HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harlan@sulu.lerc.nasa.gov (Harlan Harris)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Organization: NASA/Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:36:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.144156.10133@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Frankly, I've always found the whole idea that George Bush would start
>a war to get reelected just a bit incredible (as in not credible).
>People have been saying this sort of thing ever since Desert Storm.
>Personally, if we found ourselves once again in the position of
>attacking Iraq, I would probably wind up voting for Bush.  Not because
>of that, but because we would immediately see all these people on the
>other side coming out with claims about how starting the war again was
>a 'political ploy'.  I would probably vote for Bush in reaction
>against those people.
>
>I personally don't think starting a war to get reelected would even
>occur to George Bush (although it might occur to some of his
>'advisors'), and I find it rather scary that it occurs so easily to
>folks who support the other side.

I heard this morning on the news, during a report on the UN people leaving
the Ag building for fear of their safely, that it was thought that Bush
would NOT use military force there, due to the election. This statement
was not explained, and frankly, I can't understand why he wouldn't. I'm
gonna vote for Clinton come hell or high water, but I might support some
sort of military operation in Iraq to get into the building. It doesn't
seem to me that nearly anyone who was going to vote for Bush would be
upset with a military strike, or that anyone who would be upset would vote
for Bush(ever). And there might even be a percentage point or 2 who would
rally-round-the-flag. 
Of course, I don't think either that Bush would attack merely to get 
political points, but if he was considering it for other, reasonable
reasons (rule-of-law, moral, etc), I can't believe politics would deter
him either.

 -Harlan

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Ex Perotista Tribunites, hot tip! WasRe: MLC PR: LP has over 500 candidates
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Jul23.010758.7972@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:52:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.010758.7972@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.063459.9544@eskimo.celestial.com>,
>delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>|
>|>     "Running candidates at all levels is what distinguishes an
>|>ongoing political party such as the Libertarian Party from a flash-
>|>in-the-pan like Ross Perot," 
>
>True, if you want third party politics you have to be prepared to start
>at the ground up. Community politics like we used to have in the Liberal
>party.
>
>So don't start by saying that you have to replace the Prez, politics
>works from the ground up. You need to start running people for state dog
>catcher and town councils before you go for the number one spot.

Sure. Andre Marrou shouldn't have the slightest problem to get elected as dog
catcher of Dixville Notch.

Matthias
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Date: 22 Jul 1992 16:32:21 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul22.153740.29106@cco.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|> lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
|> 
|> >Harry Blackmun is 84.
|> >Blackmun is the guy who wrote the "Roe v. Wade" decision.
|> >Although he's a Nixon appointee, he's actually a moderate.
|> 
|> I wouldn't *exactly* call him a moderate.

I wouldn't even **approximately** call him a moderate. Sure, both he
and John Paul Stevens are Mid-Western Republicans, but they sure as
hell aren't Conservatives. Stevens is kinda moderate, but not very.

By the way, anybody notice that there is only 1 Democratic appointee to
the SC, and that he's not a liberal (Byron White, appointed by JFK)?


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
From: ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:07:59 GMT
Reply-To: ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
>PS: Remember Ron [Reagan] saying "We hit the jackpot with this one!" as he 
>signed into law the de-regulation of the savings and loans in the early 80's?
>     Well, the S&L crisis is now going to cost us $500B to bail out; more
>than the amount of money spent on all of all the "liberal" social programs
>like student loans, Pell grants, head start, alternative energy sources,
>etc. that Reagan cut. Note that despite deep cuts in these programs we STILL
>managed to rack up $3.2T worth of debt in the the LAST 12 YEARS (added
>to the $0.8T from the PREVIOUS 200 YEARS.)  So much for the Republican
>myth of fiscal responsibility!
>    Thanks for making America strong, Ron! Thanks for staying the course, 
>George!  And thanks for nothing, American voters!  Check please!

You've only got half of the picture on the S&L debacle.  It wasn't deregulation
that caused the problem, per se, it was deregulation without a change 
(downward of course) in the amount of federal deposit insurance.  The
government intervention of regulation balanced the government intervention of
insurance. Taking one away while leaving the other intact was a recipe for
disaster.  
-- 
===============================================================================
 Mark Ricci - CATS          |   Perot For President -- oh well, not anymore
 Commodore Applications and |             Hello, Andre Marrou
 Technical Support          |             
 ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com |       (but I'd still rather have Jack Kemp)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Subject: Re: Registering to vote at the DMV (WAS: RE: Farewell Perot)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 22:25:08 GMT


In a previous article, werbick@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (WERBICK LAWRENCE JAR) says:

>
>[lots of stuff deleted]
>>Rob mentions that he thinks people/states shouldn't be coerced into registration
>>But the drive behind this country is the involvement of the people.
>>Voting is the one way you can act as a part of the group which governs us.
>>In effect, it IS our responsibility to vote, and coercion(sp?) to vote is not
>>bad - a little distasteful, but it does get the voters to come out.
>>
>[a little more deleted]
>>
>>doug w.
>
>	I live in Colorado, and we already have the ability to register to
>vote at the DMV. I find it quite convenient and utterly devoid of coercion.
>They merely ask you, "Would you like to register to vote today??" and offer
>you the form if you do. I would be against coercion of any sort in this
>country, but this is clearly not the case in this situation.

The "Motor Voter" bill had explicit provisions that people could refuse
to register if they so chose. It was not coercive in any way.


>
>	As for whether or not states should be *forced* to offer this, I
>personally don't care. I think it's a good idea, and if people don't like
>it, they can merely choose not to participate. Or, they may choose to
>register and simply not show up to vote. 
>
>--Elizabeth
>
>--
>this .sig was grazed on a free range, not brought up in a factory.
>support free-range .sigs!!!!!     eroberts@slate.mines.colorado.edu
>
-- 
"The new designer CLUB colors are the          |       When the axe came 
perfect complement to today's lifestyle."      |       into the forest,
                                               |       the trees said, "The
       -- television advertisement             |       handle is one of us"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:41:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.130005.3890@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:
>
>	Just to get the ball rolling, here's what I think:
>As a Clinton supporter, I do worry that Bush might time such
>an attack as to try to appear more "presidential" and evoke
>memories of the Gulf conflict.  

Frankly, I've always found the whole idea that George Bush would start
a war to get reelected just a bit incredible (as in not credible).
People have been saying this sort of thing ever since Desert Storm.
Personally, if we found ourselves once again in the position of
attacking Iraq, I would probably wind up voting for Bush.  Not because
of that, but because we would immediately see all these people on the
other side coming out with claims about how starting the war again was
a 'political ploy'.  I would probably vote for Bush in reaction
against those people.

I personally don't think starting a war to get reelected would even
occur to George Bush (although it might occur to some of his
'advisors'), and I find it rather scary that it occurs so easily to
folks who support the other side.

[I don't plan on voting for Bush, but I don't subscribe to this 'the
other side is the Great Satan' philsophy of political though, either.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
From: shea@ntmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady!  
Organization: Northern Telecom, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:46:41 GMT

In article <XDc5NB3w164w@micro-c.mcds.com>, speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>
>If there were no movie rating system, how would you stop a 8 year old
>from seeing "Silence of the Lambs" ?  


I didn't know there was such a big problem with 8-year-olds anxious
to see "Silence of the Lambs".

>Webster:  Censor - an official with the power to examine publications
>                   movies, television programs, etc. and to remove
>                   or prohibit anything considered obscene, libelous,
>                   politically objectionable, etc.

Get a new dictionary.  *My* Webster's also includes the following 
definitions:

	2.  any supervisor of public morals; person who tells people
	    how to behave.
	3.  a person whose task is to examine literature, motion pictures,
	    etc., and to remove or prohibit anything considered 
	    unsuitable.

Perhaps Mr. Speers has never heard of cases where directors were instructed
to remove objectionable scenes from movies in order to avoid an X-rating?
This is censorship; not government censorship (at least not directly) but
it is censorship.

>The ratings system doesn't "probit" adults from seeing any movie.

Bull.  Many states and localities have laws which restrict or prohibit
showing of X or NR-17 movies.  Yes, the MPAA does not prohibit the
movies themselves, but they provide the tools which the censors
can use.

