HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Polls as quizzes
Date: 12 Oct 1992 18:29:38 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

Recently I've heard two stories which interested me.

A few months after the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
a national survey was taken.  The result was that about 65% percent
of the people surveyed claimed that they had voted for Kennedy.
This was significantly greater than the percentage of votes
that Kennedy actually received in 1960.  This could have been
due to sloppy polling, or due to manufactured memories.

Recently Spike Lee repeated a story to Esquire magazine about
some fashion designer (who he named - I've forgotten the name)
who supposely went on Oprah, and made rude comments about black
women's fashion.  Spike called for a boycott of this woman's
designs.  Even though Oprah insists this designer has *never*
been on her show, and that the exchange never occurred, the
show has been bombarded by calls from people who insist that
*they saw the show*.

People say the darndest things.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New Illinois Poll
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:22:48 GMT
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

The idea that a large percentage of undecideds suggests some doubt among
the "decideds" was first imparted to me by a professor of political science
at the University of Michigan back in 1972 (McConnell was his name, I believe,
and he was considered to be fairly reputable in the area of elections and 
polling).  Consider this crude analogy:  If you look out your window and see
5 inches of snow on the ground, you must assume that you can also find an
area with 4 inches, 3 inches, 2 inches, etc.  In other words, you'll find a
continuous gradiation.  You won't find a boundary between 5 inches and 1 inch,
for example.  (I said it was a crude analogy!).  The same sort of logic
could be applied to polling.  One would expect a continuous gradiation
of "decidedness" throughout the sample, and would not expect to see 
sudden discontinuous boundaries.


-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Oct6.181637.26841@unet.net.com> <1992Oct7.124910.26308@ornl.gov>
	<1992Oct9.181851.24811@unet.net.com> <1992Oct12.165823.24732@ornl.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.165823.24732@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

<  Saving mankind is closer,
<   but still not good enough.  What I want to save is the current state of the
<   planet.  

	Why not square the circle, develop a universal solvent
	and the philosopers stone while you are at it?

	You *are* aware that the "normal" condition of this 
	planet for the last, oh, 100,000 years or so is 
	what we call "ice age", aren't you?

	Saving the "current state" of the planet is a job
	for a bigger, better King Canute.

<I don't want man to continue to wreak havoc on the biosphere.

	Ah, that's not the same thing as "saving the current
	state", now is it?

<Actually, even preserving the current state of the planet is less than what I
<want.  I want fewer people, and I want some of the damage we've already done
<to be undone.

	Uh, just how do you plan to get to "fewer people", if 
	a person may be so bold as to inquire?

	"Year Zero Revo", perhaps?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:32:22 GMT

> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> = (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>> = (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>> = (Doug Holtsinger) writes to Stan Knight:

>>>> On a side note, several pro-choice women on talk.abortion 
>>>> have been viciously attacked by radical pro-choicers for 
>>>> their support or non-opposition to third-trimester abortion 
>>>> restrictions. I wonder why these radical pro-choicers rarely 
>>>> attack men (such as yourself) who express the same opinion? 

If you'd've left in Knight's statement, I might comment on it.  You seem
to be insinuating that Knight supports, or doesn't oppose,
third-trimester abortion restrictions.

I disagree.  The woman is the one who decides, no one else.  Is that
fairly clear, Doug?

>>> Hey Doug, you sexist wimp. I just did call Stan on his opinion.
>>> Or do I, as a non-white woman, not count?

>> I doubt that DOD thinks that you count, Nadja.  

>Of course she counts.  Don't lie Ms. Garvin.  

Sue expressed an opinion, Brickhead.  I'm not surprised you can't tell
the difference.

>> I also doubt that it would have mattered if every supporter of legal 
>> abortion had just called the guy on his opinion.  

>So far, only Ms. Adolf has called Stan Knight on his opinion.
>You and the rest of your pro-abort buddies have been silent.

Naw, we've been busy making fun of you :).

>Perhaps it's the fact that Stan Knight is a man?  Your pro-abort
>buddies seem to always attack women who express support for 
>moderate abortion restrictions, but rarely do they attack men.   

You pathetic weenie.  Except for Forgach, all I *do* is attack far-right
extremist males like you.

ANOTHER Holtsinger lie.

>Doug Holtsinger, who's still waiting for Ms. Garvin to "call"
>Stan Knight on his opinion.  

Doug Holtsinger, Dave Rasmussen:  the same person?  You be the judge!

Speaking of avoiding a question, coward: why not comment on Bush saying
that "atheists" not only are not patriots, they shouldn't be considered
citizens either.

Before you judge everyone else (I never SAW Knight's statement) get your
own house in order, fool.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:50:47 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

:   My family of four epitomizes the middle class.  Our income is nowhere
: near six figures.  My main concern this election is not to have my taxes
: raised in the future.  I will pledge my vote to Clinton this November IF
: someone can give me evidence that under a Clinton administration all people
: making less than $200,000 WILL NOT pay more in taxes. 

