HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:46:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

In article <1992Oct14.172916.19917@cs.rochester.edu> fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.141850.9611@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>So do I.  Unfortunately neither Bush or Clinton are.  Just from THEIR
>>numbers which are over optimistic about the rate of recovery, IMHO,
>>Bush's 300 billion deficit reduction really add up to a 70 billion
>>deficit increase (surprise), Clintons numbers, as I have been saying all
>>along, are even more optimistic that the Presidents and he ends up with
>>an actual reduction in the deficit, not 130 billion as he states, but 10
>>billion.  Perot is the only candidate whose numbers really add up to do
>>what he says they will do.  Of course, none of these numbers include any
>>type of projections of the cost of the impending banking crisis.
>
>Clinton's numbers are not that badly wrong.  The 130 billion savings
>(actually 142 billion) are GROSS CUTS, not deficit reduction.  The CNN story
>you probably got your numbers from committed a glaring misrepresentation
>on this point.  I haven't been able to find a statement of immediate
>deficit reduction goals, although I have heard a goal to cut the deficit
>in half by the end of his first term.  That goal is not represented in
>his spending plan for next year.  Clinton believes (as he stated quite
>well in St. Louis) that immediate large reductions in the deficit are a
>bad idea; that is the primary difference between his position and Perot's.
>-- 

You are wrong.  I downloaded a copy of Clintons plan from a local BBS
here when it first came out.  Loaded the numbers into a spreadsheet and
came up with the same conclusion that CNN came up with.

Doug
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Presidential Information Service)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Does campaign stuff belong here?
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:00:21 GMT


Hello World,


I get to claim full responsibility for the poor net.citizenship of the
recent Clinton campaign postings.  I had them going to several
newsgroups independently.

From now on, each new article posted by each of the campaigns through
the services provided by the AI lab will be a seperate thread.  I have
included the list of Usenet groups on which those threads will now
appear.


alt.activism
alt.listserv.politics
alt.mindcontrol
alt.news-media
alt.politics.bush
alt.politics.clinton
alt.politics.democrats
alt.politics.libertarian
alt.politics.org.misc
alt.politics.perot
alt.politics.reform
alt.politics.usa.misc
alt.putz.bickering.whining.weiner
alt.society.sovereign
ca.politics
clari.news.politics
misc.activism.progressive
ne.news
ny.general
soc.politics
talk.politics.misc


If you think some of these groups should not receive all the posts of
all the candidates, or if you think I have left out some important
newsgroups that merit inclusion in this grand scheme, then please
reply to this news group.  As always, you can flame me personally for
fast relief.

Also, the alpha version of the Presidential Information Service has
not been working properly.  You don't know how sorry I am about that.


Eric Loeb
MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Friday, 2 Oct 1992 10:09:45 EDT
From: <MBKJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot for Pres???

Excuse me, but what do you mean by "wont"?  Do you intend
that word to be won't?  Regards.
-------

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mary Koonmen           BITNET: mbkjj@cunyvm                       |
| John Jay College     INTERNET: mbkjj@cunyvm.cuny.edu              |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Re: Those debates
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:25:28 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct12075123@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>
>Ann Richards got the best after-debate line:  "You can stick a fork
>into Bush... 'cause he's done."

	I still remember her line from the 1988 Democratic convention:
"Poor George Bush:  He was born with a silver FOOT in his mouth!"

-- 
Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17146 sci.econ:8137 talk.politics.misc:52187
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:10:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections

rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>While I enjoy the implosion of the Republicans (after watching the Dems
>self destruct since the mid-60's), I'm encouraged with what will replace
>it.  The winning party will be (generally) for limited government in
>social issues (ie abortion) and limited government in economics.  (Although
>not as limited government as the Libertarian view.)

>Whether that party is the Dems or Repubs has yet to be determined...

What planet are you on? If Slick Willie gets in, there will be no such
thing as limited government in economics. We will get massive,
federally mandated heath care rationing, massive spending on pork
barrel (oops, I mean 'investment') spending, massive government
programs for job retraining, and to top it off, a Japanese style
government directed industrial policy, ala MITI.

With all these promised government program answers to all our
problems, where do you see 'limited government in economics' from the
Democratic party? Especially one headed by someone whose mentor was
George McGovern?

>Russ Anderson  

                                    Brad Cote'
                                    University of California, San Diego
                                    STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:58:51 GMT

In <MATT.92Oct7123501@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>> The Clinton Doctrine
>> 	by A.M. Rosenthal
>> [copied w/o permission from the NYT, 10/6/92, p.A23]
 
>> The campaign of 1992, so long a desert of tedium and cynicism, has
>> finally produced what the country has needed for too many dry years --
>> a lucid, warm adult statement of principle about what the United
>> States can give to the world and gain from it.

>I read that column when it came out in the Times, and I was a bit
>surprised by it.  Abe Rosenthal is, of course, normally a faithful
>conservative Republican, and it was interesting to see that he had
>essentially endorsed the Democratic Presidential candidate.

I have other comments below, but I want to say here that Rosenthal has
*never* liked Bush, especially foreign policy-wise.  He opposes Bush's
policy towards China,Serbia,Haiti,Iraq [not the war, but the events
leading up to it and then not finishing the job], Syria, the Baltics,
and the ex-Soviet Union.

His complaint has always been that Bush's realpolitick philosophy is
both immoral AND damaging to U.S. interests.

>However, I think there is less here than meets the eye.  Towards the
>end of the column, Rosenthal gave what I think was his real reason for
>endorsing Clinton: the implication of the Clinton Doctrine is that the
>United States will stand up for Israel.

>I imagine Rosenthal is sincere in his admiration for Clinton's foreign
>policy, but I doubt that it is what matters most for him.  Mainly, I
>think he is just hoping for a President who will not be so
>relentlessly anti-Israeli as Bush has been.

I might throw up first, but I'm going to defend Bush here.  Bush has
*not* been relentlessly anti-Israel.  He hasn't been mindlessly rabidly
pro-Israel like Ronnie was, but he isn't anti-Israel, either.

He's managed to (1) weaken Israel's strongest enemy, and (2) force the
Arabs to the peace conference.  To argue that refusing to provide loan
guarantees so that a few right-wingers in Israel can do something stupid
is anti-Israel is sort of a stretch.

(If you were just stating your opinion on Rosenthal's thinking process,
then I apologize and I agree with you.  If you were making a claim, then
I'm disputing it.)
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16924 talk.politics.misc:51916
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate. NOT!
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:58:03 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:

>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.

I will admit that I am biased against right-wing Conservatives like
Danny, but I can not believe how many of his lies the American people
have accepted as truth.

>Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
>of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really
>trust Clinton to be President?"  

This begs the question "Do you really trust Bush to be President?"  My
answer is a firm, loud, definate *** NO !!! *** for these reasons and
more:

Read My Lips, Iran-Contragate, IraqGate, Neil Bush, Bush's Smear
campaigns against Perot and Clinton, Page 304, Bush's Veto Record,
relying on Baker to save his Presidency, firing his own economic team,
blaming the LA riots on 1960's liberalism, Bush's racist treatment of
Hatian refugees, pandering to the religious right, the Republican
party position on Abortion, George Bush announcing that Clarence
Thomas was the "most qualified" person un the United States to become
a Supreme Court justice, Bush comparing himself to Truman, Rep.
Dornan, Rich Bond, Pat Robertson, etc. etc. etc.

>How many times did
>you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?

Many times.  This is, IMO, a "Good Thing" for the Dem ticket.

Stratocaster

-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Bush v. Clinton: "Who do you trust?"
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:59:45 GMT

In article <92290.143553JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu> <JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>When Bush was running against Reagan for the Rep. nomination in 79-80,
>he continually referred to trickle-down economics as "Voodoo Economics."
>
>Let me repeat that:  Bush called trickle-down VOODOO ECONOMICS.

PBS pundit David Gergen said tonight that he was amazed that Bush didn't
respond to repeated references by Clinton about the "failed economic
theory" of the last twelve years. Gergen half seriously suggested that Bush
may believe it! Can this be? My respect is going up for the President. Is he
merely trapped in right-wingers' deep voodoo at this point?

---
Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: The truth about Gritz
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:50:13 GMT

wjm@utrcv1 (Bill) writes:

>And how about free trade, (something Bo is against).  I suppose you like 
>the idea of our government giving tax breaks to U.S. companies who close up 
>here, then move to Mexico, etc...  Free trade is touted as giving U.S. 
>goods a bigger market place.  In fact, it simply means you will be 
>competing with foreign workers making 50 cents per day who can ship there 
>goods to the U.S. without tarrifs!

	So then you are saying free trade means I will be able to buy 
goods at a cheaper price?    That the American consumer will be able to 
choose who to buy from, and he will be free to buy from the producer who 
can offer the best goods at the best price?

The way you describe it, it sounds wonderful!

Jim Del Vecchio
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17103 talk.politics.misc:52140
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:05:08 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct14.143906.8788@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Oct12.212458.5626@csrd.uiuc.edu>, saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
>> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>> 
>> >> independent of who is President and what he does.  A Clinton/Gore win
>> >> in 1992 will lead to
>> >> 
>> >>      Clinton/Gore in 1996
>> >> 
>> >>      Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)
>> >> 
>> >>      Gore/Braun in 2004
>> >> 
>> >Wrong, Bush will get it this year, VERY, VERY close and then Kemp in '96.
>>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Please post the data that you base your prediction on [of a close Bush 
>> victory]! Does this mean that all those polls are wrong? Do all of those
>> who are polled lie (actually, do both rep's and dem's lie)? I can understand
>> a 4 % difference but in many states the difference is 10 % (very much
>> above a sample error).
>> 
>> I and many others are waiting to hear from you!
> 
> Have they been polling in the cemeteries?   :-)
> 
> -- 
> Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
> ------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
> EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)


No, and they will not use names from the cemeteries as votes as the Demos
did in Chicago in 1960!!

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:22:12 GMT

Kingsley Morse writes:
>              Please answer these 9 questions and return.
>        ....
>
>3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
>Yes                  [ ]
>Sometimes            [ ]
>No                   [ ]
>Haven't heard enough [ ]
>Other                [ ]
>

   As opposed to what ? Killing all unwanted children and orphans ?

Greg

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot's Re-Entry: What's the Possible Electoral Effect?
Keywords: Texas
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:55:05 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Oct5.183723.28169@reed.edu>, philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore) writes:

|> Remember the Republic of Texas is
|> the only state that was a sovereign nation before becoming a state. 

This is rather pedantic, but Hawaii was a sovern monarchy before becomming
a state.  It is the only monarchy to become a state. 

Wasn't Calafornia a country for a while?  I seem to remember hearing about
the "bear state" or something like that.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jeff@don't.want.email
Subject: WE NEED JACK KEMP IN 1996
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:26:07 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri's Technological University


He is my prediction...

Jack Kemp will win in 1996 based on the fact that  
Bill-tax-everyone-Clinton will screw the economy up so bad that we will  
need someone like Jack Kemp to lead our country out of the the mid 90's  
depression.  

There is only one true cure...

Jack Kemp as President with a REPUBLICAN Congress!!!

Jeff E
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16194 alt.politics.perot:1983 alt.politics.bush:8703 alt.politics.clinton:9824 talk.politics.misc:51042 alt.politics.libertarian:791
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Those debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:51:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


I did apl indstead of ap.marrou because I can't get it.  Sorry.

On the debate:

It was great!

Perot won the soundbite war.  The best line:

On Bush's claim of experience:  "Well, they got a point.  I don't have
any experience running up a 4 trillon dollar debt."

Ann Richards got the best after-debate line:  "You can stick a fork
into Bush... 'cause he's done."

The analysis:

Perot:	He won the battle
	He won the soundbite war
	He regained his respect and focused the issue (was
	self-deprecating enough but still in control--got into it near
	the end--expect an even more energized performance next time)
	He utterly neutralized Bush.
	Was too one-note (also his greatest strength)

Bush:	He lost the "patriot" issue early on
	He recovered and seemed very Presidential and relaxed (and
	after the second question, took the high road mostly)
	He pissed off Magic Johnson
	He managed to get his tax&spend, experience issue out there
	(and must have been thinking "why did I let Perot on this
	stage?")

Clinton:
	Perot won the battle, but by the nature of his victory gave
	Clinton the war
	Clinton acheived all of his objectives, looked presidential,
	maintained control
	Of the three, looked the "smoothest" may have walked the fine
	line between control and slick... only time will tell.
	Won the camera battle.  Looked at Bush when attacking on the
	patriot issue, then turned to the camera and said "we don't
	need a president who divides us, we need a president who brings
	us together" (or something like that).  Obviously practiced,
	but it may play well.


Hilarious strategy point:  Bush & Clinton would quickly acknowledge
Perot... then attack their *real* opponent.

In short:  Perot won the personal battle, but it was a tied debate I
suppose.  Which means Clinton wins and Bush loses.

We'll see.

--
Peace.
     "Why wouldn't an enhanced deterrent, a more stable peace, a better
      prospect to denying the ones who enter conflict in the first place
      to have a reduction of offensive systems and an introduction to
      defensive capability.  I believe that is the route this country
      will eventually go."
                            -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:26:25 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: AL GORE - The man with too many faces

In article <1992Oct15.022814.9403@umr.edu>, jeff@don't.want.email says:

>Did you know that Al Gore use to be PRO-LIFE....

>Now all of a sudden he is in the race for the VP slot.

>Gee, I think that there is something fishy going on here....

Ya know, George Bush was once on the board of directors of Planned
Parenthood. Up until 1980 he was an ardent pro-choicer. I find this
mildly interesting.

                  "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Presidential debates. What time televised?
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:55:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Eastern Daylight Time

7:00 PM on all major networks

Some may have follow-ups after the broadcasts.


-- 
---------------------------------
     David De Trolio
---------------------------------
(detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15513 alt.politics.bush:8067 alt.politics.clinton:8943 talk.politics.misc:50122 talk.abortion:41190 alt.activism.d:3615
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 7 Oct 1992 23:52:05 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct5.203319.9574@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <wenlKC_00iUzQ151Ax@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:
>>Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 2-Oct-92 Re: Walking down to the
>>stu.. by Dave Schabel@calspan.com 
>>> You are absolutely right.  However, since we are and cannot be
>>> sure if and when it is a person, shouldn't we err on the side
>>> of caution?  

>>Mr. Schabel is absolutely right.  Since the human population of this
>>planet is way in excess of its usual numbers, and there is a good bit of
>>indication that this may undermine the ecosystem, it is clear that
>>abortion rights is desirable.  Certainly that is the sensible cautious
>>approach.

>>Michael Loomis

>Way in excess of its usual numbers?  Where do you get your information?  

Try any basic text on natural science for starters. 

>The earth is not over-populated.  

Your wrong. The earth is over-populated.

>Now before you start flaming, listen 
>for just a minute.  Of course some areas have extremely dense population, 
>and I agree that places like Los Angeles and Calcutta are over-populated, 
>but the earth as a whole is not over-populated, if you mean by that that 
>there are too many people for the earth to support.  

Your wrong. There are too many people for the earth to support in
a sustainable manner.

>Are you aware that 
>every person on the earth could lay down, spread their arms and legs 
>and not touch anyone else, in a mid-sized county in the midwest?  How 
>about in one large Florida city?  

What does this have to do with anything?

>There is plenty of food to feed everyone several times over.  

Wrong. According to an article I read a while back there is just
a little more than enough to feed everybody iff we were all to go
on a straight grain diet.

>The problem is distribution.  

Yea right. Funny how I only hear this from right-wingers, the very same
right wingers who would go ballistic if I were to suggest that the only
way that this problem could be solved is in a socialist society.

>What needs of humans did you have in mind that the earth is running out of?

How about ground water, dump sites, fresh air, sea food, natural 
diversity of species, forests, ozone in the atmosphere, top soil.....

>Ted

>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

"Vote Republican. Why worry, when the future will never come?"

>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

Eric

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16534 talk.politics.misc:51468 alt.politics.clinton:10175