HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Bush- a sleazy scumbag!
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:33:47 GMT

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>In article <92281.231404RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
><RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>
>{lots of screaming deleted}
>
>I agree with Bush: protesting your country from another country is sleezy. 

Clinton was not protesting his country, the United States.  He -was-
protesting the war that his country had gotten tangled up in.  To suggest
that Clinton is unpatriotic because he opposed the Vietnam conflict is
EXTREMEMLY sleazy.

>Lying about it is worse.

And can you provide direct quotes in which Mr. Clinton has lied about
his involvement in protests of the Vietnam conflict?  No?  Then "SIT DOWN
AND SHUT UP."

>Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
>Apple's)
>athos@apple.com

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org (Andrew Rogers)
Subject: Re: At this very moment ...
Organization: HICAM/OSD
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:13:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.155544.8844@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>  I would bet that as you are reading this, around the world dozens of
>people are searching the archives for a picture of Bill Klinton (Russian
>spelling {:^) ) at an anti-war rally in the 60's.  Double bonus if the
>location was Moscow.  Triple bonus if he's carrying a particularly nasty
>anti-american sign.  If they beat the clock it will be appearing soon in a
>Republican ad in your neighborhood.

They don't even have to - a picture of any anti-war demonstration (particularly
if it involves flag burning) will do.  Or maybe they won't even bother with
that - remember the rumors that Kitty Dukakis had attended a demonstration
where an Amerikan flag was burned, and that some right-wing lunatic would be
presenting a picture Real Soon Now?  

Or they can run a photo of Clinton next to a photo of Jane Fonda...

Andrew Rogers
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:51:32 GMT

In article <9210081734.AA21278@MIT.EDU> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writ
> *    Clinton's travels took him to Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
> Russia, and Prague, Czechoslovakia before returning to England.
> Clinton traveled Europe as a tourist -- not to attend any meeting or
> demonstration.  While in Norway, he visited a friend from Hot Springs
> who was attending Oslo University.  He met Father McSorley
> coincidentally at the Oslo train station, they traveled to the
> University where Clinton was introduced to McSorley's friends, and
> then Clinton went to visit his friend.
According to Father McSorley (1978), the trip to Norway was planned and they
travelled to Norway together.
>
Jeff.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9362 alt.politics.clinton:10739 alt.politics.elections:17090
From: mechler@cs.ubc.ca (Roland Mechler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Date: 11 Oct 1992 20:09:36 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: olympia.cs.ubc.ca


|> styrins@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Stephen Styring) writes:
|> 
|> CNN reported last night that the FBI concluded its investigation of those
|> claims and reports that they are false. There are not missing pages from
|> any passport records of Clinton's. Now, I wonder which Republican leaked
|> that false report in the first place, eh?
                                         ^^^

I think this guy may be a Canadian spy. As this is very relevant to your
election, the FBI should spend vast quantities of your money investigating
him. :-)

-Roland     (good day, eh?)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8634 alt.politics.clinton:9714 alt.politics.elections:16106
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: At this very moment ...
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:18:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:55:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.155544.8844@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

>  I would bet that as you are reading this, around the world dozens of
>people are searching the archives for a picture of Bill Klinton (Russian
>spelling {:^) ) at an anti-war rally in the 60's.  Double bonus if the
>location was Moscow.  Triple bonus if he's carrying a particularly nasty
>anti-american sign. 

Quadruple bonus points if he's burning an American flag.

You know, with current image processing technology...

Of course, timing is important.  November 1 sounds about right.

"What B.D. Cooper is doing RIGHT THIS MINUTE..."
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: Bush- a sleazy scumbag!
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:59:25 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush

In article <92283.082935RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
<RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:

> 
> This is to correct a wrong impression( maybe it is not there) that I was suppor
> ting bush. The person ,Rick James , who followed up my initial article complete
> ly eliminated it, replaced by "lots of screaming here", probably because I was
> making sense! So susan I concur entirely.
> 
> These sleazoids from the republican party led by GHWB can go to hell!

Well, that's special.  Nice comment there. "Can go to hell..."  Hmmmm.

For the record: Rick James is a black singer.  Rick Eames is a white
engineer.
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Will we even know on November 3: Split electorate?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:29:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.223106.20593@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>What do "you people" (sorry, Ross) think of the possibility of a split
>electorate on Election Day?

Zip.  Ross won't win a single electoral vote.


	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:06:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.184826.1897@gacvx2.gac.edu>, emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
> And on top of that, Bush has increased gov't spending by $200 billion each
> YEAR he has been in office!!! The jerk.

And Clinton fully intends on taking that title away from Bush. WhadaGuy!
--
Here endith the Lesson
--
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8126 alt.politics.clinton:9011 alt.politics.elections:15569 alt.rush-limbaugh:6830 talk.politics.misc:50208
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:14:21 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Oct6.193906.22246@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>In article <AVFRBB2C@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>>For those of you that consider parental consent laws to be appropriate,
>>consider the following scenarios:
>>
>>Your parents will disown you if they find out your pregnant.
>>You would rather risk a back alley abortion than risk telling your parents.
>>You would rather commit suicide than risk telling your parents.
>>Your parents are physically abusive.
>>Your father IS the father of your child.
>
>I've been in this discussion on the net before, so I have to jump in...
>
>(not shouting, just don't know how to do italics in ascii :-)
>
>I DON'T CARE WHAT EXCEPTION SITUATIONS YOU COME WITH, YOU (and the STATE) 
>DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDERMINE *MY* PARENTAL AUTHORITY. *PERIOD*.
>
>To do so would open (has opened?) up a bigger can of worms...

  Patently, morally, ethically, logically wrong. Children are not your
property and you don't have absolute authority over them nor ownership
of them. They are your responsibility and that grants you certain
rights to exercise such parental authority in order to fulfill those
responsibilities. But they are not slaves ownded by you but real, living
INDIVIDUALS with civil rights under the Constitution, though not strictly
identical to those granted to adults under the laws that implement and
govern those rights. Hence the state has the right and responsibility to
set limits to your authority and the exercise thereof in the perceived
best interests of the child.

  Then again, here are some (other) sick and extreme people who would
argue that incest is an exercise of their right of parental authority
and that the state has no right to interfere because it is a god-given
right and religious belief. Would you argue that the state has no rights
or responsibilities to intercede in such cases as these ? Or beatings ?
If not, then the issue is one of degree, not the absolute sort of authority
that you (capitalized) statement suggests.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: SHOULD WE TRUST GEORGE BUSH
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:45:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.160306.18183@mcs.kent.edu> jonobie@Baker.mcs.kent.edu (Jon
obie Baker) writes:
>No.
>
>    -Jonobie
>
>
Succinct, to the point, without endless re-re-re-re-reposting.
Should we reward this behavior, or consider it some sort of plot?
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   |
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  "Four More Weeks!"
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|        Sounds good to me!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8934 alt.politics.clinton:10120 alt.politics.elections:16496 alt.rush-limbaugh:7268
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Social security is NOT welfare!
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:39:53 GMT

If you watched the second presidential debate you obviously heard that Bill
Clinton is for means testing since he stated that he felt it was unfair
that a person making $40,000 pays a larger percentage of his income to
social security than a person making $100,000.  I think Bill spent too much
time sewing his wild oats around Europe rather than studying.  Now, are you
listening Bill?

The amount a person gets from social security is based on how much they put
in.  A person making $200,000 puts in the same amount as a person making
$100,000.  A person making $200,000 gets out the same amount as a person
making $100,000.  A person making $20,000 puts in less than a person making
$200,000.  A person making $20,000 gets out less than a person making
$200,000.  Do you understand, Bill?  I'll repeat it again.

The amount a person gets from social security is based on how much they put
in.  A person making $200,000 puts in the same amount as a person making
$100,000.  A person making $200,000 gets out the same amount as a person
making $100,000.  A person making $20,000 puts in less than a person making
$200,000.  A person making $20,000 gets out less than a person making
$200,000.  Social security is INSURANCE.  The amount you get out is based
on what you put in.

Now this is the important point, Bill.  Repeat this several times.

                  Social security is not welfare
                  Social security is NOT welfare
                  Social security IS NOT welfare
                  Social security IS NOT welfare!
                  SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT WELFARE!

If Clinton wins you can wave goodbye to the FICA deduction every time you
get your paycheck.  It'll be gone forever.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8600 alt.politics.clinton:9664 alt.politics.elections:16072
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Dukakis, Harvard, Northeastern
Date: 11 Oct 92 04:39:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Oct9.060145.3594@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, 
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) said:

> So Dukakis is at Northeastern now.  I thought I remembered him
> spending some time right after the election at the Kennedy school at
> Harvard?

Dukakis has been at both... I think I can post a fairly accurate
chronology (not that it's very important, but what the heck...)

1974: State rep Dukakis gets elected Governor (in Mass., the
      Governor's term is four years).

1978: In a three-way Democratic primary race, Dukakis is upset by a
      guy named Ed King, despite (or because of) the fact that King
      had no brain.  King goes on to win the general election, and
      Dukakis' out of a job.

1979-1982: Dukakis teaches, at least part-time, maybe full-time (I'm
      not sure which) at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

1982: Dukakis blows King away in the Democratic primary and wins in
      the general election.

1986: Dukakis coasts essentially unopposed through the Democratic
      primary and subsequently blows out the Republican challenger in the
      general election.  (Sometime between '82 and '86, by the way, Ed
      King announced that he was switching parties and was now a
      Republican, a move that, as the joke went, raised the average IQ
      of both parties.  King later moved to Florida and wasn't heard
      from since, except when he volunteered his services as an
      anti-Dukakis truth-squader to the Bush campaign and was politely
      told to fuck off.)

1988: Dukakis runs for President.  We all know how that turned out.

1990: Dukakis announces that he won't run for re-election as Governor.

1991: Dukakis joins the Political Science department at Northeastern
      (one year _after_ I got my B.S. in PoliSci from the place, so I
      never got to meet him or take his class), where he teaches a
      relatively light class load.  I'm not sure about this, but I
      think I heard that he also spends his winters teaching political
      science at a school in either Florida or Hawaii -- some place
      with warm winters, anyway.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8167 alt.politics.clinton:9057 alt.politics.elections:15614
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: At this very moment ...
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:55:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]


  I would bet that as you are reading this, around the world dozens of
people are searching the archives for a picture of Bill Klinton (Russian
spelling {:^) ) at an anti-war rally in the 60's.  Double bonus if the
location was Moscow.  Triple bonus if he's carrying a particularly nasty
anti-american sign.  If they beat the clock it will be appearing soon in a
Republican ad in your neighborhood.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8489 alt.politics.clinton:9490 alt.politics.libertarian:757
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: cable tv
Date: 9 Oct 92 07:46:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas

In article <jhansen.718469988@convex.convex.com> jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>In <1992Oct6.200050.3057@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>
>>As alternatives exist 
>>such as satellite reception, or no cable at all, I see no reason for the 
>>bill.
>
>These aren't viable alternatives in many situations.
>

I thought I'd mention a couple of instances where alternatives simply won't do.
I live in an apartment complex, being single, and not needing the cost and
space of a house at this time, do not have the option of either (a) "wireless"
cable when it comes out or (b) satellite TV.  If I had my way, I would have
a satellite system hooked up tomorrow, but it just won't happen.  I find the
limitations of broadcast TV too stringent, and am willing to pay what I 
consider a decent price for cable subscription. However, $57/month for basic
plus a movie channel seems a bit high for me, especially for a system that is
replete with transmission quality problems (my rabbit ears pick up channels
better on some stations) as well as periodic outages for no apparent reason.
I've seen what our cable company is charged by the different companies per
month to  carry the signal,  and the markup is in the range of 800% for 
standard channels up to 1400% for subscription TV (HBO, etc).  These are
fair prices?  I personally supported the bill, even with the one item I
disagreed with (networks getting paid for signal).  There has been a second
cable company trying to get service started in this area, as well as the 
phone company attempting to get a foothold in the market, but both are being
blocked by the lobbying efforts of our local Telecable corporation. Nice people
indeed.  From what I've heard, TCI and Paragon (who recently dropped
Sportschannel from their lineup because Sportschannel moved their service into
basic cable, and Paragon insisted on raising their $5.00/month charge to $7.00
per month to customers, which ticked off the Sportschannel people royally), are
much worse. Cable TV is one of the most profitable ventures in the country 
right now, and the established systems simply don't want to have to fight for
market share.

Tom H.




>--
>James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
>CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
>3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
>Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802


-- 

Just a message looking for a .signature file......
 
thyat@sdf.lonestar.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8213 alt.politics.clinton:9110 alt.destroy.the.earth:660
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:01:52 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

In article <1992Oct7.010013.10853@athena.cs.uga.edu>, milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.162127.3657@sci34hub.sci.com> gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) writes:
>>
>>>     A.  Man does not have the capacity to destroy the planet.
>
>(David M. Shackelford is an idiot, for those who tuned in late.)
>
>From a physics perspective, perhaps Shackels (can I call you Shackels?
>Thanks.)  Perhaps Shackels is right.  Man does not have the capacity to 
>destroy the planet, for man can neither destroy, nocreate matter.  Man
>(sexist language not intended) does, however, have the capacity to render
>the planet incapable of sustaining any form of life as we know it.  Sure.
>It'll be here long after we're gone, even if nothing can live on it.

First you agree with him, then you claim he's wrong and an idiot.  If, by a
literal interpretation of his statement, he's correct, then perhaps *you're*
the idiot for assuming some inplied non-literal interpretation.

Don't save "Save the Planet" when you mean "Save Mankind".

Now, please explain in detail how we could "render the planet incapable of
sustaining any form of life as we know it", either temporarily or permanently. 
Don't forget that besides humans and other large mammals, you've got insects,
bacteria, yeasts, molds, fungi, etc., to eliminate--some of which can survive
rather extreme conditions, and some of which live in rather inaccessible
locations such as caves.

>Now that we've clarified matters of semantics, fuck off (TM).  |

Star yourself, Brewmeister Milliken.  (For meaning of "star" here, use the
appropriate profanity above--usage after REM's "Star Me Kitten" from their new
album "Automatic for the People" :-)

Semantics matter.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8256 alt.politics.clinton:9160 alt.politics.elections:15712
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:22:07 EDT
From: Tim Bieling <QAA@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: At this very moment ...
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct8.155544.8844@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
(Richard Mulac) says:
>
>  I would bet that as you are reading this, around the world dozens of
>people are searching the archives for a picture of Bill Klinton (Russian
>spelling {:^) ) at an anti-war rally in the 60's.  Double bonus if the
>location was Moscow.  Triple bonus if he's carrying a particularly nasty
>anti-american sign.  If they beat the clock it will be appearing soon in a
>Republican ad in your neighborhood.

Oh yeah, I'm sure everyone's searching for such a picture - big deal!
Next the repuklicans will announce that Clinton once wore diapers and
had a dribbling problem - they'll [conveniently] forget to mention that
this happened when Clinton was a year old.

I think it's obvious that Bush is desparate - first he kissed all the
right-wing fundie ass he could [GOP Convention], then he backed off so
he could swing his baseball bat and hit at Clinton below the belt.  He
keeps missing tho.

I look forward to live coverage of a U-Haul Van in front of the White
Hous being loaded.  But -- where's the van gonna go - Maine? or Texas?
Bush's "official" residence is TX - but a hotel room?  Wondering minds...

-Tim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh