HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:41:17 GMT

>In article <1992Oct13.184649.21229@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>
>> By itself, a trip to Moscow is no problem.  Set against the context of
>> Clinton's various mis-statements and bouts of selective memory, I'd 
>> say that his failure to "remember" what he did there is somewhat telling.
>> In general, I'd like to know what specific principles guided Clinton in
>> his opposition to the Vietnam war
>
	Bouts of selective memory? Sounds like Reagan! Maybe he does have what's
needed to be president!



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:17:31 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

: This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. ANYONE who watched last
: night, and anyone who watched Larry King last week will remember that he
: said he could not understand people who demonstrated against his country IN
: A FOREIGN LAND.  Our Clinton Friends here have left out that crucial part
: of the line, how clever.  He has repeatedly said he understands fully
: demonstrating in YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

What's the difference?   What is the difference between protesting in
your own country and protesting in a foreign country?  Do you expect
US students overseas to fly back home if they want to protest against
the government's brutal decisions, and then pop back to that other 
country the next day to go back to class?  Or do you think that
just because a US citizen is not inside the country, his/her/hir/whatever
right to free speech no longer exists?

I see no reason why, in general, location matters when expressing one's
self, unless the choice of location makes one's expression "fightin' 
words."

--
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                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: casey@lexmark.com (Patrick Casey)
Subject: Re: Statement by Governor Bill Clinton
X-Disclaimer: These views are the poster's and not necessarily those of Lexmark
Reply-To: pacasey@lexmark.com
Organization: Lexmark International, Lexington KY
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:17:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.154320.4792@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	 Willie, here comes the reality hammer: Gore should have stomped all
>over Quayle.  He didn't do that.  That is a clear victory for Bush.  What kind
>of person can't beat Quayle in a contest of wits???  *BAM*

Probably any intelligent person could.  The problem is that these
debates aren't contests of wits, they're more like fora for sound
bites, illogical arguments, appeals to emotion, etc., which I'm afraid
is probably what the masses prefer over a REAL debate.

Now, as to who's more guilty of committing these offenses against
reason, I won't comment. ;-)

Patrick

--
Patrick A. Casey      pacasey@lexmark.com         Hi, I.S. big brothers!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10604 talk.politics.misc:51971
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:59:27 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1bhsilINNous@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
> due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
> of his billions last year. 
> 
> Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!

	And Democrats still wonder why revenues go down when tax rates go up.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9438 talk.politics.misc:50617
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:53:05 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <trussell.718583320@cwis>, trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> 
>>     Because the cable companies are required to carry local channels and
>>pay a negotiated fee to the broadcasters for this "service."  The cable
>>companies are in a position where the broadcasters now hold all the cards
>>in negotiation.
> 
>     It's always fun in situations like this to watch the uninformed idiots
> come out of the woodwork to spout their views on bills they haven't even
> bothered to read, just been spoonfed information on the TV.

	Yes, it is fun.

>     The law gives broadcast affiliates two options: to /require/ the cable
> company to carry their signal, in which case they can't charge the cable
> company, or to enter into negotiations with the cable company to attempt
> to charge them to carry their signal.  At all times, the cable company has
> the option to just say no, we won't pay you to carry your signal.

	And what cable company is going to survive if it doesn't even offer
local TV stations?

>     More importantly, the cable company can agree reluctantly to pay a fee
> to the affiliate, but can turn right around and itemize that fee on the
> monthly bill they send to subscribers.  Wanna bet what the customer's

	No kidding!!!  Why do you think people have been opposed to the stupid
law?  It doesn't penalize the "greed cable companies" it allows them to raise
rates and then blame the networks.

> reaction will be to that little increase?  Can you say "overloaded affiliate
> switchboards"?  Keep in mind that broadcast affiliates LIVE by their
> advertising, everything else is just to keep you watching.

	No, can you say "overload congressial lines to deman even more
regulation". :\

	Regulation always has been the problem, and now we've got more.

>     IMHO, this whole issue will turn out to be a red herring in the long run.

	I predict by this time next year basic cable rates will be up at least
10%.  And that's after this year's last minute 100% boosts.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10172 alt.politics.bush:8973 alt.politics.elections:16533
From: matt@physics3.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:03:04
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<MATT.92Oct13112210@physics16.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct13.192551.6946@iti.org>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: aws@iti.org's message of Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:25:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.192551.6946@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

> >  (1) Clinton has never organized anti-American protests anywhere.
> 
> Several biographies written by major anti-war figures identify Clinton
> as an organizer.

*Not* an organizer of anti-American protests.  Anti-war protests.  See
the difference?

And incidentally: "organizer" is a funny sort of word.  I've
occasionally done a bit of envelope-stuffing and phone-calling for
various political causes.  If you asked me if I had helped to
"organize" for those causes, I'm not sure what I'd say; I might say
yes one day and no the next, depending on what I thought you meant by
the word "organize."

My impression is that Clinton's "organizing" was on the level of
envelope-stuffing and phone-calling.  He was on the right side---he
opposed the Vietnam War, and he worked against it---but,
unfortunately, he wasn't terribly active in the anti-war movement.
It would have been better if he was more active, but at least he was
on the right side; that's probably as much as I have the right to
expect. 
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10881 talk.politics.misc:52310 alt.activism:17553
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Transcript
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:12:49 GMT


Does anyone have a transcript of PDII yet?  Thanks!

- Diane
dianem@hpbs2694.boi.hp.com

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8849 talk.politics.misc:49988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton at Oxford (Clinton while he was supposedly at Oxford...)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:24:30 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: No contradictory facts, but it's "drivel"?  Hmmmm

In article <ld3fv1INN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> Stupendous Man) writes:
> |> Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:
> |> > To the person who said Oxford was an easy school to get in, please
> |> > note that Clinton was there on a Rhodes Scholarship, one of the
> |> > most prestigious of all scholarships.
> |> > 
> |> > Let's hear it for a smart man in the white house for a change.
> |> 
> |> 	Not only did he not go to the classes, he never took the exams.
> |> 
> |> 	Yeah, smart guy.
> |> 
> |> 	Draft dodger, class skipper.
> |> 
> |> 	Hoo boy.  Let's elect all the hoods from our high schools!
> |> 
> As long as they all carried 3.5 or better GPA's, I can deal with it.

	You can't have a GPA if you don't take exams :).  But I believe that
Oxford's system is not like the USA college system.  You either pass or fail.

> Going to class wasn't a pre-requisite for getting a good education,
> but taking the exams was the measurement.  I haven't heard anything
> about him having a large number of F's or incompletes.

	We haven't heard much at all about his Oxford days.

> |> Brett                                                      
> 
> If I had posted this drivel, I'd have done it anonymously.

	No doubt.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: ramezani@are.Berkeley.EDU (Cyrus A. Ramezani)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: CLINTON'S EMAIL ADDRESS?
Date: 12 Oct 1992 16:01:28 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley, Agr & Res Economics
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: are.berkeley.edu


Dear Netters ,

Would a kind sole send me clinton's email address.
Thanks in advance!

Cyrus

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:21:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.010758.5071@m.cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (L
arry Watanabe) writes:
>
>I think it's kind of sad that Bush has to promise something like
>
>    "If you reelect me, I'll let Baker fix up the economy"
>
>Surely anyone, including Dan Quayle, could run on THAT platform.
>
>So, Bush is a great military leader because he doesn't get in
>the way of the generals.
>
>If elected he will be a great domestic leader because he won't
>get in the way of Jim Baker.
>
>Why not just turn George Bush out of office, then he won't get in
>the way of anyone?
>
>-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
I just felt that this REALLY needed to be repeated
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   | Bush might do better to promise, if re-
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     | elected, to appoint Jim Baker President.
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|            Clinton/Gore '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.poli
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.194546.19965@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo
.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>  Elect a Libertarian.

And then, as if to prove to us all his membership in the American
Non-Sequitor Society ("We don't make much sense, but we do like
pizza!"), he writes:

>On a serious note,  I'm
>not talking about legislating behaviors unless it has a serious
>demonstratable effect on society.  For instance, I believe in MJ and
>possibly other drug legalization.  But, in the case of AIDS, I think
>it has definitely been shown that behavior change is where we will be 
>most effective in eliminating AIDS as a threat to our society.

This is about as non-Libertarian as you can get:  "'YOU' change 'YOUR'
behavior so 'WE' can save 'OUR' society."  

Phobe!  If you're scared of getting AIDS from other people having anal 
sex, you need to have your head examined.  And after you do that, 
kindly refrain from 'legislating behaviors' for the rest of us, thank 
you very much. I think people have a good idea of what the risks are, 
and it's up to the individual to determine how risky a given action 
is and whether or not to act.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush is raising taxes right now .  He broke his pledge already
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

The miscellaneous tax bill on President Bush's desk contains some
wonderful revenue enhancements [tax raises] that President Bush
by his vetoing will cost me more money.

The losers when he vetoes the bill:

Investors in rental housing for low-income families
Low income families who could use tax-free bonds to buy a home.
Self-employed workers who will lose a 25 percent deduction for family
health insurance costs.
Samll manufactureers that use tax-exempt bonds to finance improvements.
Victims of Hurrican Andrew.

The Winners when he vetoes the bill:

Owners of diesel-powered recreational boats who are now exempt from the
diesel tax.
People who rent their vacation homesfor 14 days or less won't have to
pay taxes on the rent they receive.

Denny 
-------------------------------------
Imagination is the beginning of creation.  You imagine what you desire, you 
will what you imagine, and at last you create what you will.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: 21 Military Leaders Endorse Bill Clinton for President
X-Xxdate: Fri, 16 Oct 92 16:48:47 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:51:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.191204.12774@iti.org> Allen W. Sherzer, aws@iti.org
writes:
>Say what you like about Quayle but he has done an excellent job fixing
>serious problems at NASA. 

He also embarassed the hell out of us in the NASA community with that
"water on Mars" comment.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton on guns
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:57:48 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA


I was instrigued by what Governor Clinton said regarding gun control, last
night; he almost seems to have adjusted his position due to feedback he
received from gun owners.  When he mentioned the Brady Bill, he said that he
was interested in a waiting period which would be replaced by an instant
background check, as soon as the state could implement the system.
THAT is a giant step forward, in my opinion.  Now, if he'd just clarify and
adjust his position on assault weapons, I'd have no hesitation at all about
voting for him.

The thing is, he still hasn't clarified the question of which assault
weapons he'd like to ban.  Would it be any semi-automatic rifle?  Any
military style semi-automatic rifle?  The fact still remains that the
assault weapon issue is bunk...military rifles are no deadlier than
semi-automatic hunting rifles.  I dislike the idea of banning certain
rifles, e.g. Uzis and AK47s, just because they look evil.  Semi-auto
assault rifles are also drastically underrepresented in crime, so it's
not as if they pose a real threat to society or anything.  And personally,
I like firing some rifles that conceivably could be banned and it doesn't
make sense to me for the government to turn me into a felon for refusing
to turn something that I acquired legally and have handled responsibly.

In summary (on this ussue), I think Clinton has made substantial progress
in one of the two firearms-related areas that I disagree with strongly...
and, if he would reconsider his other position, I just know he'd attract
a lot of middle-of-the-road voters like me, who are repulsed by Bush
(as I am) but reluctant to vote for someone who'd impose unnecessary
restrictions on their lives.

     don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm sorry but your Constitution has been recalled for overhaul.  Please
 relax and cooperate with your local DEA agent.  Otherwise, we shall be
 forced to shoot you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10890 talk.politics.misc:52324 alt.politics.elections:17241
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: some thoughts on tonight's debate (thursday night)
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:48:12 GMT

Well, I did like the format of tonight's debate (more like a meeting
rather than a debate).  The other formats (panel and single
moderator v.p. debate) are just extensions of the campaign
commercials and one-liners that get enough of already.  Once again,
I don't think that presidential debates have any winners and
tonight's was probably beneficial to undecided voters but I don't
think any one candidate was overly persuasive.  I was very glad that
the audience wanted to only hear direct answers and that they did
not applaud at all.  I was glad that at the offset, they started out
saying that they weren't pleased with the tone of the negative
campaigning.  That seemed to help stop the personal attacks from the
beginning.  The moderator annoyed me but I think she did a
pretty good job.

Perot:  I don't think his folksy "fix it" lines went over so well
with this more serious audience who were wanting details about how
he might implement his ideas.  He also lingered on in a few of his
answers.  He did come off sounding informed though even though he
still had too many cute sayings.

Clinton:  He spoke pretty much directly to the audience's
questions.  Only a couple of times did he get onto his number
crunching threads that probably tend to lose people.  He too was
pretty good sounding even though there was no new material.

Bush:  Not much to say here one way or the other.  He didn't have
anything new to say either.  I felt he was a bit condescending to
the audience member who asked the question (paraphrased) [Without
bringing up current appointed or elected persons, when might we see
an Afro-American or female ticket?].  Bush brought up Collin Powell
and it sounded like the person was trying to get him to directly
answer the question.  Bush seemed to give him one of the "What I am
saying is what you REALLY want to hear" comments that he's also done
in the past.

Once again, no new material to people who've been following along
the campaigns.  I found this appearance kept my attention better
than the other debate appearances.  I was glad not to have to sit
through the character slamming.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10924 talk.politics.misc:52373
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:11:24 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.152653.11425@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.232645.4817@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
> demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
>>debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of
> change
>>saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.
>>
>>	So much for that "did not" denial :).
> 
> Furthermore, you have ignored the 9 or so lies and half-truths the media
> charged to Quayle.

	Did not.
:D

	I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist!  :D:D:D

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Clinton's BS economic plan
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:02:46 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:05:58 GMT

In article <Bw51Dy.5qq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> P. Ialamanna,
pa56680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>I'm getting really irritated at these Clinton supporters who claim that
>his tax increase won't affect the middle class. If I understand it
corectly,
>Clinton wants to raise tax on the top 2% of wage earners and not to the
>middle class. Okay fine, but what gets me is that middle class people
beleive....

I suggest you read the WHOLE plan (which has been posted on several
occasions)
before you spout off. 500 leading economists have endorsed this plan
because it
nurtures LONG-TERM growth and stability instead of pandering to the
quarterly
report mentality.

Did you really believe that fixing a problem as large as the economy was
going
to be easy and painless? Get real.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton