HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:39:58 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct13.184649.21229@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
...
>
>I guess in a nutshell, I don't think I know what principles guide this man
>when it comes to making tough foreign policy decisions.  He sometimes _talks_
>a good game, but many of his actions, statements, and mis-statements lead me
>to doubt the value of his word.
> 
>Roger Shouse
>The University of Chicago


This can be said to the nth power about Bush! 

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10976 alt.politics.bush:9485 alt.politics.perot:2282
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:06:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

In article <3712.719250594@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Anwar_Mohammed@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>2. I think that Bush won.
>I say: Thanks for asking, asshole, but actually I think Clinton won
>by whatever standards the media subscribes to.  Although, I don't 
>believe he changed anyone elses mind.  Still, the status quo is 
>good for Clinton.

``By the standards the media subscribes to'', this is the key.


Gregg




-- 
Gregg Jaeger    (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu)          VOTE PEROT  VOTE PEROT       
If you think the Republicans screwed up the country, can you afford to
see what the Democrats will do?!   ->BEWARE OF SLICK-WILLY CLINTON!!<-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: ab269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John  Laws)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton
Date: 12 Oct 1992 01:57:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


Slick Willie: Why America Cannot Trust Bill Clinton by F. Brown-
$7.95. Annapolis-Washington Books P.O. Box 2365, Annapolis, Maryland
21404.

If you want the truth on Bill Clinton, read this book. You are
 not getting the full story from the news media. This book provides
the information you need to make a fully informed decision on whether
to vote for Clinton or not. Don't wait until it is too late (after
 election day) to find out the truth. This book is alao available
in your major bookstores or can be ordered through those stores or
the publisher.

READ THIS BOOK


-- 
"Life what a beautiful choice" (Thanks to the Arthur Demoss Foundation)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:43:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.034023.20054@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>
>
>   The debate was OK, but it was really evident that the format sucked, no one
>could follow-up anything, nor good they answer any charges made by anyone.
>This of course set up the perfect stage for Perot's usual wit but no substance
>performance.  But of course, this was perfect food for the ignorant voters
>out there.  Thursday' single moderator debate will show Ross's true colors,
>he'll get his ass kicked.  I think Clinton did OK, but he seemed a bit stiff
>especially if people had to compare him with Perot.   This ego trip campaign
						       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of Perot's is really a pain in the ass. He originally decided to get out
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>because he couldn't win, he couldn't take the heat, and he was "disruptive
>to the process".  Those same facts exist today, except this time he's screwing
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>up Clinton's campaign.  Imagine last nights debate without Perot, Clinton
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>would have put the last nail in the coffin of Bush and he would have
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Oh, poor Billy. Did Ross scare you last night? Ohhh, no. So, you want
to play with George all by yourself. Ok, don't worry. 

Down Ross, down. Billy is scared of you. Sit boy, sit. Grrrrrrr ... Sit.

:-))))))))

- An ignorant voter











Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10074 alt.politics.perot:2059 alt.politics.bush:8896 alt.politics.marrou:1589 alt.politics.elections:16463
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:09:24 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> 
> >there are a lot of things i don't agree with the Bush man on, but
> >one of them is not the economy. if you take time to actually
> >look up the numbers, the economy really -isn't- doing that bad.
> 
> 	I DON'T HAVE A JOB. My father almost got laid off; his company
> is running at 25% capacity, four days a week, one week off every 
> month. My mother's employer filed for chapter 11 and closed 80% of 
> their stores. My brother's employer did the same.

in two words, SO WHAT? things like that happen. they've happened to 
-me- and my family. placing the entire responsibility for a chaotic 
system that is driven by innumerable world-wide factors is a 
patently silly oversimplification.

> >look folks, we're in a world-wide recession. as far as comparative
> 
> THE WORLD ECONOMY IS MOST EFFECTED BY OUR ECONOMY. WE CAUSED THIS
> GLOBAL SLOWDOWN.
> 
> Japan and Germany have been doing VERY WELL, and they are the next
> largest economies.

oh chill. have you actually -looked- at the latest info from Germany
& Japan? the Asian stock market has been going crazy for some time
now. Germany has had to absorb the economic failures of the former
GDR. granted, we influence the world economy, but it's sheer bigoted
US-centrism to claim that we control everything. there are factors
out there you haven't even begun to consider. Bush is -not- the
only one.

> 	BUSH IS DONE.

quite possibly true. i know i won't be voting for him. 

>       Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
> PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
>     "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."

oh ghods. how did i -know- such a vast oversimplification would come from 
a Perot supporter?

jason

--
`,`,`, "greed & fear" `,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: michaell@snake16.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee)
Subject: Re: Randall Terry and the Death of the Republican Party
Organization: /usr/lib/news/rn/organization
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:41:04 GMT

In article <7kqpcbp@lynx.unm.edu> johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic) writes:
>Lincoln refused church membership (as did the mojority of the presidents before
>him) to avoid the appearance of encouraging or endorsing a state-sponsored
>religion. I do not have my book of quotes in front of me, but I remember
>Lincoln making some unflattering statements regarding organized religions.
>
>So, I mourn the death of the Republican party and I will try to remember
>the good that has come from that party. 


I agree.  I think it is ironic that the Pat Robertson's continually claim that
our founding fathers were all Just Like Them religiously, when that is so
clearly untrue.  They tell people not to believe anything they didn't tell
them, which means you have people with a warped reality sense -- I think you
shouldn't (completely) trust anything ANYONE tells you, politically.  Sample
enough to get a good idea of what is going on....and the biases cancel each
other out.

This far-right takeover of the Republican party, is not only dangerous, with
their divisive attitudes, but the fact that many people might actually buy it.

Ah well....they'll learn with the landslide coming in two and a half weeks....


Michael Lee
Clinton/Gore '92 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:19:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

>|> >This mornings paper had better data.
>|> >
>|> >	Clintons	approx $125,000     	Taxes 20%
>|> >	Bushes		approx $1,250,00	Taxes 15%
>|> >	Perots		approx $200,000,000	Taxes 6.7%
>|> >		(I'm sure about the tax %, but I may be low on the income)
>|> >
>|> >But the rich pay their fair share, right?

>|> So Perot pays about 100 times what Bush pays in taxes?  I doubt that he gets
>|> 100 times the police protection or fire protection or other government services.
>|> By that measure, he is paying his fair share.
  

   I'm not sure that's the only reasonable metric  -- if we adhered
   rigorously to a "get what you pay for" metric the poor would get
   and deserve no services.  This may be consistent with some liber-
   topian ideal but does not reflect the values of the rest of the
   culture.

   On the other hand I have no support for the liberals' belief
   that the rich should be be expected to pay a higher percentage
   of their income than the rest of us.   

   I think a reasonable compromise is to expect everyone to pay
   the same *percentage*.   


---peter

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10079 tx.politics:6016 austin.politics:202 austin.talk:255 austin.general:3190
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:35:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Jim Pritchett writes:
>
>Really?  Remember Jimmy Carter?  Most of the amazing things he and his Dem
>Congress did were bad.
>
Yes. I admit. A single $60 billion dollar deficit was too much. What were
people thinking?

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What were our personal thoughts on the debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:22:44 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <cornell.718877147@vivaldi> nobody writes:
>I've already seen some summaries of some published or televised
>opinions of the debates but not a lot of personal opinion from
>people on the newsgroup (perhaps I need to wait a few hours for
>it all to propagate to my site).

I found it interesting that in the called-in comments afterward (I watched
C-SPAN, of course) every person who called in thought that his/her favorite
candidate won the debate.  This confirmed a newpaper story that morning say-
ing that debates tend to confirm listeners in their own choices and actually
sway "decideds" very little.

IMO Ross Perot was entertaining, but I recall nothing of the substance of his
responses because I hadn't yet figured out why he was there at all.  (Still
don't know.  If they had to have a 3rd candidate there, Marrou had a better
claim to the spot.  Maybe it's because Perot has so much money.)

The general consensus around here was that Clinton was over-rehearsed and
therefore wooden.  I expect him to be more extemporaneous, more relaxed, and
more entertaining in a *real* debate situation instead of this press confer-
ence style of appearance.  Clinton's jab at Bush by holding up the latter's
own father as a standard that Bush fails to live up to was a nice touch.

Bush was, well, Bush.  I thought he seemed very tense at the start, and then
he slowly warmed up and got more relaxed.  He was a bit of a Johnny-One-Note,
unable to refer to Clinton without the wholly inaccurate phrase "tax-and-
spend".  I also thought it sad that the President of the United States was
far more interested in slinging mud than in addressing issues.  It pointed up
to me (as you would expect, considering my first paragraph) the crying need
we have for a President who can do presidential things occasionally.

Today's paper had a warm-up column for today's debate, referring to everyone
by nicknames derived from TV shows (continuing the Quayle Phenomenon, I sup-
pose).  It culminated in saying that today, Mr. Spock (aka Capt. Planet) will
be debating Howdy Doody.  Can't wait for the tape!  I won't get home tonight
until 10 PM and a good laugh is exactly what I'll need.

21 more days!


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10649 alt.politics.elections:17023 talk.politics.misc:52038
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:25:09 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

I wrote:
|> Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
|> |> Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> >The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
|> |> >due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
|> |> >of his billions last year. 
|> |> 
|> |> >Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!
|> |> 
|> |> This is very misleading.  You don't pay taxes on the money you have accrued,
|> |> you pay taxes on the taxable income made THAT YEAR!  All of R. Perot's money
|> |> is relatively old, he hasn't made anything other than interest (and then
|> |> most of it in tax DEFERED anuities) since GM paid him off.  You take the
|> |> little bit of taxable income (proportionally speaking) that he made
|> |> last year, then deduct (a quite proper practice) all the money he GAVE
|> |> AWAY, and he probably did only make $30,000 to the good last year.
|> |> 
|> |> You Clinton people need to really try to think about things before
|> |> you just spout them off, but I know that isn't in the agenda...
|> |> 
|> Actually, we Clinton people figured Perot was good with money.  2 Billion
|> in a CD at 5% is $100,000,000.  If you give away 99%, you still have 
|> $1 million left in taxable income.  I realize it isn't quite this simple,
|> but $30,000, sure!
|> 
This mornings paper had better data.

	Clintons	approx $125,000     	Taxes 20%
	Bushes		approx $1,250,00	Taxes 15%
	Perots		approx $200,000,000	Taxes 6.7%
		(I'm sure about the tax %, but I may be low on the income)

But the rich pay their fair share, right?
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:24:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b62204.student.cwru.edu

In article <1bclidINNes7@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:

>athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) said..

>>This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. ANYONE who watched last
>>night, and anyone who watched Larry King last week will remember that he
>>said he could not understand people who demonstrated against his country IN
>>A FOREIGN LAND.  Our Clinton Friends here have left out that crucial part
>>of the line, how clever.  He has repeatedly said he understands fully
>>demonstrating in YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

>Perhaps he's flip-flopping because this approach has backfired on him.
>Now on to the more important issue, why does it matter WHERE you protest?
>George Bush sure wasn't saying "I just think it's wrong" when Chinese
>students here in the US were protesting the massacre in Tienanmen square.

Or even better...would Bush say its wrong for an Iraqi in the United
States to demonstrate against Saddam Hussein?

   ---Andrew


[Part of A Jeopardy Game]  * Paul McHale for Congress *   //    Andrew Shults
Emma: "Let's try 'The Best Medicine' for $20, Alex."    //   ads3@po.cwru.edu
Alex: "And the answer is -- '[Congressman] Don Ritter's pledge to run a clean
       campaign focusing on the issues' (BZZZZ) Emma."
Emma: "What is ha ha ha ha?"-B. White, Columnist, Allentown [PA] Morning Call
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Statement by Governor Bill Clinton
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:54:04 GMT


 For Immediate Release:                  
 October 13, 1992                                  
                                               

                Statement by Governor Bill Clinton

      Choosing a running mate is the first major decision that a
 future president makes.  If the American people were to vote on the
 basis of that decision alone, the Clinton-Gore ticket would win a
 landslide.  Tonight, Al Gore made it clear that he has the character,
 judgement and vision to step into the Oval Office should, heaven
 forbid, something happen to me.

      Al Gore said it all in the first minutes: A Clinton-Gore
 Administration will not take four years to discover America.  Indeed,
 in the first 100 days, we plan to change America.  We plan to offer
 the country an end to trickle-down economics, a real jobs program, a
 bold lifelong learning agenda and a truly comprehensive plan to offer
 health care with real cost controls to all Americans.

      I'm proud of Al Gore.  And tonight all America knows why.  In
 January, Al Gore will be a Vice President America can be proud of.


                            -30-30-30-


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10169 talk.politics.misc:51466
From: bwillems@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Balam Willemsen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:54:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA

In article <1992Oct13.014518.17511@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>CNN ran an interesting poll/study. They asked people whether they
>thought Clinton's economic plans or Bush's economic plans were the
>best. Clinton was favored on the economy (gee, no kidding).
>*Then* they asked people to sit down and compare (sort of as a "blind
>taste test") the actual content of the economic plans.

>Lo and behold, Americans, in blind tests, chose Bush's Agenda for
>American Renewal over Clinton's Put Government, er, People First plan.
>They went for Bush's plan by a wide margin.

Funny, I seem to recall (and so does my wife) that in a report on CNN
Headline News that it was _Clinton's_ economic plan that was preferred.
I might add that a bipartisan commission also claims that _Clinton's_
Health plan will be cheaper and get more people insured.

Do you have a print source for your allegations? I'm just curious, 
leaning (heavily) towards Clinton/Gore, but always flexible.

Balam A. Willemsen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10994 alt.politics.bush:9497 alt.politics.perot:2289
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:44:56 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct16.150013.14372@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct16.094212.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> |> 
> |>      He [Perot] talks about how easy it would be to compromise with
> |> Congress -- I really wish that someone would have asked him
> |> about his past unsuccessful dealings with the bureaucratic
> |> GM establishment.  When he didn't get his way, back then, he 
> |> "packed up his marbles and went home." 
> |> 
> 
> No, this is another misconception.  He was bought out.  Had no choice in
> the matter.
> 
> He even told them not to buy him out.  That they couldn't afford to do
> it.

     If you actually believe this, I do not think I can change your
mind.  All I can say is that I lived in Detroit and worked at
GM in the mid-80's, and Perot's behavior in this campaign is
a carbon-copy of his behavior at GM.
 
> Yet seven years later GM decides that he was right all along and they do
> need to build quality cars.

     Perot wanted to "Saturnize" all of GM -- an idea which had
its merits.  But, the problem was that he could not get GM
management to bite on his ideas.  Similarly, Mr. Perot could
have the best ideas in the world about how to "fix" the
country, but he has to get Congress to bite.

     C. Perttunen 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:20:23 GMT

In article <21686@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> There is a simple mathematical relationship between bond price and bond
> yield.  If interest rates go as high as you claim (they're at 20+ year
> lows right now ...), bond prices will fall like rocks.  They have to in
> order to produce a competitive yield.  That is, if I buy a 30 year bond
> that is 3 years old, and its coupon rate is 7.5% (this is in 1995 when
> your hypothetical inflation rate is 20%), the price of that bond will
> fall to a value low enough such that the interest payment ($75 per
> thousand) plus appreciation (from the current price to par) equals 20%.
> The value of that bond is going to be on the order of $400 per thousand.
> Throw in inflation and it's value falls even further because the $1,000
> you'd get in 27 years is worth even less.
 
Thanks John, I'm well aware of the financial calculations.  What you don't
note is that the longer the period to maturity, the less sensitive the
bond is to interest rate changes.  Short term bonds would crater, but 30
year bonds wouldn't.  To claim that short and long term bond react the
same belies the facts.  Sometimes short term bonds have higher interest
rates than long term, sometimes long term bonds have higher interest
rates.  The whole key is what the market expects in the future from
interest rates.  Rational expectations theory and all that jazz.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9511 tx.politics:5961 austin.politics:189 austin.talk:246 austin.general:3161
From: moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:05:58 GMT
Reply-To: moller@austin.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Oct7.165036.1065@wixer.cactus.org>, purp@wixer.cactus.org (Jim Meyer) writes:
> 
> Why? It strikes me that a democratic Congress and a democratic President
> could do amazing things, rather than squabbling as the current
> Legilature and President have.

Yeah, like raising taxes to amazing new levels...

> 
> --Jim, ready to see Bush get planted in November.
> -- 
> +--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
> |  Julien Finaudere' du Main Pourpre         |  Jim Meyer DoD#680      |
> |  Collegium Turris Animarum, Bryn Gwylad    |  purp@wixer.cactus.org  |
> +--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "When I became president, what 
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   surprised me most was that things
possibly represent its position.	|   were just as bad as I'd been saying
					|   they were."
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- John F. Kennedy