HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:31:06 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Oct14.163501.4938@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.150845.10882@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>>
>>Gore did vote for the Carribean Basin Initiative according to his own 
>>campaign manager.  To be fair, Quayle voted for it in 1983, but it was a 
>>somewhat different program back then and had wide Democratic support.  So 
>>Gore effectively lied.  (Quayle was never asked if he voted for it.)
>
>CNN reported this morning that Gore voted against final approval of the
>bill, or words to that effect.  So, although he might have at one time
>supported an earlier version of it (they didn't say), in the vote that
>counted he voted against it.  Gore was right.
>

BZZZT!  Gore was WRONG!  He did vote against it in '83, but he voted
FOR it in 1990.

>
>>... Gore never responded to Quayle's question about wether Gore favored
>>placing any restrictions on abortion such as the 24 hour waiting period
>>imposed in Penn.
>
>Hint: he doesn't, or he would have.

Interesting...Clinton does.  Or rather he did.  A week ago.   Or does he
still?  Who can guess?

>
>-- 
>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


-anwar
-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot for Pres???
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:25:55 GMT

In article <92275.220751DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> <DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>I am amazed that there are people who can still support Perot
>for president. What assurance do we have that in the middle of
>a crisis he wont decide to leave office and let an unknown
>be president? What assurance do we have that he wont use
>the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies as sleuths against
>his "enemies"? What assurance do we have that he wont disregard
>the provisions of the constitution and the Bill of Rights?
>What assurance do we have that he can work with anyone cooperatively?

What assurance do you have on these relative to Bush or Clinton?  
Certainly, on the "sleuth" or "disregard" points, one cannot feel 
too comfortable with Bush and the War on Drugs.  As far as cooperation,
it is fair to assume the Clinton and a Democratic Congress can
cooperate to bankrupt the nation.

>Why waste a precious vote!

You mean on Bush or Clinton?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:30:13 GMT

300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
> RHETORIC: George Bush said, "My economic program is the kind of
> change we want."
>
> REALITY: His economic program is more of the same. He's proposed the
> same trickle-down economics of the past -- a 1 percent tax break and
> a capital gains tax break which will give millionaires $108,000 and
> people making $20-30,000 only $111. [Citizens for Tax Justice, based
> on Department of Treasury figures.]

  I didn't read any farther than this first statement.  Of course, one wonders
why I read this far. :-)

  Citizens for Tax Justice is an arm of the Clinton campaign.  Don't
let its name fool you.  Remember Brown's complaints about the same thing?


Pat



-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Three uploads -- PLEASE use the LAST ONE
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:07:13 GMT

Volunteers,

We have sent you three versions of our response to tonight's debate.  The
last one, the longest one, is the one to use.  Please erase the earlier
two.

Many thanks.  I am sorry for the confussion.

Regards,
Jock Gill
Clinton/Gore Email


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16878 alt.politics.perot:2176
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Quayle, Stockdale and Gore....
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:07:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


Quayle: I am pro-life.

Stockdale: The issues don't matter.

Gore: There is a need for change.


I know which one to pick....

Benjamin
benjamin@ai.mit.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:23:16 GMT

Bert:  thanks for the detailied posting about
Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow 23 years ago.

What really saddened me about GHWB's performance last night
was the implications of his remarks.  He criticized Clinton
for organizing anit-war rallies overseas, and attacking and
protesting against his country while living in Europe.

Most of us who participated in anti-war protests were
not attacking America, nor were we in any way traitorous.
We were working against a stupid policy of the US federal 
government.  We were not undercutting "support" for
the troops; we were trying to save the lives of the troops.
Probably not very effectively, but that was our hope
at the time.

Apparently, the role of dissent in a democracy totally
escapes GHWB.

Maybe I should take some small satisfaction in the fact
that my (and many others') prediction that the Republican
Sleaze-o-Matic (tm) would be working overtime in October.
But the sight of the President of the United States
sinking to the level of Robert Dornan is just
too sad.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Missed chances + thoughts
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:57:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: what.. me.. organized?



I thought Gore missed two absolutely biting retorts. 

Quayle: It is wrong to change one's mind [on the abortion issue].

Gore [should have said]: Dan, till 1980 GHWBush was pro-choice.
                         Then, he changed his mind in order to 
                         advance his career. Is that right or
                         wrong?


Quayle: blah.. blah .. Clean Air Act .. blah blah..

Gore [could have said]: YOUR Competitiveness Council has done
                        everything it can do to torpedo it.



Anyway;

* Quayle gave us all the reasons we could not vote for CLinton
  *and* Bush.

* Gore gave us every reason we could not vote Bush.

* Stockale gave us every reason we could not vote Perot.

* Facts, what the hell do you mean facts... was the theme.

* Gore maybe over-prepared, but he did get in all his points.

* Stockdale was NOT prepared, and he even misrepresented Perots
  plans [on defense cuts].

* Quayle was given 3 index cards; with the words 'waffle', 'trust',
  and 'truth'. And then told, "Doesn't matter what question you are
  asked, just keep repeating these 3 words."