>It does alert an adult to the possible content of the movie so that
>they may make their own decision on whether or not to see the movie.

Next we'll have mandatory rating systems which tell us whether the
movies have "occult" references, incorrect political thinking,
bad acting, or rainy scenes where the sun still shines.  These are
all factors to consider when making a decision on whether or not to
see the movie.

Of course, people could use their *brains* and do a little research
before buying a ticket, but most Americans are too sheeplike to do
anything more than look at the rating.

-- 
Ray Shea			
DoD #0372, '88 Hawk NT650, 	...and a card carrying member of the ACLU...
founder, Team Twinkie	      		you got a problem with that?
ntmtv!shea@ames.arc.nasa.gov  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bush's accomplishments
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:19:22 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <mcnally.711734414@wsl.pa.dec.com> mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>You are sure confused! Global warming has NOTHING to do with ozone
]>depletion.
]
]Pretty bold statement.  So there's NO impact from the change in the
]radiation signature of energy reaching the surface of the planet?
]They're TOTALLY unrelated?  Hmm...

As an issue they should be unrelated. Of course there is a very minor
effect. It is not, however, of significance.
-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Supreme Court qualifications
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:12:59 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <l6po41INN4kb@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <9207220116.AA19713@cs.utexas.edu>, PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (Peter Laws) writes:
>|> Never mind ideology (was: You may not like Clinton but...).  How about we
>|> appoint Justices who are *qualified* for the job?  "Justice" Thomas NEVER
>|> even tried a case before any court before his appointment to the Court.
>
>Depends on what you mean by "tried." He DID hear cases on appeal while on the
>Federal Appeals Court in the District of Columbia. His last decision before
>leaving the court was a fairly important one on affirmative action (the Chicago
>Tribune praised it effusively). He also was a lawyer for Monsanto at the very
>beginning of his career. 
>

Yeah, I remeber hearing about his last case -- he withheld the result of
it so it couldnt be used against him in the confirmation hearings.  I
read that in one of the American Lawyer papers and rumors of it in
I believe, the Boston Globe.

BUt he was clearly unqualified.  The ABA gave him the lowest rating 
of any Supremem Court nominee in 50 years, lower than Bork.  In
the first round of COnfirmation hearings he claimed he never thought
about Roe v. Wade.  What crock of lies that is.  No one can go through
law school and be a lawyer without discusiing that.  He was lying!
Then for some reason when he claimed he never harasses ANita Hill
everyone believed him when it was already shown he was a liar.
The guy is unqualified.  How Bush could say with a straight face that
he picked the most qualified person for teh job is beyond me, but then
again nothing is beyond Bush's slimey, weasel-like actions in all 
fields he talks about (i.e. claims of education, environemtn, if he
was pinochio his nose would reach the moon).






































Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8727 alt.politics.clinton:126
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Albert Gore (was Re: Convention Speech anyone?)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:27:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.173911.20999@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.234358.10603@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul19.002405.5337@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>>>One superficial remark I'll make now (most of my previous remarks
>>>aren't of this type :->) is that Albert Gore is a very close look-alike
>>>to the movie screen version of Superman. Gore's biography lists him as
>>>being the captain of his elite high school's football team.
>>>
>>>Horrors of horrors, if Bill Clinton is elected and suffers the same fate
>>>as JFK, then at least the Veep can very competently take over as Prez.
>>
>>And given that Gore is really Clark Kent in disguise, he wouldn't
>>have to worry about further assassination attempts.
>
>I also had some thoughts about this.  If global warming gets too
>bad, can't Gore just push the Earth into a different orbit?
>
No.  But I bet Dan Quayle can pull Mars into the same orbit as earth,
so we can go live there.   Thanks to the Marians there are Canals and
water, and Oxygen already.   
>-- 
> the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
>                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Oh, Danny Boy
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:43:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.131543.14559@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>| *  P-O-T-A-T-O-E.                                                        |
>>|       -- June 1992                                                       |
>
>None of the reporters present was able to tell that Quayle misspelled
>potato (from a que card given to him) until the young man he corrected
>told the reporters that the card was wrong.  I guess that's why journalists
>have copy editors.

Spell checkers on their word processors.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:77 alt.politics.clinton:390 alt.politics.perot:1040 talk.politics.misc:35468
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Thoughts on '92
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:01:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul22.211633.9704@usho93.hou281.chevron.com> hjjcl@usho77.hou281.chevron.com (J.J.Clyde) writes:
>done -- good or bad?  Of course not.  He can't run the U.S. like its a
>corporation; the presidency is not a CEO position.  Any economical

I beg to differ with your comment. The president is the chief EXECUTIVE.
He runs the EXECUTIVE branch. CEO=Chief Executive Officer. 

-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty:
The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Oh well...
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:38:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.211128.20577@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> johnnyp@HALDI.LCS.MIT.EDU (John D. Piscitello) writes:


>In article <archer.207@utkux1.utk.edu>, archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul28.145259.7340@advtech.uswest.com> jsalmi@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (John Salmi) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In article <16831BB14.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>|> >>>
>|> >>Does anyone really doubt that Clinton won over Tsongas because he was simply
>|> >>more attractive and doesn't sound like Elmer Fudd? There were no issues
>|> >>discussed in the primary. There were no debates. It was all image.
>|> 
>|> This isn't exactly true:  Clinton supported a middle-class tax cut, until he 
>|> was safely out of the demo primaries.  Then he dropped it like it was rabid 
>|> pit-bull scorpion with AIDS.

>       That is incorrect - it is proposed in his economic plan which came out
>after the primaries are over, and was mentioned in his acceptance speech.

hmmmm.....

That's not how I remember it.  But Clinton is a gun-grabbing bastard from 
WAY back, and so I don't really pay much attention to anything else he says.

Yes, I am a one-issue voter.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: BUSH
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:14:25 GMT

rdc@netcom.com (Rajagopalan Dabholkars Chemmanoor) writes:

>ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>
>>How is Bush responsible for the private sexual activities
>>of hundreds of thousands of individuals, please?

>Speaking of behalf of the heterosexual world, I can confidently and
>correctly say that bush is responsible for the private sexual
>activities of hundreds of thousands of individuals.

?
Are you alleging Bush is some kind of daisy chain coordinator or
something?
JD
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,misc.test,alt.flame
From: ssj@ais.org (Stephen S. Johnston)
Subject: Re: AIDS and those damn democrats
Organization: UMCC
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:01:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.203430.14686@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>poser@vxdsyc.desy.de (Till Poser) writes:
>>But, You see, twerp, 75% of the the new infections of this year are HIV 
>>contracted by heterosexual intercourse, 15% IV-abusers, and only whopping
>>10% homosexuals. Seems as if the male homosexuals have already learned that
>>lesson, doesn't it? Seems as if it were the hetero component who are busily
>>spreading the joy?
>
>	Those stats are not for the U.S.  Those figures are dominated by
>infections in Third World countries where anal sex is used as a form of 
>birth control.  Anal sex is the primary route of transmition even in the
>stats you use.  In the U.S., the majority of new infections are still con-
>tracted by male homosexuals.   If you want to give some more info on your
>stats, please do.
>
>Jim Del Vecchio

Interesting.  Jim, how do you know what Poser's stats represent?  
If you have attributable numbers of your own, please post them.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Subject: CEO's as autocrats?
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:17:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.182814.25481@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>I beg to differ with your comment. The president is the chief EXECUTIVE.
>>He runs the EXECUTIVE branch. CEO=Chief Executive Officer. 
> 
> _I_ beg to differ:
> 
> Generally, CEOs aren't necessarily adept at negotiating, at the
> political work necessary to get things done.  Perot never had to put
> up with an executive in that other office yonder, who said, no this
> won't work and I'm not letting you do it.  CEOs are good at giving
> commands, not building consensus.

	Since when?  This may be true for a privately held corporation, but
the CEO of a public corporation has to keep the board of directors and
a majority of the stockholders happy, or he's OUTTA THERE.
	Granted, this doesn't apply to Perot.

	-Keith <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:381 alt.politics.clinton:1120 alt.politics.perot:1145 talk.politics.misc:36681