Unfortunately, there are two problems with making/requiring that condition.
Either all families earning under $200,000  get a significant tax cut, or all 
families earning under $200,000 see their household incomes remain at their
current level or drop during the Clinton administration.

I don't think the Clinton camp really wants to make this kind of promise....

: ALL I WANT IS A DEFINITIVE
: 
:       "NO ONE MAKING < $200,000 WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TAXES"
:
: Give me this and you'll have me and others on the net marching to
: the polls for Clinton in November.  

You won't get this kind of response.  Do you really expect that the
folks up on Capitol Hill will be willing to let go of enough pork
barrel programs and to cut spending enough to merit the tax cut 
needed to keep that promise, assuming that household incomes increase
over time.  Or do you want the government to do some hocus-pocus
that will result in no family seeing an increase in household
income?

Let me rephrase the first sentence of that paragraph.  If you do get
that kind of response, don't believe it or be worried about it.

At least the Libertarians really want to cut everyone's taxes....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:53:32 GMT

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:


>  Boy, those Democrats sure know how to counter Bush's appearance on Larry
>King on Sunday.  They had Clinton and Gore dressed up in their blue jeans
>and rolled up shirt sleeves on Monday.  I guess these guys are common folk
>just like us!  Too bad they forgot to remove the price tags and iron out
>the creases from the store shelves which the clothes were sitting on that
>afternoon.  I'll bet they even had them eat supper at McDonalds before the
>show!

Oh my, have you just noticed how politicians operate?  But seriously, I would
submit that Clinton is by far more common folk than George "spymaster" Bush,
and Dan "patatoe head" Quayle.  One of the main reasons that I would feel much
more comfortable with Clinton in the White House is his common  family
background. 

>  The gullability of the American electorate continues to amaze me.

Me too.  Can you believe that this county elected Uncle Ronny twice, and
Bush once (never to be twice)?  

>"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
>for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!    

What a cynical statement from Bush.  I believe that the only reason he     
is saying the word "change" is that he has been told that he must (say the
word that is) to have any chance to be re-elected.

John Ganske
                    -----------------
I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy - but that could change.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan)
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:39:41 GMT

Allen Halsell (cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov) wrote:

>It will be _much_ worse.  If the networks bother to make predictions like
>last time, they'll project Clinton around 6 p.m. Eastern (if not 6 a.m :-)

	i seem to recall that the networks have made some kind
of gentleman's agreement that they will not make any predictions
until all the polls are closed in the lower 48.

pat

--
"I have a cunning plan." -- Baldric
                                                             patrick m. ryan
     nasa / goddard space flight center / oceans and ice branch / hughes stx
                     pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov / zmpmr@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9067 alt.politics.clinton:10295 alt.politics.elections:16660 alt.rush-limbaugh:7350
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:34:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Oct13.164420.28118@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>Just a few thoughts on some of the opportunities missed by the candidates
>during Sunday nights debates:
>
>Perot
>
>  Didn't miss many opportunities.  The only advice I'd give in the future
>is to concentrate more on Clinton.  He's the one he's going to have to beat
>if he's really serious about winning.

Perot? Serious?  

He's only doing this because Bush doesn't take his phone calls.  Previous
Presidents have courted Perot because he's got a lot of money and is willing
to spend it on MIA projects.  Bush wouldn't give him the time of day and now
he's pissed.

Perot doesn't like Clinton.  He just hates Bush more, and has the $2.5B to
do something about it.

He'll never slam Clinton. Not on purpose.
-Paul
--
---
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: TO GEORGE:  COME CLEAN ABOUT IRAN CONTRA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:55:04 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

It's odd. But there are a couple hundred posts to this forum a week
questioning what Bill Clinton did in Moscow in 1969 while there
are very few Bush supporters offering rationales for Iran-Contra and 
Iraqgate.  How does one account for that, I wonder? All the more
alarming considering the flood of new evidence which simply 
moans with want for a clever rationale or two. "Explain me away!!!"
it moans...."Explain...Explain!!"  

What about it, BushHogs? Want to mow this down before it takes 
over the whole field? [Sorry for the puns. Wall St Week is addicting.]
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Nobody knows, from sea to shining sea, why we are having all this trouble
with our republic.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:52:39 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center


In article <1992Oct12.153738.17244@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) says:
>
>In article <77xzn0@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>->>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>->>->87% of americans have comprehensive health
>>->>->care plans.
>>->>
>>->>can you support this statement?
>>
>>->Of course not.
>>
>>i didn't think so. thank you.
>>
>>->I only heard it on Rush's show about 11 times in the
>>->last three weeks.
>>
>>that's what i thought.
>>
>>->But of course Rush always lies, so I guess I must
>>->be lying.
>>
>>if you say so.
>
>I know that I already posted this on another group, but I wanted to repeat
>it since it is sooo good.
>
>NEW SOURCE FOR 87% - BILL CLINTON DURING THE OCT 11 DEBATE
>
>He said that 35 million do not have health care.  Run the numbers.
>87.333% have health care (give or take a percent)!
>
>Now do you believe me?  Probably not, because, you know that I listen
>to Rush, (and agree with him) so everything that spews forth from my
>mouth must be lies???

Page up twice.  Read what you wrote.  You wrote that 87% of Americans have
"comprehensive health insurance."  No note that I've read here has disagreed
with the statement that 87% of Americans have health insurance (I did note
that this figure is from 1987, that other surveys around the same time put
it slightly higher, and that experts agree that percentage has increased
during the last 5 years.)

The problem with your statement is the addition of the word comprehensive.
Several other studies have defined "comprehensive" or other similar
words and examined how many Americans have health insurance that would
fit the definition.  Generally those studies show that in addition to the
13% of Americans who do not have any insurance, another 20 to 50 million
Americans (depending on the methods used) do not have comprehensive health
insurance.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7994 alt.politics.clinton:8820 alt.politics.libertarian:633
From: drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: cable tv
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:46:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <trussell.718400856@cwis> trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:

   ...what the bill does is to mandate these price controls only in
   areas where the cable company is a monopoly, and remove them when
   competition is in place...

Where on earth is their a monopoly on entertainment/information?  OK
so in some places there is only one company providing a cable.  So
what?  I have chosen not to subscribe to cable despite its
availability in my area.  I get all the news I need from newspapers
and all the entertainment I could ever dream of from countless
different sources.  Why does my congressman (Markey no less) feel a
need to regulate companies for my infotational "benefit".

I was just beginning to feel upbeat about the whole situation when
congress decided to let telcos transmit video and now this.
Regulation will take away the incentives for companies to get into the
cable business thus prolonging the wait for competition.  Brilliant.
I haven't read the bill but I certainly hope that the people who
subscribe to the damn regulated cable services will be paying for the
regulation.  I would hate to think that my tax money is going towards
guaranteeing low cable rates for middle class bums.

The sad thing is that after Markey loses interest in cable and moves
onto some other "pressing" issue, the cable lobby will still be around
to pressure the regulators.

   This act puts a stop to their unfair attempts to deny choices to
   the public, and leaves them alone once it's out of their hands.

I guess the public will die if a little black cable isn't plugged into
the back of their 27" color TV?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:45:35 GMT

In article <23636@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:
>
>Richard Mulac wants a promise that no one making less than
>$200,000 will ever have their taxes increased under Clinton/Gore.
>Only a fool (for example, the one in office now) would make
>such a sweeping pledge that may not be possible to keep.
>
>Who knows what will happen with the economy, or the world, in
>the next four years.
>
>C/G will do everything in their power to see to it the people
>are taxed fairly.  But no one can guarantee the situation won't
>call for a new tax at some future time.

If they (Clinton, Bush, or Perot) can't make that promise, they should
at least be capable of being honest with the public and articulating a
response like you just gave, instead of just changing the subject when
asked.  IMHO, I see Bush as someone who realizes he's getting up in years
and knows that if he raised taxes a second time he would be branded as the
biggest liar in history, with it being the only thing remembered about his
presidency even if he lifted the US economy, gave us world peace, and
solved the AIDS crisis during a second term.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8402 alt.politics.clinton:9382 talk.bizarre:33437 talk.abortion:41606 rec.humor:30818
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu ("[*] Angel of Coelenterates")
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,talk.abortion,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Fathers, abortion
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:22:27 GMT
	<1992Oct8.003639.19520@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Oct8.035325.25496@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Oct8.231551.7211@netcom.com>
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: Eaters of Wisdom
In-reply-to: madhaus@netcom.com's message of 8 Oct 92 23:15:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.231551.7211@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
>   Newsgroups: ... misc.test, ...
>   [ ... ]
>   Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
>   Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

    I take back what I said about you, Maddi.  You're a LOT more
entertaining than Brad Templeton.
--

                And for to se, and eek for to be seye
Mark-Jason Dominus 	  			    mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The First Battle of October
Keywords: Presidential debate, Clinton, Bush, Perot, St. Louis
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:57:17 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <Oct.13.10.54.51.1992.19242@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>
>What is a ICBM?  If you mean he won big points on that one, the I agree,

It's the acronym for InterContinental Ballistic Missile.
(ie: Soviet SS20s, US Minutemen, MX, etc.)

I kind of like Perot... He actually seems to have some guts.

-- Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8276 alt.politics.clinton:9197
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:12:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.193609.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

>Could you come down from your pedestal of arrogance,

Now, if this ain't an example of do as I say not as I do 
I don't know what is.

>Here endith the Lesson

John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:48:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.185141.24932@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> Maybe he'll fall back on the Quayle Defense: "I went to public school."
Better yet, I could say that I went to a public school in Arkansas.
--
Here endith the Lesson
--
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections