HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:04:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.133804.4935@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>As for Clinton's alleged broken promises, it seems that most of the 
>criticism is coming from those that opposed what he promised.  They 
>criticized him when he made the promises, they criticise him now, and
>they'll criticise him when he keeps his promises.

Sounds like Democrats talking about Bush breaking his ``no new taxes''
pledge.  How many liberal Democrats would *really* support no new
taxes on the rich?  But if Bush kept to his pledge and didn't raise
taxes?  Well, then obviously he's an evil right-wing stalwart.
From: readyja@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jeffrey A Ready)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Poll for Paul
Date: 28 Jan 1993 02:19:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: readyja@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jeffrey A Ready)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g222-25.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

The CNN poll I saw today had Clinton's disapproval rating at 20%.
 
That's the highest disapproval rating in one week of presidency in the  
history of the polls.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Hillary's Role in the White House
Date: 27 Jan 1993 07:03:51 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Hillary is perfectly qualified to head the committee.  The only reason
there's a fuss is because she happens to be married to Bill.  

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:32:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA/JSC

In article <MDL.93Jan25133841@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
writes:
>In article <1k11rsINN543@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>   OK, I'll offer some constructive criticism.  To Clinton (and Gore) - 
>   resign now and save the country a lot of grief.  You weren't elected
>   because the people wanted you, you were elected because the electorate 
>   didn't want Bush as President any more.  Get down off your overinflated
>   ego and realize the people aren't in love with you, you're not the
>   reincarnation of Jack Kennedy.
>
>Well, I guess I see how much good it would be to attempt meaningful
>dialog with you if that's your idea of constructive criticism.

Maybe Mr. Mulac should take his sour grapes to Alt.Politics.Clinton.whine. This
type of behaviour reminds me of someone who constantly complains, but doesnt do
anything to improve the situation. I believe this is called whining. Maybe a
new group just for whiners is needed. I think constructive criticism is a must,
but just plain whining is not necessary.


>
>--
>
>
>Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
>Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
>1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
>Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power
>
>
>



*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Inauguration
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:25:16 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1993Jan20.051946.13961@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>What I thought was interesting was the way one of the inaugural events
>(I think the one on HBO) was advertised as the 'First Ever People's Inaguagural
>Celebration" or something like that, as if the previous administration was
>a dictatorship or something.  Limbaugh mentioned this on Monday.
>
Doesn't freedom of speech suck? That damn HBO can tout it any way they want.
It's just disgusting.

Unfortunately, labeling things beyond the pale of accuracy is part of the media.Lberal media? Sure. Conservative media? Even more sure.

In fact, it's funny that Limbaugh would have mentioned this (which you dittoed
above). Then again, it's not funny. It's natural that he would have recognized
it -- as he is a practiced and smooth operator in this arena.

Dan
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21034 misc.education:6093 talk.politics.misc:69348 sci.edu:1458
From: mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,misc.education,talk.politics.misc,sci.edu
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Date: 18 Jan 93 18:21:20 GMT
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Math Department

In article <1993Jan15.225321.3940@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>... We will have teachers who treat
>their craft as a profession when we start expecting professional
>standards of training and certification (including re-certification),
>stop teating education departments as dumping grounds for people
>flunking out of engineering and business programs ...

It is my experience that business majors are much weaker than engineering 
majors---in fact, comparable to education majors.

In article <C0yA7E.HyF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>...  In addition, I
>have read on the net of a conspiracy (the word fits) by the "liberals"
>to allow social workers to block parents providing education which
>the social workers deem incorrect.

What liberals?  John Holt?  Paul Goodman?  Are we going to continue to 
have to endure the nonsense that apparatchiks are by definition liberal, 
and therefore that the control freaks running the school administrations 
are liberal?  We liberals were grousing about those guys even back when 
"conservatives" thought they were doing a great job suppressing the 
rabble.

-----Greg McColm
--
SHAMELESS AD:  Math PhDs in Analysis, Discrete Math./Th. of Comp., Num. Anal., 
Prob., are invited to apply to the Math. Dept. of Univ. of S. Florida for 
research/teaching positions that may be available: contact K. L. Pothoven at 
mathdept@math.usf.edu. Deadline 2/1/93. USF is a politically correct employer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: AT&T Looney Bin
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:31:33 GMT

From article <1jnuhcINN219@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, by ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac):
> 
> In a previous article, bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) says:
> 
>>From article <1993Jan20.233552.24410@midway.uchicago.edu>, by dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith):
>>> 
>>> his first full day in office, let's see if he has something then.  It's 
>>> not as though anyone will die if he breaks his promises.  Unless they're
>>> Haitian, of course.
>>
>>
>>	Actually many Haitians were likely to die if he immediately kept
>>his promise.  Rickety make-shift boats plying the ocean and all of that.
>>This was the point of holding off.  Seems reasonable to me.
> 
> It is reasonable.  But it makes him the biggest hypocrite of all time since
> he denounced Bush as 'heartless and uncaring' for making the same decision
> using the same line of reasoning.
> 

	If he has no intention of ever changing the policy then
it is probably correct to call him hyocritical.  However, as I
understand it, his intention is to change the policy in a prudant
manner.  A number of the things Clinton has said he would do would
be irresponsible it he just walked in and BOOM! did them.  Sometimes
there's much groundwork to be laid first.

terry
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Money Supply (Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:02:13 GMT

In article <1jvchkINN1tc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>In a previous article, kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) says:
>>In article <1jq2fgINNrep@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>>
>>>      M1 growth was around 50 percent.  That tells me that, in
>>>    spite of the "spirit of renewed hope" in the land, there's a 
>>>    HUGE number of people who are stashing cash.
>>>
>>Sorry, but that's not true either.  I've pulled together the period Russ 
>>covered from the Federal Reserve's H.6 releases (this is the latest one I 
>
>      Sorry, Currency growth was 50%.
>
>      Like it matters.  
>
>      Everybody.  Come on!  GET ON THE PIECE TRAIINNNN!
>
>      Ohhhh, aaaaahhhh,  ooowwhheee, oowwhhaaa.
>
>      Piece TRAIN SOUNDING LOUDER!!!!!
>
>      Christ, I can't believe myself.  Here I am, following my same 
>      old programming, to do "what's right", rather than "what's right
>      for me".
>
>      Oh, GRAVY TRAIN SOUNDING LOUDER!!!
>
>      Yes, yes.  Thank you, eternally, Ted.

Ya know, if you continue with the proof-by-assertion and the random
noise, you'll just fall faster into irrelevance, 'less you've already
hit bottom.






--
"Duff Beer for me, Duff Beer for you"
	"I'll have a Duff's, you have one, too...."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21317 alt.politics.elections:25196 talk.politics.misc:69994
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.president.clinton,soc.men
Subject: Re: Carol Mosley Braun
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:25:02 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <JOHNCH.93Jan21152948@test22.sun.com> johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer) writes:
>
>And as a result, the guy [Clarence Thomas] takes no heat for his
 incredible statement
>that he never had an opinion on Roe v. Wade, which he himself said was
>one of the most important Supreme Court decisions handed down during
>his life.  Come on -- is he lying or unqualified?

Point of order. He said he did not feel it appropriate to answer questions
regarding Roe vs. Wade as it was very likely that he would be facing cases
in regard to it on the court, which is exactly what he should have said.
The Senate committee had no business asking the question.

----
"The main flaw of Creation Theory is that it depends too much on conjecture
and miracles, and the main flaw of Evolution Theory is that it depends too
much on conjecture and miracles."
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21199 alt.politics.elections:25146 talk.politics.misc:69700
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:55:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:

>Let me let you in on a little secret.... all politicians make lots
>of outrageous promises during a campaign. If you voted based
>on the promises of your candidate you are being naive. We, the
>electorate, are to blame for this phenomenon. Politicians have
>found, for instance, that making promises of tax cuts are
>mandatory to their chances of being elected. Therefore, they
>Fact: Clinton made impossible promises, as did Bush, as did Perot....
>


     Oh, come on!  Quit being so negative and divisive!  

     Norbert sends me e-mail:

          McDonnell-Douglas blows 8,700 away
          Sears - 50,000

     Come on, Norbert.  You, too, Richard!  Ed! Come on!  
     We're going to pull together now.  I can see it.  It's there
     It's THERE!   The Piece Train is rounding the hill!

     We're all going to get some.  Join together!  Buy a bell!



     Come on, hoin me.   Ohhhhh, ahhhhh, ooohwweee, ohhwwwaaa.

     Get on the Piece Train!  Come on, everybody around America!

     CLAP!  CLAP!    It's NEW AGE!


     Get your friends together
        We'll be neighbors!

     
>At this point some of you may ask, "So, how can you decide who to
>vote for if they are all telling us what we want to hear?". The answer
>is to examine the one piece of information
>which displays the real competancy and heart of the candidate---
>their public record. Voting records, bill signings, program
>implementations
>and results, experience, are all public record.
>These cannot be fudged. Clinton's
>record as governor is excellent, Bush's record as president is not.
>
>These arguements about "promises" are either mere partisan fru-fru,
>or show a complete lack of understanding of the realities of politics.
>
>Norman
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>
>
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson
>
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Astrology Nixes Shooting (Was Re: Clinton's Promises ...)
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:11:13 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1jjfn3INNnjd@vttux1.vtt.fi> leino@rat.vtt.fi (Tapio Leino) writes:
>
>So many promises! Huh.
>I wonder if Clinton ever gets a chance to try and do all that.
>I remember having read that it is customary to shoot a president every
>20 years and I think now this time is up....

Kennedy was shot in 1963.  If the 20-year "rule" is valid, then Ronald Reagan
was shot in 1983.  He *was* shot (don't remember what year it was); without
surgery he would possibly have died (which gives rise to the question of
which of our presidents would have survived whatever carried them off while
in office, if modern medicine had been available to them?  W.H. Harrison, for
sure; he merely died of pneumonia).  Gerald Ford was shot at as well.  If
you're emotionally dependent on the 20-year "rule", then you may feel secure
(or disappointed) in that odd-numbered decades like the 1990's are "safe" for
our presidents; you'll have to wait until 2003 (President Gore's first term)
to get your jollies.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244     ----------------------------+
|  There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.     |
|					   --     Mark Twain		      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21282 alt.politics.elections:25184 talk.politics.misc:69890
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Money Supply (Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 14:32:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) says:

>Ya know, if you continue with the proof-by-assertion and the random
>noise, you'll just fall faster into irrelevance, 'less you've already
>hit bottom.

      You're right.  You're absolutely right.  I am irrelevant now.

      Proof-by-aasertion??  Random noise??  

      Yes, in that context, I am irrelevant.

      The time for grieving is done.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>"Duff Beer for me, Duff Beer for you"
>	"I'll have a Duff's, you have one, too...."
>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: stchang@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steven Kuk-Jin Chang)
Subject: Deficit talk 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:46:52 GMT

Since when is reducing the deficit a greater priority than long-term
economic growth?  The media and many politicians treat the reduction
of the deficit as an end to itself not as a means to an end.  

There is absolutely no reason why the federal government needs to cut the
deficit as quickly as Clinton promised.  

This is not an attempt to make an excuse for him when he breaks his
pledge to reduce the deficit, only to point out that he made many more
important economic pledges in his campaign that should be scrutinized more
carefully.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:20958 alt.politics.elections:25079 talk.politics.misc:69233
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DAY TWO: MORE LIES
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:38:09 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

> Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        1996 election countdown - 1383 more days         | These pontifications 
>  until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     


	ahhhh. what's wrong?  are you bitter about the election?

	Gee, that's too bad...

=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "I will have no inellectual training.
Miami University	  Knowledge is ruin to my young men."
Oxford, Ohio 45056  		-Adolf Hitler
(513) 529-2063	        
 yeech! ack!	       "Politics has no relations to morals"
  ungh!				-Niccolo Michiavelli
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:21260 alt.president.clinton:1804
From: csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Quote from Clinton?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:47:10 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <1993Jan25.154830.27246@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:

>Time now for our regularly scheduled disagreement.  Part of Clinton's message
>was that human fetal tissue will be used in disease research.  In fact, this
>is very appropriate since this tissue is *dead* and would otherwise be thrown
>out.  Being human tissue, the results that it gives will be much more applic-
>able to human disease than anything animal research could hope to muster up.

Point of order. If the fetal tissue were dead (not the fetus, but the
tissue) it would be of no use for medical research.

If, on the other hand, you are saying the the _fetus_ is dead, well, pro-
abortionists would say that it was never alive, at least, not really, and
is therefore of no use for medical research.

If it is alive isn't this dangerously close to vivisection?

-----
"The main flaw of Creation Theory is that it depends too much on conjecture
and miracles, and the main flaw of Evolution Theory is that it depends too
much on conjecture and miracles."
Craig Edward Smith (csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu)
From: jsl+@pitt.edu (John S Lundberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:12:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan26.102934.19049@cis.uab.edu> bayram@willis.cis.uab.edu (Zeki Bayram) writes:
>On the matter of allowing homosexuals into the armed forces of the
>U.S.A., a few points to consider:
[blah blah blah]
>- Guess what Saddam will be telling his soldiers if there were another
>  war in the Gulf: "Oh pure blood, God fearing defenders of this land.
>  You are fighting against 'a bunch of faggots'. So go clear the earth
>  of its slime!" And I think he would find an audiance, and not only
>  in his soldiers!  

Well, there you have it.  We can't allow gays in the military
because Saddam will make fun of us.

Certainly seems like a reasonable argument to me.

Who knows what ridicule Adolf Hitler could have indulged in IF ONLY
HE 'D KNOWN THAT A *QUEER* WAS FIGURING OUT HOW TO DECODE HIS
MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS!  

Fortunately, that sad fact didn't emerge until well after Hitler was
dead so we were spared being ridiculed by the Germans and thus are
able to breathe free today.
-- 
John Lundberg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes)
Subject: Re: DAY TWO: MORE LIES
Organization: AT&T Looney Bin
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:35:09 GMT

From article <1jnvtoINN2tq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, by ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac):
> 
> 
> By the way, let's all cry BOO HOO HOO for poor Zoe.  Things aren't 
> going well for her.  It seems strange that a President who claims that
> 'friends are the most important thing you can have in life' doesn't
> treat his very well.  He hid all day in the White House playing tour
> guide instead of publically supporting her.  And a hint for George

	And if he made any attempt to publically support her, you
can be damn sure that the Republinistas would have been all over
him for that.  Willie can't win on this one.

terry
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Astrology Nixes Shooting (Was Re: Clinton's Promises ...)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:14:28 GMT

In article <8kjawzw@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>
>Kennedy was shot in 1963.  If the 20-year "rule" is valid, then Ronald Reagan
>was shot in 1983.  He *was* shot (don't remember what year it was); without
>surgery he would possibly have died (which gives rise to the question of
>which of our presidents would have survived whatever carried them off while
>in office, if modern medicine had been available to them?  W.H. Harrison, for
>sure; he merely died of pneumonia).  Gerald Ford was shot at as well.  If
>you're emotionally dependent on the 20-year "rule", then you may feel secure
>(or disappointed) in that odd-numbered decades like the 1990's are "safe" for
>our presidents; you'll have to wait until 2003 (President Gore's first term)
>to get your jollies.

Actually, the "20-year rule/curse" applies to the year a president is
elected.  JFK was elected in 1960, Reagan in 1980.  FDR won an
election in '40.  Who was 1900?  McKinley?  It's not just getting
shot, it's more like dying in office.  FDR brain hemmorage.  Harrison,
I recall, fits in this framework also.

The twenty-year curse still applies to Reagan, on account that we can,
if we really want to, work brain-death in here somehow.


--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:23:18 GMT

In <visser.727642809@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:



>	You dont need a crystal ball to tell you that things are going
>deeply wrong.   Then again, Clinton convinced all the good party robots
>that Ron Brown, career lobbyist was appointed to the commerce department
>because of his deep desire for public service.  

Oh sure, Ron Brown only made something like 3/4 of a million last year
so now he is taking this $144,000 a year job to make money. The only
thing I see going wrong, seriously wrong, in this country is an
internet full of chronic bitchers who can't offer one single
constructive criticism, who are sore losers, and plain damn useless.

REB




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc