HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: WHAT GORE REALLY SAYS in his book
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:00:15 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio

From article <1bi965INNmk4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer):
> 
> Here's what Brooks Jackson of CNN said:
> 
> 	"Nowhere in the book does Gore propose $100 billion of foreign
> 	aid for environmental projects." "Gore writes that the money the
> 	United States spent on the Marshall Plan to rescue post-World War II
> 	Europe would equal $100 billion a year today, but he does not urge
> 	spending that much now."

That is not the statement that I heard on CNN immediately after the 
debate.  Immediately after the debate they made a statement that there 
was nothing at all about what Quayle was talking about on page 304.  That
was simply not correct.  Even though Quayle clearly misrepresented the
specifics, there absolutely is something about what Quayle was refering
to on page 304.

> Amazingly enough, I've actually seen people asserting in this newsgroup
> that Quayle was correct.  

I have never said that Quayle was correct.  Amazingly enough, you seem 
determined to dodge the real issue here.  Does Gore advocate spending US 
funds on foreign aid for environmental projects or not?  Why won't you
answer the question?  

If so how much does he consider "politically viable?"  Is that money 
included in the Clinton budget plan?


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:47:11 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

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

: BZZZZZTTT!!!! BZZZZZTTT!!!! So as I said before, Gore lacked the backbone
: to stand up and amend the bill, swallowed his principles, and voted for a
: bill which "funded the export of American jobs out of the country".  What a
: patriot!  I wonder what special interest wanted that bill passed to get him
: to stab those poor people in Decatur, Tennesee in the back. {:^)

Decatur, TN or Decaturville, TN?  Decaturville, TN is the one that's been
in the news recently.  I lived for 12 years in Tennessee, and I can tell
you, for a fact, that the folks in Decatur do not want to have their town
compared to Decaturville.  Decatur may be a hellhole, but it is nowhere
near as bad as Decaturville.  :) :) :)

I gotta get some sleep one of these nights.

--
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.elections,talk.politics.drugs
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Debate transcripts available via internet
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:21:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.131330.3641@access.digex.com> buffalo@access.digex.com (Andy Bartalone) writes:
>I dont know where you got your info.....but Perot made virtually *ALL*
>of his money ...... raping the government on contracts, then driving the
>company into the ground, and in doing so bieng "bought out" to step
>down as CEO/Chairman etc....
>

According to you, thousands of companies and individual are "raping" the
government by simply conducting business with it. Is it a crime to have
a government contract or to provide a service in return for payment?
Get real. I can talk more, but I have to go back to rape the government,
...., ooops, I meant, go back to work on my government sponsored research 
project. ;->

John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dwells@fits.cv.nrao.edu (Don Wells)
Subject: Statistical question re tracking poll
Organization: nrao
	<1992Oct15.235918.29548@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:56:59 GMT

The graph of tracking poll data which was posted earlier today, and
which I reproduce below, looks too smooth to me. I would expect to see
more scatter about curves fitted to the data if the usual 3-4%
standard errors of sampling apply to the individual polls. The error
of individual points appears to me to be more like 1-2%.  Does this
imply that some sort of averaging of successive polls has been done?

USA Today/CNN Tracking Poll:

P = Perot,  B = Bush,  C = Clinton,  x = other or undecided

                          % preference                          % plurality
      5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50   55    5   10   15   20
      |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
 9/30 |xP                           B                C       |           o  
10/01 |x P                          B               C        |          o   
10/02 | xP                           B            C          |       o      
10/03 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/04 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/05 |   xP                         B        C              |   o          
10/06 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/07 | x P                        B               C         |          o   
10/08 | x  P                       B              C          |         o    
10/09 |x   P                       B               C         |          o   
10/10 |x   P                      B                 C        |            o 
10/11 |x    P                     B                C         |           o  
10/12 | x    P                    B              C           |         o    
10/13 |  x   P                    B             C            |        o     
10/14 | x     P                    B           C             |      o       
10/15 |x        P                B              C            |         o    
--

Donald C. Wells             Associate Scientist        dwells@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory                   +1-804-296-0277
520 Edgemont Road                                 Fax= +1-804-296-0278
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA            78:31.1W, 38:02.2N 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Mary Matalin and James Carville
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:40:28 GMT

The NYT of a few days ago reported that Mary Matalin (chief spokesperon
of the Bush/Quayle campaign and overall incarnation of evil) and James
Carville, Clinton's chief campaign strategist, are romantically linked.
Man, what a great relationship they must have.  They must have great
sex, because they sure as hell must not be able to talk about much...
:-)

I hope she uses good birth control, because man oh man it would be
interesting to see what would happen if she got pregnant.  Would Bush
give her family leave?  Etc., etc.

Gary
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17267 alt.politics.bush:9464 alt.politics.clinton:10938 alt.politics.perot:2268
From: mxl@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (marc.a.levy)
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:13:09 GMT




[Entire Message Deleted]


Does this message really belong in ALL of the newsgroups
listed?  Please edit the NEWSGROUPS line before any more
replys get sent around the world multiple times for no reason.

Marc
From: dione@argus.lpl.Arizona.EDU (Matt Cheselka)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DEBATE TRANSCRIPTS
Keywords: debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:39:23 GMT
Organization: Lunar and Planetary Lab, U of AZ

Please send them my way, also.  Thanks and Peace.

Matt Cheselka
dione@argus.lpl.arizona.edu
--
***************************************************
*   Matt Cheselka                                 *
*      "My country is the world and               *
*       my religion is to do good" - Thomas Paine *
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: More Corruption in the Executive Branch
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:15:44 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.131.1.21


This is beginning to sound a lot like the final days of the 
Nixon administration.


The _New York Times_, 15 October 1992, p.A13, California ed., writes:

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 --Over the years the Treasury Department's
  Office of Tax Analysis has operated like the Bureau of Labor
  Statistics, a source of reliable data with no overtones of
  partisan politics.

    But this year, the Bush Administration has used the tax
  office's staff and computers to generate questionable assessments
  of Gov. Bill Clinton's tax proposals.

    ... tax experts from both parties who were in charge of the
  office in previous Administrations said they found its involvement
  in election-year politics troubling.

    ...


What's surprising about this story is the reference to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics which was caught cooking the unemployment figures
earlier this year when the State of California couldn't understand why
the national figures for the state didn't jibe with state figures.
----
    --Brad Sherman
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 17:55:36 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>First, does anyone have a list of major canditiates for the presidency?
>I know enough about the big 3 plus Marrou, but I'm really not strongly
>commited towards anyone. (Except maybe strongly against Bush)
>
>Second, just to watch out for something else that could throw a twist
>into this years election, what are the chances that and elector would
>vote against his candidate? I know it's illegal in some states, but not
>all, if I recall? Does anyone have anything specific on this, like when
>the last time it happened was and if anyone has said anything about the
>possibility?
>
>Danke.
>
>-Robert Chesnavich

    Presidential candidates on ballot in all jurisdictions with electoral
    votes (50 states plus the District of Corruption):

            George Bush--Republican
            William Clinton--Democrat
            H. Ross Perot--Independent
            Andre Marrou--Libertarian

    Other candidates:

            Lenora Fulani--New Alliance (about 40 states)
            John Hagelin--Natural Law (29 states)
            Howard Phillips--U.S. Taxpayers (21 states)
            Lyndon LaRouche--Independent (about 20 states)
                (Note: LaRouche originally campaigned for the Democratic
                nomination, and was on the Democratic ballot in several
                primaries.  Several of his proteges did better in
                California, where they are the official Democratic
                candidates for the state legislature in November.)
            Bo Gritz--Populist/America First (18 states)
            14 more tickets, the Communist Party not among them (jeez,
                whatever happened to *tradition*?)

    Source: Ballot Access News (Box 470296, San Francisco, CA  94147)


As for a presidential elector voting not-as-pledged, it has already happened.
Tonie Nathan, 1972 nominee of the Libertarian Party for Vice-President,
was the first woman in the history of the United States to receive an 
electoral vote.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: vice presidential debates
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:52:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.191331.4489@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.165141.6061@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>
>>Nancy Lord *would* have won.  :-)
>
>Nah, she'd look like a whacko when she comes out in favor of
>drug-legalization.

Guess what?  We already *have* legal drugs (alcohol, for example).  Other
countries have legalized drugs and haven't turned into doped out wasters.  Less
than a hundres years ago, all drugs were legal in the U.S. and we weren't all
wasters.

But the biggie is: drugs are illegal and they're still widely available and
used.  The War on Drugs just makes the business of illegal drugs profitable
and encourages widespread drug-related crime.  Remember, these crimes aren't
committed by people whacked out on drugs, they're committed by people trading
in drugs.

Legalization is the only way we'll ever win the War on Drugs.

Question: if you support the repeal of Prohibition but not legalization of
other drugs, why not?  The parallels are clear.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Vote for the right person
Organization: George Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:46:43 GMT


Lately I see a lot of people who are inclined to vote for Perot but 
say they actually wouldn't because they think he won't be able to win.
The idea is that since they think the candidate is going to loose
anyway, that their vote would be "wasted" on them. IMHO, this is a
completely wrong attitude. People should vote for the candidate that
they think can best do the job, no matter where he/she stands in the 
polls. This way, even if the candidate who was ahead in the polls wins,
the margin of victory won't be that great. Especially, if it is a 
close victory, the winning candidate would know that he only got the
office by a close call and that he would have to accomodate the
supporters of the other candidate. Thus, a vote for even a loosing 
candidate is not necessarily a wasted effort.

Giving up on a candidate simply on poll figures is like quitting a
football game before the kickoff because the odds makers in Vegas
give low odds for winning.

John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: I will vote for Clinton if...
Organization: Clark University
Date: 14 OCT 92 01:52:34 GMT

In a previous article, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) wrote:
> 
>  The ONLY reason Clinton is currently leading in the polls is due to the
>fact that a majority of Americans believe that under a Clinton
>administration only the rich will have their taxes raised and through this
>additional revenue Clinton will revitalize the economy.

Baloney. I'll assume this comment is tongue-in-cheek, since from your previous
postings I know that (1) your election views are not so one-dimensional, and
(2) you usually give voters more credit than this. Well, maybe not too much 
more :). I would guess that for most voters there is much more to this election
than taxation, but in any case, I don't think many people truly believe that
Clinton's tax changes would only affect the rich. 

>His record on education is so bad that Hillary's own group, the Children's
>Defense Fund, dropped Arkansas's ranking to last place during Clinton's
>reign.

I thought this Fund dealt more with children's civil rights rather than the
quality of education. This comment would seem to be misleading. From what
I've seen Arkansas schooling still needs improvement, but it's generally
acknowledged that Clinton has had a positive effect in this area. You are 
correct in implying that the state's circumstances (industrialization under
Clinton's tenure) should be considered when measuring it's job growth, but
at the same time I don't think growth statistics should be taken for granted.

If you want to make an assessment of voter reasoning then I don't think it's
fair to rule out "Bush bashing." Bush's ever-diminishing stature is a BIG 
reason for Clinton's apparent lead. People want a leader, which Bush is not.
His election tactics are looking more and more like the scripted ploys they
are, and in the past two weeks it's become especially clear how unwilling he
is to stand by his record. His attempt to make Clinton's Moscow trip look
suspicious and to link the governor to middle-east dealings was pathetic.

Bart
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Magic Johnson vs George Bush?
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:16:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <ISBELL.92Oct13091446@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
> 
> 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
>                                    -/--\-

I am tired of hearing about Magic Johnson. He is a great basketball player,
and that is about all. I can't believe this man is made a hero for having
the sexual promicuity of a rabbit. 

The fact he quite the AIDS commission to play basketball does not show a
lot of dedication to me.

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17327 alt.politics.bush:9506 alt.politics.clinton:11006
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:35:53 EDT
From: <JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush v. Clinton: "Who do you trust?"

Talk about a line that's getting old.

Talk about a line that's hypocritical.

When Bush was running against Reagan for the Rep. nomination in 79-80,
he continually referred to trickle-down economics as "Voodoo Economics."

Let me repeat that:  Bush called trickle-down VOODOO ECONOMICS.

Bush completely changed his stance in oder to secure the VP slot
w/ Reagan.  And now he has the gall to accuse Clinton of waffling?
I admit to having serious reservations about Clinton, but at
least with Clinton I know I have a chance for improvement.  Bush
has done NOTHING during his time in office to convince me that
I can believe what he says.


Jim Thomas
From: Ben Masel <bmasel@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:21 PDT
Subject: Re: Why I'm running for SHERIFF
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1728300002:cdp:1728300004:000:2222
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bmasel    Oct 10 01:21:00 1992


						516 E Mifflin #4
						Madison, WI 53703
						608-257-5456 Oct.
						4, 1992

Rick Raemisch, Dane County Sheriff 210 Martin Luther King Blvd.

	As I am sure you are aware, I have declared my candidacy
for the office you currently hold, and to which you seek
re-election. I have registered my candidacy with the Dane County
Clerk. This letter formally notifies you of my intention to
personally campaign among the elegible voters in your custody at
the Dane County Jail and Ferris Center. I intend to visit these
prisoners in company of a voter registrar. We will be willing to
submit to a search before entering secured areas.

	You are reported in the Oct. 1 Isthmus as being unwilling
to approve my visit citing security concerns.  In view of my
willingness to co- operate on particulars in arranging access, I
can only conclude that your real reason for obstructing such
visits is concern for your job security.

	If this is indeed the case I believe your use of your
position to obstruct my campaign activity constitutes malfeasance
sufficient to cause your removal from office and criminal
prosecution. In any event I am prepared to bring action before the
Wisconsin Elections Board and/or Dane County Circuit Court to
compel access to all eligible voters in your custody.

	I also hereby request (persuent to the Wisconsin Open
Records Law) to be informed of any arrangement your department has
made to enable all eligible voters in your custody on Nov. 3 to
exercise their right to vote, and to inform them of the steps they
must take to do so. When I was in custody in the Ferris Center in
1986 I was told prisoners would only be allowed to vote by
absentee ballot. This is insufficient, as it disenfranchises any
individual placed in custody after the absentee voting deadline. I
strongly recomend you immediately take steps to insure sufficient
staffing for Nov. 3 that prisoners unable to vote absentee may be
safely escorted to their designated polling place. Since there are
candidates for Federal office on the Ballot this year, your
failure to do so could violate Federal, as well as Wisconsin,
Election Law.

					Tenaciously yours, Ben
					Masel Write-In Candidate
					for Dane County Sherriff
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:08:55 GMT
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) says:
>In article <1bapvhINNebl@overload.lbl.gov>, bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>
>>3) If Clinton uses the word "change" or Bush says "tax and spend"
>>one more time they should lose half their remaining time.
>

 As a matter of fact, quick-thinker that he is, aware he was losing
his audience, Former President Bush said "spend and tax" at least
once.


-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16904 alt.politics.bush:9238 alt.politics.clinton:10536 alt.politics.perot:2182