA (which I support, though I don't want any of
>> the damn things).  
>
>OK, let's be rigorous about this.  I don't need an excuse, since it's
>a Constitutionally guaranteed _Right_.  I don't need to make arguments
>in support of *Rights*.

Yes, you do. 

To avoid some flaming, let me state at the outset that I support the
2nd Amendment.

But to say that you don't need to offer support for something because it's 
in the Constitution is absurd.  There are numerous amendments to the 
Constitution, and there is no logical reason why a new amendment couldn't 
repeal the second.

There are reasons why the 2nd amendment was put into the 
Constitution - those arguments are the ones you should be using 
to support your right to keep and bear arms.  To fall back on "it's 
in the Constitution" is essentially to admit that you don't have any 
rational arguments.  It's nothing more than an appeal to
authority.  Why is it in the Constitution?  

The primary reason is that the founders of the country thought that 
an armed citizenry is a good idea.  They had just fought a war of 
oppresion against a British King, and wanted to do all they could to 
see that the new country would not be able to be oppressed by anyone 
else, either foreign or domestic.  Hence the balance of powers, and 
hence the right of the people to be armed.

Does anyone know of an example where a well-armed population was 
oppressed by its government?  Sure, people can come up with examples 
where an oppresive government has been toppled without a well-armed 
populace, but so what?  Disarming the people is a useful way to start 
any program of oppressing the people.
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:52:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug14.214428.23922@technology.com>, Judy McMillin writes:
> Hey Bill, a lot of folks think it was the BORROW and SPEND Republicans
> that got us into the present economic situation.  How about it?

The Democrat party has controlled the House for 40-50 years.  The House controls
ALL spending of the Federal Government.  So, think again.  Slick Willie's buddies
in the House spent the money - NOT the Republicans.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:22:26 GMT

In article <xzcfnf8@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>
>Which brings me back to a question I asked a long time ago and which pro-
>duced heated responses but no answers:  how does the registration of guns
>owned by people NOT in the National Guard (or the Reserves) endanger the
>continued existence of the National Guard?
>
Ok, here's an answer:  it doesn't.  It is also irrelivant.  The Second 
Amendment protects the rights of the people, not the National Guard.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd)
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:40:41 GMT


From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
>I look forward to taking my Putting People First message throughout the
>country as we head through the final phase of the campaign.

"Putting People First" is the name of an organization that spends a
lot of its time opposing animal rights folks.  This organization
PREDATES the Clinton campaign.  They've asked him repeatedly to
get his own slogan, to stop using theirs for his ends.  He's
blown them off.

He's raising money using their name.  Should they raise money using
his?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:34:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.235026.2652@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.220342.4274@gvl.unisys.com> eds@gvlf5-q.gvl.unisys.com (Ed Skladany) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug21.214041.2637@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
>>> >I look forward to taking my Putting People First message throughout the
>>> >country as we head through the final phase of the campaign.
>>> 
>>> "Putting People First" is the name of an organization that spends a
>>> lot of its time opposing animal rights folks.  This organization
>
>It show that Clinton doesn't respect other people's property when it
>comes to pushing his agenda.  Like his buddy Joe Biden, he steals his

The idea of "putting people first" has always been so ubiquitous that it is
absurd to say that it is anyone's "property".  It's like saying that the
term "end of year sale" is the property of the store which first used it.

Peter Lauren.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2404 alt.politics.bush:2329 talk.politics.misc:40938
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:35:32 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Aug14.213401.27774@berlioz.nsc.com> worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden) writes:
>tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
>>	In the US, currently only the rich and the lucky people with
>>good employers get health care.  The fact that the infant mortality rates
>>are among the highest in the western world, and that some 30% of the 
>>country isn't covered for all medical costs is quite pathetic.

This number is way off base. See below.
>
>During the primaries this last spring, one of the complaints from Clinton
>and Brown was that there were 37 million Americans without health care.

This is a commonly bandied "statistic" that is actually misleading. It is
based on a count of people who were without medical insurance at
any point during a year. The actual number of people who
are without insurance at any given time, or for long periods of time,
is much less. I recall that the number of people who
are without medical insurance on a long-term basis is about 4 million.

The "37 million" statistic is like saying 30 million people are unemployed
simply becuase 30 million people changed jobs during the last year.
(Most of those 'without medical insurance' are precisely those who are
changing jobs or unemployed. It begs the question of what the
"pay or play"-type plans are going to do for them.) 

> In
>a nation of 250+ million, that leaves about 223 million with health care.
>The above quote even acknowledges this in the latter half of its emotional
>appeal; 30% of the country isn't covered for all medical costs.  Does the
>writer imply that 70% of everyone is covered, and by its own definition, 
>either rich or lucky?  If that is the case, then the majority is neither
>rich, nor lucky, they just have a higher standard of living and health care
>than the writer wants to admit to.

-------------
P. McGuinness
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Secretary of state Baker
Keywords: partisanship unemployment
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:19:29 GMT

In article <7ayuPB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>fabian@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (anjanette louise fabian) writes:
>
>>       I think if Clinton makes the white house that he should keep James
>> Baker on as secretary of state.  It would probably be a first - putting
>> competency ahead of politics! It would also be interesting if Clinton
>> announced his intention to keep Baker if elected.  How would affect Baker's
>> handling of the Bush campaign knowing that his job was not at stake?

If Clinton proposes to keep Baker on as Secty of State, it will be an
abject admission that he is weak on foreign policy. After all,
if he is for 'change' why will he keep the same Secty of State?
Wouldn't such a declaration be an endorsement of Bush's foreign policy,
and an admission that Clinton has nothing new or different to offer there?

Though I doubt he'll choose the guy, Zbig. Brezinski (spelling? )
would be a good choice. And he is a Democrat.

---
Pat
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2345 alt.politics.bush:2278 talk.politics.misc:40865
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:32:43 GMT
	<sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> <1992Aug14.105106.17019@samba.oit.unc.edu>
	<1992Aug20.044830.19053@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug20.044830.19053@news.Hawaii.Edu> blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
<   In article <1992Aug14.105106.17019@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
<   >In article <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
<   >>All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
<   >>disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
<   >>Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
<   >>mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.
<   >
<   >You might compare that with Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 
<   >which is a national police force. Ontario and Quebec have provincial
<   >police forces, but in the other provinces the RCMP also carry out the
<   >functions of a provincial police force. There are also local police
<   >forces, but in many cases they are responsible for an area the size of
<   >a county, not just an individual city or town.
<   >

<   Or you might compare them to state troopers or the FBI. 
 
	Or you might compare them to the N.K.V.D.........
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Guns not ULTIMATE (was Re: Defined: National Police Force)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug17.175828.15383@infonode.ingr.com>
	<1992Aug18.001220.4381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<183139@pyramid.pyramid.com>
	<1992Aug20.164844.1661@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:23:37 GMT

<In article <1992Aug20.164844.1661@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
<   >In article <1992Aug18.001220.4381@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:<<

<   >>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
<   >>>[...] What we [liberals] don't support, is the attitude that guns are the
<   >>>"ultimate recall power."

<   >>Ah, then what is the "ultimate recall power" that "liberals" find
<   >>appropriate?  Surely they don't believe that "lie back and enjoy it"
<   >>is the appropriate response to a tyrant? 

<	   No in fact it's a line most often used by Red-necklicans. ;)

	It is? Please provide a citation.

<	   An article recently described some young men of conscience
<	   who went to Viet Nam as medics and refused to carry weapons.
<	   Are you claiming that proves they "enjoyed it"?
<	   Whether or not you agree with: "fighting violence with violence"
<	   your leap to "enjoy it" is pure bigotry.

	I fail to see what CO's in 'Nam has to do with tyranny,
	unless you are willing to assert that Lyndon B. Johnson
	was a tyrant. If so, what kind of tyrant allows himself
	to be voted out of office???

<   >Andy...that's a really stupid line.  Take a Valium and calm down.  By 
<
<   >>Suppose that Bush decides to keep the job after Clinton won.  What
<   >>then "liberals"?  (We've already established that you won't disagree
<   ...
<   >>argue for his essential goodness now.)  The ballot box failed and Bush
<   >>has the Army.  Are you going to hold a rally?  Are you going to build
<   ...
<   >>squad and lie in neat rows so that the tanks can roll over you without
<   >>wasting gas?

<	   That's a perfect example of Bush's attitude toward
<	   peaceful demonstration. I heard he's finally realized that
<	   there is a pro-democracy movement in China. Hah!

	I see, so you assert that Bush is a tyrant but there is no
	need to worry about tyranny....

	Odd.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2289 alt.politics.bush:2214 talk.politics.misc:40732