HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Why Bother? (Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON)
Summary: Amazing huh -- "Democratic Totalitarianism" 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  make a list...
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:08:00 GMT

In article <mjenkins.722224348@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes...
>I've never seen so many people GLAD the Secret Service does/might
>monitor the net.
> 
>I never thought I'd see so many people....

Several points explain such behavior:

1. There is little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

2. Both Presidente Clinto'n and President Bush are basically wimps, and
   as such are a pushover for congressional/bureaucratic spending. The
   inevitable result of party politics.

3. The Secret Service and other such tools are basically apolitical and
   mercenary, thus becoming the tool of whoever is in charge. In other
   words, "When it's my SS -- its OK."

Mix and match, as appropriate. (Also compare "I Believe in Freedom of 
Speech -- mine not yours.")

The sad thing is that anyone thinks that killing Clinton would make
any difference, since Clinton is only a cosmetic change at best. Which 
seems like a far more rational basis for the discussion.

-= Change is the illusion of *Progress* =-

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17645 alt.president.clinton:637 talk.politics.misc:61335
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK C
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:23:09 EST
Distribution: world
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

sl1yn@petersboro.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:
> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:
> 
> |>>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
> |>
> |>I believe that is between Bill and Hillary.
> 
>   Don't you mean that is between Bill and Gennifer.

now, now. no need to be crass. the reaming Bill will give the 
american people will be bad enough.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`                Don't blame me. I voted Libertarian.                 `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Lame humor in the late night talk shows
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:21:33 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


The 2 step formula of a joke about Clinton on these shows (especially Leno):

1. Pick a current event involving Clinton.

2. Then compare or involve or draw a connection to the Three Scars 
   (marital infidelity, draft evasion, inhaling pot).  The jokes about
   marital infidelity really lack taste.  Like last night's joke by Leno,
   (paraphrased) "Clinton walked into the hotel in Washington with Hillary,
   and the hotel workers all said to him, 'say who's the new babe this time'."

Give me a break, I am so god damn sick of this, when are these morons going 
to get more original humor?  How long are they going to do this same humor?
A few months? A year? 2 Years? All of Clinton's first 4 years? Even his 
second 4 years?  Give it a rest people. Jeez.

-Chris




Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17413 alt.president.clinton:527 talk.politics.misc:60755
From: mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:07:47 GMT
Reply-To: mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu <Mark Allan Hunt>
Organization: Hunt Technologies
Originator: mahunt@c00315-2114bl.eos.ncsu.edu


I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!

Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years

Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!

Appealing to your subconcious.
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " Marionette " Horne")
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Which is he?
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:29:40 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12762; Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:31:57 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA11724; Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:27:34 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 5972; Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:30:19 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 7453; Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:30:18 MST
X-To: alt.politics.clinton.usenet


      Is Mr. Bill a hand-puppet or a shadow-puppet?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17714 alt.politics.perot:5624 talk.politics.misc:61469 talk.politics.guns:24405
From: pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton
Date: 24 Nov 1992 03:47:23 GMT
Organization: cisco Systems, Incorporated
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lager.cisco.com

In article <1992Nov18.200910.5496@pages.com>, bruce@pages.com(Bruce Henderson) writes:
|> ]In article <BxoGHM.46q@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> willson@mentor.cc.purdue.edu  
|> (Allen R. Willson) writes:
|> ]>the sale of weapons such as the Russian-made AK-47 which comes with
|> ]>accessories like a 70 round clip may be limited.  This type of weapon
|> ]>is not meant for hunting, unless you're hunting elephants or bears, 
|> ]>both of which are endangered species.
|> 
|> Exactly. 

a hunting gun of today is a direct descendant of the military guns
of yesteryear.  i gather you don't hunt.  if you do, you would not
be saying this.  if the gun is "enough" for the game, it doesn't
matter if it's a self loader or a black powder rifle.

|> As someone who has trained professionally with the M16A1 / A2 weapon, I can say  
|> that they are really designed for one thing.  Killing people.  The only reason

see attached article.
  
|> I have one is specifically that.  To kill people if it is ever required.  There  
|> is a good side to having an armed population.  Just because things are comfy  
|> now doesn't mean they will always be that way.  I have never ever wanted to  
|> shoot people. And I have even less desire to shoot animals.   But say something  
|> like the LA riots happened in your neighborhood.  Or even better yet, in your  
|> elderly parents neighborhood, and you really needed to defend agains the  
|> houligans in the street.  I'd much rather have something that I am comfortable  
|> with, and that I have had hours of saftey classes on.  I was dissapointed in  
|> California's ban on assault weapons.  I know for sure that the criminal element  
|> that wants these items has no problem obtaining them, but now I do.  Once agian  
|> the only reason I would want one is because I know almost nothing about other  
|> firearms, but I have spent years with the USMC training with this peice, and it  
|> is probably the one weapon that I would be safest using.
|> 
|> The main problem with guns and gun control is not the millions of responisble,  
|> regestered owners and memebers of the NRA, it is the ciminals and the insane  
|> who manage to purchase weapons.
|> 
|> I hope the Uncle Bill puts some effort behind a nation-wide law enforcement  
|> network of computers.  So that any gun store owner can check a person out at  
|> time of sale.
|> 
|> Bruce

Article: 31728 of talk.politics.guns
Xref: csl sci.med:25957 talk.politics.guns:31728
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:52:28 GMT

I've never seen so many people GLAD the Secret Service does/might
monitor the net.

I never thought I'd see so many people....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17264 alt.politics.democrats.d:576 alt.politics.elections:23928 ba.politics:7160 co.politics:2080 ne.politics:3005 nj.politics:738 or.politics:647 ny.politics:258 talk.politics.misc:60406
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:28:21 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:

>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>There's too many people here already. (And how many of those actually CAN
>>>live? How many die of starvation each year? How many don't have homes?
>>>How many CHILDREN die each year because the people thought it was their
>>>most basic right to have kids and then couldn't FEED them!!)
>>
>>But that is NOT my situation.  And as for you not having any kids, fine.
>>Your choice.  Now please allow me mine.
>>
>What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply
>that you don't live on the same planet as *I* do? Hardly.
>Your situation is the same as mine is the same as everyone elses.
So since there are too many people in Africa/India, etc, I shouldn't have
children?  Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

>There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
>is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
>can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
>argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!
Then go to the source of the problem.  Solve the basic problems of famine,
etc, introduce contraception, reduce infant mortality, etc in
underdeveloped nations and reduce the birth-rate there.

>>You say limit people from having kinds through education, not by law.
>I wish it were that simple. How do you expect to teach people to have less 
>kids, if you go ahead and have (say) 10 kids. You can afford them, so.. why 
>not? This is a classical "Do as I say, not as I do" case. And that won't work.
>Educated people (like yourself and myself) have to set an example, or
>the 'teaching' part evaporates into a lot of hot air.
So in order to reduce overpopulation in some areas I have to not have kids?
I don't think this is just, or fair.  What if I WANT to have 2 or 3 kids?

As I said, the issues are deeper than will be simply solved by 'educated'
first-world people ceasing reproduction.  We have the ability to solve the
other problems and should concentrate on them.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17717 alt.politics.bush:14029 alt.politics.elections:24286
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES!
Date: 24 Nov 1992 05:01:52 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu
Keywords: TAXES!!!!!

In article <1992Nov22.180151.18426@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sstarr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Starr) writes:

>You see, the basic reason that America has an enormous budget deficit is
>that we (that's the American people as a whole...) want more from the
>government than we are willing to pay for.  As a fiscal conservative this
>behavior worries me. The American people should either:  1. Accept deep,
>painful cuts in government services or 2. Show a little responsability and
>agree to pay for what we get.

[an excellent posting deleted]

I think it's worth comparing a REAL conservative with
free-lunch-Reaganomics advocates (names suppressed to protect the
guilty). The free-lunchers claimed thatwe could (1) pump up defense
spending, (2) slash taxes, (3) preserve middle-class entitlements, and
even (4) not have reduced revenue. This last was accomplished only by
raising Social Security taxes, slashing taxes slashed the corresponding
Federal Funds revenue.

Now the pseudo-conservatives are left to post either that our crushing
debt doesn't matter (althoug, as one example it precludes a major
spending program to get out of the current doldrums), or that Congress,
and not the architects of free-lunch-onomics are to blame. (Some posters
manage both of these at once, throu a perverse logic.)

They also manage to harp about how Reagan managed to get the deficit
down to only about double Jimmy Carter's, without ever mentioning that
the debt and the interest on the debt (a huge part of the current
budget!) are a function of the Reagan years combined, not just the last
one.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:55:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.224754.32344@alliant.com> eaw@alliant.com (Eric Woudenberg) writes:
}In article <1992Nov21.112904.28188@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}
}>...  Education is being tried, but we're hampered in the USA by the
}>public school monopoly which graduates 60% of its students without teaching
}>them how to read. ...
}
}This figure is absurd, where did you get it?

Albert Shanker, head of the National Federation of Teachers.  And it is absurd.
That's why I brought it up.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17712 talk.politics.misc:61465
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:56:23 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov23.224023.17824@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>>But the numbers
>>>are that most NEW cases of aids are in the heterosexual community.
>
>>And this is categorically, completely, utterly, false.  
>
>Looks like I misspoke. I meant to say the number of new infections of
>HIV. I saw a report on a national news program which indicated that
>the number of new cases of HIV in the heterosexual community was
>higher than the number of new cases of HIV in the gay community.
>If you have figures which disprove that, then cite the reference.

I suggest that it depends on how you define "the heterosexual community."  If
you start including IV-drug use and hemophiliac infections, then it's
conceivable that the number of new heterosexual infections has reached the 50%
mark, which is still, at most, a twentieth of the *rate* of new infections
amongst gay men. 

But I'm skeptical that even this concession is true.  If someone has a better
source than "a national news program" (which could include anything from
Nightline to A Current Affair), I'd be interested in seeing it so I can update
my numbers.  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: eaw@alliant.com (Eric Woudenberg)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:47:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.112904.28188@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>...  Education is being tried, but we're hampered in the USA by the
>public school monopoly which graduates 60% of its students without teaching
>them how to read. ...

This figure is absurd, where did you get it?

Eric Woudenberg
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17525 alt.president.clinton:586
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Lame humor in the late night talk shows
Date: 20 Nov 1992 13:46:34 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <20NOV199212274708@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.083538.9655@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes...
>> 
>>The 2 step formula of a joke about Clinton on these shows (especially Leno):
>> 
>>1. Pick a current event involving Clinton.
>> 
>>2. Then compare or involve or draw a connection to the Three Scars 
>>   (marital infidelity, draft evasion, inhaling pot).  The jokes about
>>   marital infidelity really lack taste.  Like last night's joke by Leno,
>>   (paraphrased) "Clinton walked into the hotel in Washington with Hillary,
>>   and the hotel workers all said to him, 'say who's the new babe this time'."
>> 
>>Give me a break, I am so god damn sick of this, when are these morons going 
>>to get more original humor?  How long are they going to do this same humor?
>>A few months? A year? 2 Years? All of Clinton's first 4 years? Even his 
>>second 4 years?  Give it a rest people. Jeez.
>
>
>God, they can't stand even a small dose of their own medicine!
>
>I suppose you were equally disgusted with the 4 years of Dan Quayle jokes, by
>Leno, Letterman, Doonesbury, Carson, etc., etc., which had only one motif
>instead of three: "Hey Dan Quayle is stupid!"
>

True, but then again Dan Quayle continually provided them with *new* information
to back up their original statement of "Hey, Dan Quayle is stupid". All the Leno,
Carson, etc crowd had to do was read the daily newspaper to come up with new
skits to bash Quayle...it would have gotten old *very* fast had they kept
harping on one incident...

John

>If it's any consolation, you only have four years until they'll be making
>Jack Kemp or Bill Weld jokes instead...
>
>
>
>Dave
>


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:29:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.182915.16886@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <92Nov19.103908est.102@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>>
>>They probably don't, 'cause the TaiPing rebellion against the Qing Dynasty
>>in China happened during the 1850s and 1860s.  
>
>Oh, picky picky. What do you expect; I'm the product of an American education.
>
>By the way, just how far off the coast of Florida _is_ China?
>:-)

Gee, I don't know, Chris Columbus thinks that Florida is China.  

>Alan
>


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17715 alt.politics.perot:5625 talk.politics.misc:61470
From: sstarr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Starr)
Subject: RAISE THOSE TAXES!
Summary: You get what you deserve...
Keywords: TAXES!!!!!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 18:01:51 GMT


Well, now that the election is over we can all stop fooling ourselves and
decide just how much we are going to raise taxes.

You see, the basic reason that America has an enormous budget deficit is
that we (that's the American people as a whole...) want more from the
government than we are willing to pay for.  As a fiscal conservative this
behavior worries me. The American people should either:  1. Accept deep,
painful cuts in government services or 2. Show a little responsability and
agree to pay for what we get.

The politicians in congress are regularly caught in a bind.  Americans
want health care, social security benefits, a strong defense, etc. 
However, we do not want to pay for them.  We lobby our congresspeople to
get the government to spend money on us, and then blame them for raising
the money to finance our pet programs.  Why do you think that so few
republicans raise any serious objection to the endless spending of
government?  why do you think Reagan and Bush never submitted a balanced
budget?  They all knew that the people would be angry if the government
said "no, you can't have that" and that the people would be just as angry
if the government said "yes, but you'll have to pay for it."

Havn't you noticed that politicans regularly twist and contort their logic
and positions so that the American voter can think they can have it both
ways?  Many politicians this year managed to say "I'm going to fight to
controll federal spending.
and "I'm going to make sure that my opponents dont cut (medicaid, social
security, whatever special interest s/he was talking to at that time)"

If president Clinton really wants to do the right thing he ought to say
bluntly and plainly to the American people:  "Either Government will do
less for you or you will pay more."  I believe Clinton should raise taxes
to cover the budget deficit.

AND FOR ALL OF YOU SO-CALLED C
"CONSERVATIVES" WHO WILL SAY "Oh no, it's the tax and spend democrats
again!"  THINK ABOUT IT:  YOU MUST PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE!

Look, I don't want to pay any more money to the government than I have to,
but it's time to realize that there is no free ride.  During the eighties
we all went on a spending splurge.  Now we must pay.  It's the only
responsible and fiscally conservative thing to do.

STARR  (I don't have a cool signiture line, and I reserve the right to use
creativity in spelling and punctuation.  So there.)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 1992 17:51:33 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <10523@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In article <1dur0nINNdq@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
>jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
>
>>Also, poor people deserve to be compensated for their contribution to
>>helping someone else accumulate money.
>
>If they are working, that's what wages are for.  If they are not working
>how have they helped anyone else accumulate money?
>

If they aren't working, there is an excess of labor.  Thus their very 
existence is helping suppress the wages of those who are working, making
it easier for owners to show profits and accumulate money. 

-Nick
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:49:36 -0500 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Electoral College
	<1992Nov17.202441.8189@m5.harvard.edu>
Distribution: usa

David Borden@Harvard writes:

Why haven't we invaded China to end the repression there?  Because it's not
feasible.  We don't have the power to overthrow the Chinese government, and
if we tried, the damage would be unspeakable, far worse than than the
suffering that exists there now.  The suffering during the Civil War was
great, but it was both necessary and feasible to end the evil of slavery.
It's clearly not feasible for us to end repression in China, but that's a
practical concern, not a moral question of whether or not we have the right.
If we were indeed able to end repression in China without doing more harm
than good, and if we were the only ones capable of doing that, it would be
our duty.
******************

Is this some sort of joke?  You surely must be kidding.  Is the United
States the new Moral Majority?  We are a very young country.  How dare
we force our beliefs on one another let alone an entire country
thousands of years older than ourselves.  I guess what I'm asking is-
Who died and made us God?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc