HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Misc (was: SC rally
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 10:21:09 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

> Hill had corroborative testimony read into the record after the
> public hearings were closed. Glory, honor, and praise all around...yes?
> Is Thomas qualified to be a Supreme Court judge? Very debatable.

One additional problem with the Thomas nomination is again the concept of the
disingenuous promise.  Bush stood before the nation and stated that Thomas was
the best man for the job.  Clearly that is not the case.  He may have been the
best black conservative he could find for the job, but he certainly wasn't the
most qualified black, and by no means was the most qualified conservative.

The Hill sideshow diverted attention to the main issue, namely Bush's
appointments to the Court.  He would have had a hard time appointing anyone not
black to the Court to replace Thurgood Marshall.  Instead of just coming out
and admitting that blacks are entitled to representation on the Court, he does
his usual say-one-thing-mean-something-else routine.  Just like his flip-flop
on taxes.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:50:50 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
: 
:|> The sad thing is that they have been the
:|> ones to suffer the worst due to his policies and they are still falling for
:|> these substance-less smokescreens. And now, here they are falling for
:|> a brand new set of smokescreens.... (family-values, draft records,....).
: 
:I see.  These rednecks are so dumb they don't even know they're suffering.
:Thank you Dr.

Actually, I think it might be a somewhat accurate statement to say that 
much of the U.S. citizenry is only looking at the smokescreens being
put up by both of the major candidates, either being too stupid or too
uninterested to look into what's really going on in the political 
arena, rather than settling for the mediocrity of the U.S. news media.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:04:55 GMT

altman@leland.Stanford.EDU (John David Altman) writes:

>One of the original sources of the recent spate of "media bias" was Brit
>Hume of ABC news, a regular tennis partner (or is it jogging partner) of
>the president.  Then there is Thomas Friedman of the NYT, a good buddy
>of James Baker.  And the MacNeil-Lehrer Administration Forum News Hour.

>In this era when the media think that the major requirement for carrying out
>their job is to cultivate sources (cocktail party journalism), the
>accusation of media bias is ridiculous.


>				John

Well, you've sold me!  I guess all that liberal bias I see in the news
isn't really there afterall, since, as you say, it doesn't make any
sense for it to be there.  

You know, it's funny.  When I brought this up (and I certainly wasn't
the first), I gave many examples right from the paper, TV, etc.  I
posted polls showing the liberal tendencies of the media, I posted
statistics on how biased the media was with regard to the abortion
debate, and gave plenty of *reasons* why it exists.  And about the only
criticism I received was that my "evidence" was purely annecdotal.
But there is another crowd who try to show that it doesn't really exist
because of reasons like you state above.  "There is really a
conservative bias, because the media is owned by businesses."  "There is
really a consumer bias, because they have to sell papers."  And of
course your assertion that there are indeed reporters who are friendly
with the President.  None of this jives with what I, and others, see
every night on the news or read in the papers.  These are just attempts
to rationalize your own positions and treat the "whiners" as being
uncredible.  

There is one major difference between what I've been saying
and people like you.  I see the bias, post examples and look for the
reasons that it might be there.  You and your crowd just post these
trite rebutals and think that refutes everything I've said.  Get a clue.
I still maintain that no honest person can objectively watch or read the
majority of the news and *not* see a liberal bias.  It's there, and
plenty of people in the news media know it and admit it.  And pointing
out that there are conservative reporters, or that the media has a
product to sell, or that they are owned by business makes for a good
foundation for showing why your brand of bias exists, but *nobody* has
given us anything other than these premises.  Show me how these premises
affect the news--as I've shown you how the liberal bias affects it.  If
it is there, I'd like to see examples of it.  I promise not to bury my head
in the sand. 

And if some of the things I've said I posted didn't make it into this
newsgroup, I'd be happy to repost some of them (I don't keep most things
though...)

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4803 alt.news-media:1226 talk.politics.misc:44644
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:20:21
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<MATT.92Sep10141201@physics.berkeley.edu> <BuDu1u.AHM@apollo.hp.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of 10 Sep 92 21:51:30 GMT

In article <BuDu1u.AHM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

> >	(2) Every major newspaper I have seen has a "business" section,
> >	    complete with many pages of information that is of interest
> >	    only to well-off investors.  When is the last time you saw
> >	    a newspaper with a "labor" section?
>
>   What would you put in a "labor" section that would be similarly
>   useful in decision-making?

Whose decisions, and decisions about what?

It's not hard for me to think of information that would be of
practical interest for people who are doing union organizing.

And, incidentally, I do know of one newspaper that does have such a
section: a small weekly called _In These Times_.  Needless to say,
this newspaper has a left slant, as opposed to what I see as the right
slant of all of the major corporate-owned newpapers.
--
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: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: That Old Secret Plan to End the War
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:59:32 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

  After having Clinton "dead to sound-bite" on the draft dodging
  issue, Dan Quayle (graciously) defended his own joining the National
  Guard in 1969 because everyone opposed the war back in 1969,
  even Richard Nixon. Which is wonderful to think about -- if
  ironies and such give your leaden heart more solace than is
  healthy. First, one has to love the idea that Richard Nixon's
  "secret plan" to end the war (announced during the 1968
  presidential campaign) was anything more than vicious vacuity.
  When his secret plan turned out to entail thousands and thousands
  of B-52 sorties, raids into Cambodia, and years more of ground
  fighting...well, it wasn't opposition to the war like Grandma
  used to make.

  Second, one has to love the malleability of Quayle's memory.
  Once opposition to the war has become an "OK" reason to have
  sought a safe haven from combat (Republican politicos have
  been reciting that angle, damning Clinton's changing story rather
  than his opposition) then Quayle's stint in the National Guard can
  seem less like a cocoon and more like a Political Statement.
  The only problem is this: I will offer a Very Nice Prize to whoever
  can find a 1988 campaign statement by the Danster that ever
  hinted that Opposition to the War ever even vaguely entered
  his motivation for hieing it to the Guard. Any takers?

  Ain't Life Grand? (tm)
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 0-3 Lifetime: 0-5 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Explanation for not reporting SC rally
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:23:53 GMT
Reply-To: bblumenf@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Sep14.192349.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> right to endorse a candidate.  The problem I have is with the 
|> credibility of claiming to be unbiased (which is what the Courier-Journal 
|> did) and then having a 6 to 0 bias in favor of Clinton in the op-ed
|> pieces.

Question:  did the Courier-Journal claim to be unbiased in its Op-Ed,
or in its reporting?

-- Bob
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4636 alt.rush-limbaugh:4462
From: tom@arthur.jsc.nasa.gov (Tom Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:38:06 GMT
Organization: Metrica, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
> (Argument asserting Clinton's health care plan would trigger depression
>  deleted for brevity.)
> 
>   When has the government ever done something efficient?
> 
>   NEVER!!!!
> 

I think you mean _efficiently_.  The word _efficient_ is an adjective and,
thus, can only modify a noun or a pronoun.  Certainly you did not mean for
_efficient_ to modify _government_ (a noun) or _something_ (a pronoun), did
you?  The word _efficiently_ is an adverb and, thus, can only modify a verb,
an adjective, or another adverb.  Did you not intend for your modifier to
apply to the verb _has_done_?  Here's what your sentence would look like if
you has used the proper part of speech:

When has the government ever done something efficiently?

Incidently, your argument is hopelessly vague.  Your lack of cogency belies
a lack of understanding of just what it is that Clinton does propose.

I leave _you_ with this thought:
There is no such word as _reprocussions_.  (Buy a dictionary.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:20:44 GMT

In article <BuD5GD.IHM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>>paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons). 
>
>  Well, they DID run this story on NPR's Weekend Edition, and NPR has a 
>  reputation for being liberal and pro-Clinton.

	The New York Times gave the story a quarter page. But I'm sure
that they were reprimanded for it.
-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:53:39 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Distribution: usa
 <1992Sep10.002625.12614@news.columbia.edu>
 <1992Sep10.161239.34776@watson.ibm.com> <18qfonINNstu@agate.berkeley.edu>
 <1992Sep14.221403.30432@watson.ibm.com>

In article <1992Sep14.221403.30432@watson.ibm.com>, john@johniac.austin.ibm.com
(John Iacoletti) says:
>
>In article <18qfonINNstu@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew
>J. Lazarus) writes:
>|> 3. Would you please post an essay on "Market Forces and Goods with
>|> Extremely Inelastic Demand"?
>
>It's not as inelastic as some people like to pretend.  There are many
>unnecessary procedures that people submit to either because of

The Rand Health Insurance Experiment found elasticies in the range
-0.1 to -0.2 for most medical services.  For those not used to
elasticity measures, that means a 10% increase in the price of health
care would lower quantity by 1 to 2%, a negligible amount.

>ignorance or the fact that they have health insurance.  Doctors need
>customers just like any other service industry.  If they didn't get
>any customers they would lower their rates.
>
>|> We may not be able to afford lots of people
>|> priced out of the medical care market. Tax money to pick up all those
>|> carcasses.
>
>Lots of people are priced out of the medical care market right now.  I
>haven't yet found it necessary to step over any dead carcasses.



Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Originator: cs911461@a03.ariel.yorku.ca
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:57:44 GMT


In article <BuMzFB.8L0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
>> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>> 
>> : Fortunately, the American public is too sensible to listen to this
>> : nonsense.  I should know; I'm a Canadian and all I see is stupidity
>> : in politics.  Canada is touted as a free and tolerant nation.  This
>> : is garbage since there is nowhere on Earth where each citizen is 
>> : "watched" (of George Orwell fame) as much as here.  Canada has a 
>> : large secret service, which never gets publicity like the CIA does.
>> 
>> Don't forget the censorship exercised in Canada!  Certain books,
>> magazines, etc. are not allowed in Canada.  I think that they're
>> even trying to figure out how (or if) they can censor the net up
>> there.
>> 
>> : As far as this pertains to the USA, you fortunate people have the 
>> : benefit of sensible levels of freedom.  No other country on Earth
>> : can claim as good a balance of public duty vs. personal freedom.
>> 
>> And what a shame it is that personal freedoms in the U.S. are gradually
>> becoming more and more like those of Canada.
>> 
>> [...]
>>  
>> : Clearly, drug use has to be controlled now.  This means a rebalancing
>> : of the scales is needed but, that's progress.  Since they will never be
>> : eliminated altogether, we can only focus on stopping the spread of 
>> : narcotics.  Don't let the world down; we're all depending on you to 
>> : make the right choice.
>> 
>> You're depending on the politicians in Washington?  Now THAT's a 
>> scary thought!  ;-)

Yes, Canada is an extremely over-governed country.  It's really quite
miserable.  People actually take fanatics and socialists seriously 
here.  America is blessed with the best system of government in the
world.  I envy your democracy and your freedoms.  I praise your belief 
in the individual.  Most of all, I celebrate your good sense as a 
nation.  It is this good sense which I know will balance the freedoms
of individuals against the good of the nation.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4602 alt.rush-limbaugh:4447
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 9 Sep 1992 19:52:52 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep9.164233.12599@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
> 
> >>I fail to see how the restructure of health care (12% of GNP) within 100
> >>days could be in any way helpful for the American economy.  If you can
> >>not see DEPRESSION labeled on his plan, you must be near sighted!
> 
> >Please clarify.  It's not as if 12% of the GNP would suddenly vanish
> 
> More or less.  Does he not want to do away with existing health insurance 
> companies?  Inaddition he will totally reshape the existing health care
> system.  Do you not see how even a slight manipulation of something so
> huge can reprocussions throughout the world?  These reprocussions will
> not be positive! It will have a negative effect!

This is unsubstantiated speculation. Canada abandoned a system much like ours
in favor of their plan without the gloom and doom you predict.

> 
> Further do you think it is fair to have 75% income taxes.

Who suggested this? Nobody I know.

>  Do you think
> that will increase incentive for people to work?  Do you realize we have
> the most efficient health care system in the world.

This is just plain wrong. It has been refuted with real data and references on
numerous occasions within this newsgroup. If some of you who have posted
health care data would like to repost it inorder to enlighten our friend here,
I would appreciate it.

> If someone wants
> to see a doctor -- they can.  People from Canada and Europe come over here
> for superior health care, not to mention availability.

Both of these statements are wrong also.They have also been refuted on several
occasions in postings by Canadians and Europeans.

> 
> Let me leave you with one last thought:
>   When has the government ever done something efficient?
> 
>   NEVER!!!!
> 
> 

I think you need to go back and look at the facts.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5567 talk.politics.misc:45628 alt.rush-limbaugh:4916
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:56:19 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a sex criminal for the Supreme Court"
 <1992Sep15.030247.11935@technology.com> <ART.92Sep15111836@world.std.com>
 <1992Sep15.175747.10799@Princeton.EDU>

In article <1992Sep15.175747.10799@Princeton.EDU>,
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) says:
>
>No one denied that there wasn't documented evidence, but believe it or
>not, very few people tape record conversations just in case their boss
>gets appointed to the Supreme Court in 10 years.
>--

Even more troubling, if she was making it up for revenge, how did she
know Clarence Thomas would be nominated for the Supreme Court?  In other
words, if she was trying to get back at him, why didn't she try in one
of his earlier confirmations.

Jeff Luck                                  *Standard Disclaimer*
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.clinton,tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 22:27:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21498@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|>                                Bush has FINALLY started talking about
|> lowering taxes and lowering spending.

Bush was talking about that in 1988 too.  What make you think he means
it this time?

|> We've been promised an end to
|> the Federal Deficit before (anyone remember Gramm-Rudman?), but if
|> Bush is elected, we may actually see it.

And monkeys may fly out of my butt.

|> If Clinton is elected, the
|> deficit will be $500B next year, and $800B by the end of his first
|> term.

What do you base this assumption on?  Clinton plans to raise spending
by about 70 billion.  That's only 5.5% of the total government
expenditures.  I don't like it either, but I think you're exaggerating.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5419 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3741 alt.politics.bush:5123
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:16:36 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <BuBL35.A85@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>What?!?!  The "Family Rights" candidate wants to deny new mothers
>the ability to be guaranteed some time with their kids after
>they give birth, without having to worry about losing their jobs?

Well, since the Democrats keep telling us people are broke, how can they
AFFORD to take off 12 weeks with no pay?  And what about the people they
have to hire to replace the person on leave?  What happens to them after
12 weeks?  What if the person involved is someone that is vital to the
company or has some technical skill?  What it all boils down to is another
attempt by the liberals to force something down the throats of business.
They want to tell you who you can hire and fire, who you can promote,
what kind of health care benifits you have to offer, in California they
want to tell you how much vacation time you have to give, and to top
it all off, they want to tax the hell out of you.  Is it any wonder the
companies want to move off shore?