* The format was excellent. That was a real debate, although it did
  go into "did not, did too" style bickering.



_______________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                      |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
#######################################################
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17237 bit.listserv.politics:15865 alt.activism:17542
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Magic Johnson vs George Bush?
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:14:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


MAGIC WENT TO TWO MEETINGS:
   Magic Johnson says he attended two meetings - not one as
President Bush said in Sunday's presidential debate - before
resigning from the National Commission on AIDS. But Johnson's two
appearances were one more than all three members of the
president's Cabinet who have seats on the commission, said Carlton
Lee, chief liaison officer of the commission.

--
Peace.
                  "That was a stupid slip.  Nobody trusts a Greyhound rider."
                            - Kyle Baker, _Why I Hate Saturn_
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: After Debate Press Coverage
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:12:40 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>(Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>  And a very clever thought it is.   I think it was CNN that did a
>>bit on the pre and post debate coverage.  Among other degrading things,
>>they showed a newspaper editor from the San Francisco Chronicle (?memory?)
>>saying that people will forget what they really thought and believe what
>>the press writes throughout the next day.  I'm sure he and the politicians
>>believe that. [As I've noted before.]  Is he right?
>
>   Only if the press says so, apparently.

  Humorous, but buy a clue.  I was just using the CNN bit to back up
a point I've been making for some time.  On rare occasion, the TV press
actually does a decent story relatively free of spin doctors.  

  ...waiting for the day when one article goes by without a silly
comment.

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16870 alt.politics.bush:9219 alt.politics.clinton:10513 alt.politics.perot:2175
From: sunder@sor.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:29:50 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sor.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1bi4qsINN5ch@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

|> Quayle was equally vehement about Gore flip-flopping on abortion,
|> but the evidence was a Gore letter to a constituent that said that
|> abortion was "arguably" the taking of a human life.  This implies
|> that it is open to discussion.

Didn't Gore also vote in favor of the Human Life Amendment in 1984 which
would have declared life to begin at conception? I distinctly heard someone
mention that on TV in the early days after Gore's name was mentioned as a
possible Veep candidate. If I am wrong, my apologies.

|> 
|> If these were Quayle's major points in the only head-to-head-to-head
|> meeting of the VP candidates, I would wonder not only about Quayle's
|> intellectual strength but about that of his debate coaches as well.

Quayle's job was NOT to defend the Bush record. Not even the greatest
debater in the world equipped with the best euphemisms could do that.
His job was to turn the question that voters face from "Do we want 4
more years of George Bush & Dan Quayle?" (answer being No obviously) to
"Can we trust Bill Clinton to be the Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive?"
I thought he was pretty effective, but that is a partisan judgement. We'll
have to see if Clinton's negatives rise. I doubt that Quayle really cares
about his own negatives, stratospheric as they are now.

|> ----
|>     --Brad Sherman


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Fair Unmoderated Debates (was: Perot Dies in VP Debate)
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1767@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:31:00 GMT

In article <1767@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
>In article <1bfvd1INNnfu@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>
>>The format was a big improvement.  There should be _no_ moderator.
>
>And no audience.
>
>
>Humm, how could that work?  Obviously we want to prevent a
>participant who is willing to interrupt, talk loudly and
>continuously, and ignore the others from dominating the debate. 
>
>So we give each a directional microphone that doesn't pick up the
>others, a button with which to ask the controlling computer to
>activate his microphone, and a second button to release the mike
>or cancel a pending request.  The computer lets each participant
>keep the mike as long as he wants and then honors requests on a
>FIFO basis.  If no one requests activation, the computer gives it
>to one of them at random.
>[...]
>Extra fillip:  each participant has a camera aimed at him, and the
>computer also mixes them to show the active speaker as a larger
>image and the other(s) as smaller. 

I like the idea. How about Max Headroom as moderator ?

Matthias
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: voting
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:40:48 GMT

In article <92276.120618DMGJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> Dolores Grande <DMGJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>I am getting sick and tired of commercials urging people to vote, no matter for
> whom. My philosophy is "Don't vote, it only encourages them."

Fine, don't vote...and shut the F*&% up after the election because YOU
have no right whatsoever to complain about the way this country is
being run...


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15737 talk.politics.misc:50435 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3458 alt.conspiracy:11089 sci.skeptic:17696
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:02:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
?Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign
?attack-bitch,
        *****

Did the AP-wire really say this!!!???
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Ross TV
Reply-To: sieferme@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:35:53 GMT

Just heard on the radio that Ross Perot is changing the
direction of this TV campaign.  Instead of airing the next
two installments of his TV show, he is re-running the
show that was on two nights ago.  This is in response
to (he says) public demand.

The first show consisted of HRP providing his analysis of
the problems of debt/budget.  After the show was over,
he was asked why he provided no solutions.  His explanation
was that his three one-half hour shows were a series,
and policy proposals would be appearing in the final
two episodes.

Now, we are apparently not going to see the final
two episodes.  Makes you say "hmmm ...".

Isn't it looking like this guy is just making this up
as he goes along?  Does he have any idea what he is doing?
It is easy to see why so many HRP supporters are getting
very frustrated.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15815 alt.politics.clinton:9358 alt.politics.bush:8381 alt.politics.perot:1923 alt.politics.marrou:1512
From: dtiberio@libws4.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: 1-800-BEND-OVER
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:06:05 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

In article <1992Oct1.115443.8886@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.171722.8335@seas.gwu.edu>, korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:
>>
>>What is this obsession with "bending over"???
>
>It's a metaphor for Perot's manipulation of the media, the election process,
>and his supporters and the reaming the country will get if he's taken
>seriously or (gasp) elected.
>
>-- 
>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.

	In a few years, when the national debt is greater than we can afford
to pay off through taxes, I will cry. I will cry because all of the money
that I and everyone else earns is going to pay interest. 

	I do not have an interest bearing credit account. I have never
paid interest on any purchases or loans in my life, and I am 21 years
old. I would think that if I can work on a budget, while I see many
of my peers spending money on new cars and expensive clothing, and
deepening their own debt. Americans are fools when it comes to dealing
with money, and they are fools for electing politicians to run the
government.

	We went over before how much Congressmen earn; I suggest they
be paid the average American yearly salary and many disagreed, but
few realized that they have so many perks, discounts, and free services
that we could probably not pay them anything. 

	I hope that something happens to stop this from becoming a
major crisis, which it already is. I am willing to bet that a drastic
time like this will cause for drastic measures. Be warned.


	In ten years time, expect the following:

		Higher taxes
		Lower educational aid
		More imported products
		More sales taxes
		More cities in debt
		Lower household salaries
		Higher food prices
		Less aid to police, fire departments, transportation
			departments, public parks, social security,
			medical aid, pensions, pollution control,
			technologes, etc

	We are in for the long ride; the nation is not headed in
a positive direction. Bush has been in the White House for 12
years, and has not done anything of value. The Education President
did nothoing for schools but release a '4 point plan', or something
stupid like that. he did nothing for the environment; JUST LAST NIGHT
I saw a speech on CNN where he talked about removing scrubbers from
industry smoke stacks in order to save money, although he new it
increases pollution. This guy used to head the CIA, and has enough
secrets of his own.
	Then there is Clinton...I know very little about his policies.

	But Perot has been speaking against all of this deficit
spending for years now. 


-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
   RayTraces - 3D Objects - Music Modules - Sound Samples - Scalable Fonts
   David Tiberio - Total Productions         Coming Soon: USENET and EMAIL
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:17:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.042301.22431@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.205400.27531@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>|> In <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> Randall A Helzerman writes:
>|> >In <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>|> >|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.

>|> >Bullshit.

>|> Anyway, I've seen the "democracies don't go to war with each other" claim
>|> made a number of times, and I haven't seen a refutation yet.

>I can't think of any two communist nations which warred with each other
>either....

China and Vietnam have fought several border wars.
As have China and the Soviets, actually.
The USSR and Hungary, 1956?
The USSR and Czechoslovakia, 1968.

>|> the point of this article was the make a case, albeit not
>|> wonderfully strong, for what Mr. Rosenthal calls democratic realism,
>|> and its superiority over realpolitik (I believe I've called it
>|> "realism" in past posts). 

>Indeed, and I don't think it did a very good job.

It was only one column; you can't get a term paper into one newspaper
article.

>|> I'm sympathetic towards the former school
>|> of thought: realpolitik seems to be an empty, amoral game without
>|> clearly articulated ends beyond the accumulation and retention of
>|> power for power's sake. 

>Power is the ability to make reality conform to your wishes.  Without
>power, you can't do _anything_, moral or amoral.

"The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must."  Thucydides.

But we already *have* power; the question is how we should use it.

>|> I'd prefer our foreign policy to have at
>|> least some grounding in a moral system, and promoting and supporting
>|> fledgeling democracies is far, far better than propping up despots to
>|> gain positioning in a global game of chess.

>Well, me too.  

Good.  Now tell that to Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Springtime for Honecker (Part II)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:50:07 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

NEWS RELEASE
St. Louis, Missouri

Local Contact: Steve Dasbach, David Carr - 314-330-2018

October 11, 1992
4:30 PM CST

                  LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE ARRESTED, BEATEN


St. Louis -- Robert Stockhausen, District 3 Congressional Candidate of the
Libertarian Party, was arrested at approximately 4pm CST for taking
pictures of Marrou supporters from beyond a police line.

Nearly a dozen armed officers brutalized Mr. Stockhausen spraying him
with mace, kicking him and dragging him across the ground.

Stockhausen, a family man with a wife and five children, considers himself a
pacifist and did not resist.

Over two hundred supporters of Libertarian Presidential Candidate Andre
Marrou are participating in a demonstration in St. Louis to protest
Marrou's exclusion from the debates.  Marrou is on the ballot in all fifty
states DC and Guam.

                                - END -




    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics