HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:40:12 GMT

In article <BvzMI3.556@doppler.ncsc.org> kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore) writes:
>In article <1b4jpgINN33f@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

> >Recent Poll results, ordered by number of electoral college votes.

> >! == Candidate has lead of 10% or more. 
> >EV == Electoral College votes for that state (270 votes needed for victory).

> >State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot   State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot
[Lots o' states deleted]
> >  AL    9    41     38    13       LA    9    37     36    11
> >  AZ    8    31     36    17       KY    8    36     41     8
> >  AR    6    25     58!    6       NM    5    30     38    13
> >  AK    3    35     36    18       ND    3    46!    36     8

> >Caveats: typos may exist; different sampling techniques, questions
> >and margins of error among the polls; many results are from Sept.,
> >before Perot re-entered.  In case of multiple polls, most recent was used.

>How is it that Clinton has no lead in Arkansas? Are they wiser
>to this guy than the rest of the nation? After watching the debate today,

Here's a little postal lesson.
AL=Alabama.  AZ= Arizona.  AK=Alaska.  

**** AR= Arkansas ****

He DOES have a lead in Arkansas.  A large lead.  More than twice as much
as his nearest competitor.  Rather, ask why Bush doesn't have a real
lead in *Texas*.  (40-35-14)  Or Maine, (30-44-11), or any of Bush's
other "home states", like Connecticut (33-47-9).

>I could see why they call him Slick Willy. Everything was a draw on your
>emotions. Perot and Bush were much better at not making me feel like he
>was trying to pull one over on me. That does not even begin to discuss
>what was said. I think Perot clearly came out ahead (though he has nothing
>to lose and everything to gain from the anti-establishment crowd). I would
>put Bush one up on Clinton. Clinton did nothing to shake the "you can't
>trust me" label.

There's nothing he *can* do to shake a label only put on him by biased
persons.  I don't understand why sounding informed is a bad thing, while
sounding like you've never studied the issues ("unrehearsed") is a good thing.

Perot clearly did the best in *this* debate, since he didn't have to
give any specifics at all, and he came out looking almost Presidential.

But on the grounds that all that really matters is who wins the
election, *Clinton* won the debate hands down, because nothing happened
to damage his campaign.

Bush babbled -- blamed everyone except himself, contradicted himself about
statements he made just the other day.

I liked Ross's Bush-bashing, though.
-- 
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!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:00:42 GMT

In article <ld6344INNoom@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
>Actually I did not see anything new.  Everything he showed has already been in
>my local newpaper, here on the net, or on TV.  Nor did I see anything that
>showed he had a workable plan, or that he could lead congress to adopt
>any plan.  

My understanding is that the initial program was in no way INTENDED to
show a "workable plan" but rather to reiterate the problems facing
this country.  It is fair to assume a lot of the electorate had
forgotten about these since Perot "dropped out", with no small
measure of assistance from the media.

On Friday he will present his plan, or at least part of it.  Tune
in then.

>Hell, one of our problems is that too many or our citizens can't even read
>Perot's book.  He still tells them to go read it.  He should have used a lot
>of pictures.
>-- 

I did not see the broadcast, but I was told he used _lots_ of pictures
in the form of graphs and charts.

As to the inability of Americans to read, you need look no further
than the influence of 20 (or more?) years of government meddling in
the school system and the monopolistic position of the NEA.  

Perot, Bush, and the Libertarians (the latter were first as far as
I know) have recommended varying means of increasing the role of
privitized school systems in America.  I must conclude given the
current mess that this should be allowed to happen.
From: gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Rush is...
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:04:27 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct12.202557.24775@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>If you think that there is some sort of
>unspoken agenda on the part of the Democrats, please
>let us know.

I believe it was the unspoken agenda to which the previous poster was
referring.  Do you think the Democrats are going to broadcast their
Socialistic ideals?  Fact is, if I believed anything Clinton said, I
might consider voting for him...unfortunately, I don't believe a 
god-damned word that's left his mouth!  The Socialist/Democrats have
accurately realized that no American with an ounce of sense is going
to send a liberal to the Executive branch.  Voila', we have Clinton - a
moderate/centrist Trojan Horse we're supposed to blindly roll into the
White House.  But when he gets there, who's he going to have to thank?
Who's going to be pulling his strings?

Let's call this the difference between Clinton and Bush:
>                            |-----------|

And this will be the difference between the Democrats and Republicans:
>       |--------------------------------|


For the "observationally challenged" I'll point out the dramatic shift
to the left.

-- 
Sean P. Ormond
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton '92 - "Read my lips: NEW TAXES"
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:07:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


Why won't Clinton take the Pledge to Lead or Leave?

Perot has said "one term" opting for a self imposed term limit.

Clinton said he won't enter a legal contract to cut spending.

Clinton wouldn't take the pledge to cut the deficit in half or leave.

Clinton blames trickle-down but does not acknowledge that it's both
the Republicans and the DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS and the Presidency
who authored and passed the spending that has put this country 
$4 Trillion dollars in debt *AND* passed another busted $1.5 Trillion 
dollar new Federal Budget just last week. 

I don't expect him to put his paycheck on the line like Perot, but I do
expect him to put his name on the line. And I wouldv'e hoped he'd put
his time on the line that if he can't produce results -- he'd get out. 

He's a Party-Pawn plain and simple. And he won't dare upset the 
incumbents by putting his own ASS on the line.

Goodbye MR. Clinton. 

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:40:24 GMT

In article <71034@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
>...but not ALL fatal accidents!  If a fatal accident CAN occur while
>you're wearing your seatbelt, then seatbelts do not, by definition, PREVENT
>such accidents.  

My father, whose life was saved on at least one occasion by a seatbelt
when his car was totalled by a drunk driver, might disagree with you.

>Likewise, a condom will not PREVENT you from acquiring
>an STD.  It might reduce your chances, but that's a small consolation
>considering the stakes.  Let's say you have a 1% chance of catching HIV
>during a heterosexual encounter.  Now this condom will reduce that to
>0.2%, if you're very careful with it.  

Not bad.  First you assume that heterosexual sex has a rate of HIV
transmission about a hundred thousand times higher than reality.  (The
odds of infection aren't even 1% when you're sleeping with an *infected*
partner, much less one randomly selected from the population of non-IVDU
heterosexuals.)  Then you assume a condom failure rate of 20% (as opposed to
less than 1% per act).  

>Now keeping in mind the fact that
>we're dealing with a virus that leads to an incurable and FATAL disease,
>are you going to feel any safer?  

When you start using numbers that have any bearing on reality, yes, I do.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:40:53 GMT

munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:

>In article <1992Oct10.181610.6870@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:
>> ... Then in another 10
>> years the Republican party will have another ingrained voter block.
>> 
>> Kemp and Baker in 1996.
>
>
>One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
>economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
>independent of who is President and what he does.  A Clinton/Gore win
>in 1992 will lead to
>
>     Clinton/Gore in 1996

Beaten by Kemp/anyone.  Easily and handilly.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre,alt.sex.bestiality,alt.licker.store
From: osa@orville.unh.edu (Bart Simps.. er.. Oktay Ahiska)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
X-Advertisement: Taste Emacs
Organization: Springfield Elementary School
	<Bvsr0M.1o6@agora.rain.com> <1992Oct8.123408.10323@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:38:28 GMT
Comments: Rasputin lives! He's in the kitchen


"Dean" == dean.kaflowitz  <decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> writes:

Dean> Well, Barbara Bush recently stated that "sex is death."

No, she said that "promiscuous sex is death."

Dean> I think she was just talking about sex with George, though.

Probably.

--
The opinions expressed above are my own, and not necessarily those of UNH.
 Cute signature quote by They Might Be Giants: D, world destruction /
  Over an overture / N, do I need / Apostrophe T, need this torture?
From: beast@netcom.com (Master)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: Belle & Philippe, Pty. Ltd.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:57:35 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct7225619@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.171803.12454@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>
>	   9) does not use products whose production uses
>		   more energy than they save, either in terms of
>		   food or existing non-human energy supply.
>
>   RATIONALE: encourage comfort and leisure through efficiency, not
>		   through expanded use of energy sources.
>
>Here's the energy god again.  There is plenty of energy to be had.
>Human labor is what needs to be conserved, unless we want to live in
>poverty.

I agree.  The thing that really gets me about these people who want us to
make as many of the things we use as possible (including growing our own
food) is that they don't seem to realize just how much time we would actually
spend doing these things.  I have better things to do than spend time
sewing clothes, growing food, etc., when there are other people willing to
do it for me (for a price, of course).  The more labor intensive day-to-day
survival is, the lower the standard of living is.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Kintscher	 | "Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only
beast@netcom.com     	 |  queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can
			 |  suppose. . . . I suspect that there are more things
"No matter where you go, |  in heaven and earth than are dreamed of,  in any
 there you are."	 |  philosophy."
			 |				J. B. S.  Haldane
	Buckaroo Bonzai	 |				Possible Worlds
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:40:04 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <138338@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi) writes:
]In article <1992Oct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
]>Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
]>"willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
]>and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
]>least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
]>reprehensible and offensive.
]
]Do you think that anyone who was a tourist in Moscow in that period
]is automatically ineligible to be president?  Because I don't believe

I think any anti-war protest organizer who went to Moscow during that 
period has the burden of proof on him to show that he did not cooperate
with the Russians. If he is unwilling to try (and Clinton refuses to
discuss the issue), then yes, he would be unfit to be president. For one
thing, he could never get a high security clearance without explaining
it adequately. Do we want someone as president who wouldn't even qualify
for a secret or above security clearance? I know that I sure don't!

]there's any evidence that he actually "conspired" with the enemy, or
]that he protested the war while he was there.  

Agreed. THere's no evidence that he didn't, also.
]
]We all know about Dornan's long tirade on this subject.  What did he say?
]He went through a long chain of evidence to show that Clinton was in
]Moscow in the period in question.  Nobody disputes that!  Then he went
]on to say that Clinton participated in treasonous activites while there.
]When a reporter asked him what evidence he had for that, he said,
]essentially, that it was entirely speculation.
]
Well, I don't particularly like Dornan's style, but he did NOT say that
Clinton participated in treasonous activities, he said it was likely
that Clinton met the KGB there. Now, it was impossible to travel there
at that time without meeting the KGB, since all Intourist people reported
to the KGB, so he is technically correct. I doubt that Clinton conspired
with the KGB there.... as I said before, he was probably just one of the
thousands of americans unwittingly used by them. Their term was "useful
fool."


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:14:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

tgpt_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Guptill) writes:
>-
>-
>-	Perhaps that's exactly the point:  education--at least through 4
>-years of college--should be publicly financed, IMHO.  This seems to be the
>-only way of insuring that all students, no matter what their economic
>-background may be, have an equal chance to get an education.  

  I notice that neither Guptill no any of the other posters in favor of 
  this concept have yet been willing to state how they would fund this
  concept.  As another poster here is fond of saying, "he who does not
  do the math . . . "


---peter
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:50:38
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
        <5OCT199221402013@utarlg.uta.edu> <1992Oct7.022226.19164@anasazi.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: john@anasazi.com's message of 7 Oct 92 02:22:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.022226.19164@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

> He WAS in the SU in '70. He admitted it on TV last night.

"Admitted"?!  It's an "admission" to say that you travelled during
your Christmas vacation?  

The Bush campaign must be getting really desperate if this is the best
they can do.

                        
                Matt Austern,  who will freely admit to having been in
                               Long Island in 1971.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50018 alt.rush-limbaugh:6749 alt.politics.bush:8022 alt.politics.clinton:8866 alt.politics.elections:15461 talk.abortion:41116 alt.sex:32191
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:54:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes ...
|>If this bothers you, however, then chew on this for a moment - society is 
|>already allowing hundreds of murders, if not thousands, to take place by
|>allowing convicted murderers and other criminals to be paroled. Not all 
|>parolees do kill which is why parole is allowed to continue. 
|
|Indeed!  We should do all in our power to prevent all abortions AND
|murders!  Throw EVERYONE in jail!  Take away all the coat hangers,
|knives, pencils, guns, keys, and similarly nasty sharp and/or hard and
|dangerous objects!  Remember that, since most muders are committed by
|first-time offenders, EVERYONE is suspect!

H> Wait a minute! Just outlaw all metal objects. Make everything in
U> plastic! We've got plastic hangers, plastic cutlery, plastic guns,
M> and paneling for autos. And this will be such a wonderful world!
O> Everyone can be so happy knowing we've placed everyone in a
R> rubber room.

A bit more seriously, you haven't heard our fellow liberal leadership
saying that everyone is worse off. We have to feel "compassion" and
ashamed and guilty in order for the world to be a better place. We need
to "understand" those poor misunderstood multiple-murders in death row,
not kill them. We have to "care" and "invest in America" so we can rid
ourselves of the millenia of guilt that we've inherited from our
ancestors.

Okay, maybe not that much seriously.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:16:10 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) said..
>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")):
>> In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
>> book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
>> on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
>> page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 
>
>According to USA Today page 304 discusses an "Environmental Marshall
>Plan" that would direct $100 billion to a global environmental plan.
>Gore never endorses a specific level of money to be paid by the US
>(the man is, after all, a career politician) but he does say that "the
>maximum that is politically feasible still falls short of the minimum
>that is truly effective."

I have read the book; it is very clear that Dan Quayle was incorrect --
Gore does NOT propose "spending $100 billion of taxpayer money" and
sending it overseas.  His "reference" from Gore's book is dealing with
the original Marshall Plan of the 40's:

	[...] Charles Maier points out that the annual U.S. expenditures 
	for the Marshall Plan between 1948 and 1951 were close to 2 percent 
	of our GNP.  A similar percentage today would be almost $100 billion 
	a year.  [...]

Here is the entire paragraph, so you can have it in context:

	As a result, the responsibility for taking the initiative, 
	for innovating, catalyzing, and leading such an effort, falls
	disproportionately on the United States.  Yet in the early 1990s
	our instinct for world leadership often seems not nearly so
	bold as it was in the late 1940s.  The bitter experience of
	the Vietnam War is partly responsible, and the sheer weariness
	of carrying the burden of world leadership has taken a toll.
	Furthermore, we are not nearly as dominant in the world economy
	as we were then, and that necessarily has implications for our
	willingness to shoulder large burdens.  And our budget deficits
	are now so large as to stifle our willingness to consider even
	the most urgent of tasks.  Charles Maier points out that the
	annual U.S. expenditures for the Marshall Plan between 1948 and
	1951 were close to 2 percent of our GNP.  A similar percentage
	today would be almost $100 billion a year (compared to our total 
	nonmilitary foreign aid budget of about $15 billion a year)

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:55:26 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct6184904@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Paul Barton-Davis writes:
>
>     Personally, its not clear to me how the combination of
>     bicycle, bus, train, plane and occasional car rental can be
>     described as "cramped".
>
>When I left my house this morning around nine, I was undecided where
>I would have breakfast and look over my notes for my 11 am
>class.  The place I chose was about 3 miles from my home and about
>the same distance from my office.

When I left my house this morning at around 8:15, I could have had
breakfast at any one of about 6 different places along the 7.5 mile
route into my office. 

What's your point, John ?

-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Raskin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc