HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Chicken George the Coward President
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:48:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <92267.231857SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:


>I wonder if the average Clinton fan is so ignorant that he doesn't
>know the difference between the CIA and the Secret Service or if Scott
>here is special.

Well shucks,  I suppose I'm an average Clinton fan and well, shoot,
I reckon I wouldn't know the difference between the CIA and Secret
Service either.

Seriously.  Enlighten us.  Since, to the best of my knowledge, I have
never encountered either and I don't know anyone who has so why don't you
tell us how to tell the difference between the two, besides asking them
for ID?  Do they wear different sun glasses?  Different trench coats?

I suppose you have to be *really* ignorant not to be able to tell the
difference so find me guilty of gross ignorance, judge!  Better yet,
I think its better to find you guilty of gross arrogance.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:38:56 GMT

In article <BvIID1.EDy@mail.boi.hp.com> kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:
>thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep23.215611.5980@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>> >and by the way, quit with the homophobic accusations. AIDS will most 
>> >certainly spread throughout the heterosexual community the same way. 
>> 
>> It most certainly will not, or else it would have already.
>
>I'm afraid you are mistaken.  It hasn't hit the hetrosexual community 
>as hard as the homosexual community *in this country*, but it will.

Statement of faith?  AIDS tracks, epidemologically speaking, very nicely
the spread of Hepatitis-B, with the exception that it's much easier to
contract Hep-B than HIV.

Do you recall the hepatitis-B outbreaks throughout the heterosexual
community in the early 1980's?  I thought not.

Remember than males are seventeen times more effective of transmitting
HIV in sexual intercourse than women.  (And remember that anal sex
is much more effective than vaginal sex in transmission.)  Even assuming
(quite falsely) that heterosexuals engage in about the same mix
of risky practices as homosexual men, heterosexuals would have to be
more than four times as promiscuous as homosexuals before HIV would
hit heterosexuals as hard as it has hit homosexuals.  I leave to others
the argument of the relative degree of promiscuity of heterosexuals
as compared to homosexuals.

>I spent some time in Africa last winter, and in some countries AIDs is
>rampant in the entire population.  Yes, my friend, it is coming. 

What happens in Africa, as tragic as it is, is of no predictive power
as to what will happen in the United States.  When cofactors such as
genital ulcers and needle-sharing in medical clinics become as widespread
in the United States as in Africa, then we might be able to draw some
epidemological parallels, but until then, AIDS in Africa is quite
irrelevant to what will happen in the United States.  Or do you think
the famine in Somalia is also a harbinger of starvation in Kansas?
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Reply-To: gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.000021.14558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:

>     A.  Man does not have the capacity to destroy the planet.

Famous last words......

-- 
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  gary@sci34hub.sci.com   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"...I looked out my window, and saw Kyle Pettys' car upside down, then I
thought 'One of us is in real trouble'." Davey Allison, re: a 150MPH crash 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:36:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.204501.4095@Warren.MENTORG.COM> 
tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

>gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:

>> Oh give me a break.  A large percentage of anti-abortionists are 
>> women too.  Give it up.

> This is not so.  In fact, the majority of people working against
> abortion are male.  

Polls generally show that women oppose abortion in roughly 
the same percentage as men.  Here are some results from a 
1991 Gallup Poll on abortion:

  Question: Do you think abortions should be legal under any
  circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or
  illegal in all circumstances?

            Always   Certain         Never   No        No. of
            Legal    Circumstances   Legal   Opinion   Interviews

  National  33%      49%             14%     4%        1005
  Male      32       51              13      4         503 
  Female    34       48              14      4         502 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6811 talk.politics.misc:48070
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More republican Cowardice at Penn State
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:24:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep23.024521.3088@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:

> MY suggestion is to file a lawsuit in the court. If nothing else, it
> will result in a lot of publicity, as I assume this will be the first
> of it's kind.  The suit should be filed against the university, not
> the republican party.

You're not American, are you?  There is nothing unique or even unusual
about what is being done at Penn State.  Both parties do this as a
matter of course, and no one of any political standing -- of either
party -- is likely to support a suit against this sort of thing.

And don't think the media aren't wise to what's going on.  They're
right there at every campaign stop seeing it with their own eyes.
Such a suit will probably generate ZERO publicity and get thrown out
of court without so much as a hearing.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:51:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.174415.23122@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>
>Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
>for doing what he thought was right.  Danny Boy, on the other hand, 
>just got his daddy to get him into the national guard.  Quayle was 
>the coward here, not Clinton.  
>
>Jared Dahl

AMEN!

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
       Both candidates are offering economic packages, but only
          one candidate can leave us with a President Quayle.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:32:10 GMT

fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

>I don't think a man who was never confronted with the dilemma
>of an unjust war and an unjust selective service system is
>really qualified to be president.

HUH?  What are you rambling about?  No war is 'just', and the selective service
system wouldn't enter into Bush's history anyway...He joined on his own accord,
as early as legally possible.  The only people who worry about the selective
service being unjust are those who don't want to be in the military (the
ones that would DODGE A DRAFT to get out of it).  The war in VN was as 'just
as the one in the gulf.  We went to keep a communist country from forcibly
taking over another country.

You my friend (and I use that loosely) are a pinko.

Sincerely,
Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jason@hal.eel.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Organization: University of Florida
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:45:16 GMT

>Of course.  The deficit before Reagan was right around this year's defense
>budget.  The deficit as we know it today WAS the fault of the Reagan/Bush era
>borrow-and-spend policies. 

WHAT?????????  Are you crazy?  Where did you get that?
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:27:20 EDT
From: <PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Bushita!" in Happy Valley
Distribution: usa
 <92267.171312LDM102@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Sep24.213717.15394@javelin.sim.es.com>
 <92270.002259LDM102@psuvm.psu.edu>

I attended the rally, and the Collegian articles and posts aren't far off the
mark.  It is truly disturbing how these rallies are handled by the campaigns,
really makes me  concerned about how they handle the government in general.
Bush's campaign officials exhibited some seriously poor form during the rally,
almost had an air of oppression at times.  And yes, I would like to see this
on 20/20, 60 minutes, or the like.  The sentiments of the student body weren't
represented, and that made us look sad on the national level.  Too bad...

-- Phil
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 13:48:13 GMT

In article <Oct.4.01.05.38.1992.21212@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>
>     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
>live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
>protests during his college days.
>
>    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
>to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
>this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
>be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
>knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
>with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.
>

   So ?    What's your point in bringing this up?  Just to confuse and scare
people, to confuse the issue ? Or what ?  Or are you trying to prove a
theory the republicans like George Bush, Bill Doran and many others have
been working on , that American are stupid and easy to fool ?  

	Kissinger and Nixon also visited China in 72, the helped to establish
dipolomatic relationship between two great countries, which is widely viewed 
very positively, on the other hand,  Brent Scowcroft visited Beijing and
cheered with Premier Li Peng after the bloody Tian An Men killing, which is
not very approvable with many people.  My point is, you need to look at 
something in it's content, not just it's surface.
 
>     Is this the individual the American people should send to
>The White House?
>
     The above people were or has been in the White House.

>     Rep. Bob Dornan should be addressing the house again this
>weekend.  I urge those concerned about what I have briefly outlined
>here to call:
>
 
      Where is he from ?  I urge people from his district get him out of 
the office where he is supposed to WORK. If he has nothing else to work on
or he doesn't know what else he can do, he should not be in the House.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<BvKDFC.Dxu@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Oct4.051938.11568@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
	<1992Oct4.074516.1@acad.drake.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.074516.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

   >  He just approves of airpower to protect humanitarian shipments, but of
   > course the rupublican propaganda machine loves to distort that.  
    If I were Clinton I'd shoot anyone that called me "slick willie",

Sheesh!

   > but then again I don't have the temperment to be a politician.  That term
   > is so utterly insulting, but then again it fits in with the republican 
   > sleaze mentality.

   Actually, the term 'Slick Willie' was not first coined by the Republicans, a
   fact they do not like to admit-it is far too acurate of a label. The term was
   first started by a reporter from the Arkansas Gazette because the Govenor was a
   master at making lies look like the truth. Since that reporter first uttered
   that phrase, it has stuck with Clinton ever since. (Wonder why...?)
   Interesting that you claim "Republican sleeze mentality" just advocating the
   wanton deaths of those who call you a name. You must have had a really
   difficult time in grade school. And my only reply is that it is quibbledicks
   like yourself that WOULD vote for Slick Willie. I fear your power.
                                                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And so you *should*, Vinnie baby. 

But, correct me if I'm wrong, the reference to Republican sleeze [sic]
mentality was made by the *previous* poster, was it not? (Notice the tell
tale cite marks > from rn..)

   Here Endith the Lesson
		   --VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)

Wow. And what a Lesson it was, huh? I can hardly wait until the next one.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
"We will be asking them to join with us. I'm also going to ask them to help us
to change Congress. It's not just enough to change the president if we want to
change America." - Dan Quayle, on courting Ross Perot's supporters. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: More republican Cowardice at Penn State
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:11:07 GMT

In article <Sep.27.13.24.20.1992.15940@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.024521.3088@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>You're not American, are you?  There is nothing unique or even unusual
>about what is being done at Penn State.  Both parties do this as a
>matter of course, and no one of any political standing -- of either
>party -- is likely to support a suit against this sort of thing.
     Well, may I ask you what is an American ?  Or who is an American ? 
I sure hope David Duke is not defining who is and who is not. 
 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Organization: None.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:10:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.154900.19863@sei.cmu.edu> jjs@sei.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Stewart) writes:
>More properly, I agree that THEY ALL show wear.  However, I do not find that
>to be sufficient evidence of failing health.

Showing wear is just one aspect of it.  Other signs of his failing
health come from other directions.  For example, people that have met
with him (reports in various papers and friends of mine in D.C. who
lobby) tell me that he can't take long meetings anymore.

Forget the comparison to Truman, we should compare him to FDR.  FDR was
in a wheelchair and hardly anyone knew.  They'd make sure he was in the
room, behind the podium, before the audience would be let in.  Then
he'd be the last to leave.  It was easier in those days because a lot
was dependant on radio, not TV.  Of course, our smoke & mirrors have
gotten a bit more high-tech now.

Smoke & mirrors can hide a lot.  ...something an ex-chief of the CIA
(like Bush) would know a lot about.

A vote for Bush is a vote for PRESIDENT QUAYLE.  Be forewarned...

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7752 alt.politics.clinton:8520 alt.politics.elections:15195
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Date: 5 Oct 1992 20:38:34 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov

In article <1992Oct5.200907.731@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
> ...
>  Seriously, if ANY of this story of Clinton going to Moscow during the
>height of the war is true, you can bet the Republicans are going to exploit
>it to the max.  For someone who was a Rhodes scholar and has stated that in
>his youth he wanted to remain politically viable, it would be the actions
>of a moron to go to the Soviet Union FOR ANY REASON during the height of
>the Vietnam war. ...


Apparently they'll exploit it whether it's true or not!

I realize that going to Russia turned Nixon into a commie, just like
being ambassador to China did the same to Bush, but personally, I'd
say that anyone who PASSED UP the chance to visit the Soviet Union
during the height of the cold war was unsuited to be President.

It wasn't illegal, and some (me, for instance) might think that such
a trip is exactly the sort of experience that a future president should
have.
----
    --Brad Sherman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Bush at Penn State
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:02:48 GMT

>When Gore came on campus here at UNLV they brought several
>truckloads of supporters as well... No mention at
>all was mentioned of that either... Cuts both ways.

More details please.  Did the imported supporters get all the front
row tickets so that no natives had a good view?  Were natives let in
even if they had Bush signs or anti-Clinton paraphrenalia?  Was
access blocked to public or private areas in an obnoxious manner by
the demonstration?



-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7866 alt.politics.clinton:8663 alt.rush-limbaugh:6632
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Slick What? (Was Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:15:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct4.051938.11568@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>
> ... If I were Clinton I'd shoot anyone that called me "slick willie",
>but then again I don't have the temperment to be a politician.  That term
>is so utterly insulting, but then again it fits in with the republican 
>sleaze mentality.

Maybe Clinton doesn't protest the nickname too much because of what "willie"
means in British slang.  I think it quite possible that he and Hillary could
be using the nickname during their more intimate moments.  Followups ought
to go to a group I don't know about, being a chaste maiden lady ;o).


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Other sports exist only to keep you occupied until baseball season comes |
| around again."					- Dave Barry	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 21:29:10 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Sep29.150750.21082@gtephx.UUCP>, forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

|> > >
|> > Good. I'd hate to think the depth of his stand against the war was
|> > limited to avoiding the draft. To quote Dan Quayle <approx> "By
|> > 1969 everyone was against the war. Even Richard Nixon." Repeat after
|> > me: Viet Nam was a bad war.
|> 
|> But we're not electing the Viet Nam war.
|> 
|> Yes, it was bad, but that does not alleviate any one person
|> of his/her responsibilities.  Clinton played coward, he avoided
|> his duty.  I don't want a person with that type of character
|> in the driver's seat.

But Clinton did not have any duty to serve in Vietnam.
You have not explained why you think he did.  You
make a strange individualist, judging Clinton's
actions by *your* personal standards of duty.


|> 
|> Vote Libertarian, Bush and Clinton are the same old puppets in 
|> slightlty different garb.
|> 
You have not explained the contradiction between your support
for the Libertarian party and your belief that the government
can announce a war on foreign soil and thereby create by fiat a duty for
every citizen to serve.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Angry Prejudice  (was: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.))
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:56:35 GMT

Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
[to Eileen Simpson]
>What you are now engaged in is nothing but angry prejudice.  And even though
>it is understandable prejudice, it is nevertheless the same sort of blind
>prejudice that says "every Irishman is an IRA terrorist".

And "every pro-choicer is a murderer."  I'll agree that there is far
too much angry prejudice going around.  But no, I don't know how to
make it go away.  Listening?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh