HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: October Surprise/Khazakh sells nukes to Iran?
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:21:53 EDT
Distribution: usa

In article <DBROOKS.92Oct14213721@penge.osf.org>, dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>> Its called Republican campaign strategy.  Luckily its not working,
>> thought you'll hear a lot of it this month cause its all they've
>> got left.
> 
> If only this were true.  I'm convinced the October Surprise is being
> prepped, and it'll be pretty nasty.  These Republicans can't be allowing
> themselves such a bad campaign unless they have a killer revelation that'll
> make everything else moot.
> 
> The suspense...
> --
> David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
> Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
> Three more months!  Three more months!

I read in the newspaper today that Khazakhstan has reportedly set up a
deal to sell 4 nuclear warheads to Iran...

Hmm, think it might be related to this???

-Garrett



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9790 alt.politics.perot:1970 alt.politics.bush:8676
From: ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Donpaul C. Stephens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Debate results
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:26:19 GMT
Organization: Junior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

By now we have all seen the debate [or should].

As I saw it the following things happened:
Bush defended his actions and pointed out what a great man Jim Baker is.
He seemed to push the point that 'when' he gets reelected, Jim Baker will
move into domestic affairs to do for them what he has done for int'l ones

I love the AFTER the el;ection part. and the fact that all of his domestic
policies are only slated for AFTER the election and with a 'new' congress.
He said he will continue to veto the congress up until after elections

To his credit, Bush seemed to be the only candidate that spelled out exactly
what his policies are and what he intends to do. Neither Perot nor
Clinton addresses the details so

Clinton and Perot seemed to both do very well. They were not defending
their policies so much as stating how they plan to help the nation in their
presidencies [should either be elected] both expressed interest in working
w/ the new congress to improve the country.

Clinton seemed to push for working on health care. Perot seemed to push for
cleaning deficit house. Bush just came off as the 'Moral minority' who is
desperately striving for his 30% of the vote [which if he doesn't get will
cause ALL Republicans to act like Ross Perot in 4 years ie petition
everywhere.

I think it was pretty much a near-dead heat between Clinton and Perot w/
Bush a distant second.

I will not make my final decision as of yet, but it seems Bush has wiped
himself from my slate. I would like to see more of both Clinton & Perot
so i can make my decision
-Donpaul C. Stephens
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Three uploads -- PLEASE use the LAST ONE
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:07:18 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.clinton:10655 alt.politics.elections:17028
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:09:08 GMT

Perot won the debate?? Oh please. Just goes to show you what differing
expectations can do. If Clinton or Bush spewed out that nonsense that
China is a "big country" and all its leaders are going to die soon anyway,
their candidacies would be over. And if Clinton had grabbed his nose the
way Bush did after mentioning cocaine, the nationwide snickering would
be audible.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Amazing!
Date: 13 Oct 1992 18:19:23 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Oct13.104856.4735@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <92286.122240STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>, STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Stan Horwitz) writes:

 >> Our economy is in a dither thanks to Reagan spending so much and
 >
 >	Nope.  The economy during Reagan's two terms was wonderful.  We pulled
 >out of the stagflation of the 70s into the largest peacetime expansion ever.

This second statment is true, problem is he charged it, instead of paying
for it.....

Tax cut ?          sure charge it !

Military buildup ? sure charge it !

Reagan was called the teflon president, wrong, he should have been
called the "plastic president" 


It's kind of ironic to go back and watch the malaise speech by President
Carter, he was right, take a look around.

-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: tonight's vice-presidential debate thoughts
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:17:20 GMT

Yawn.  This was the longest 90 minutes I've experienced in
a long time.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9630 alt.politics.bush:8570 alt.politics.elections:16034
From: Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:04:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

I have an honest question for conservatives that plan to vote for George
Bush.  Do you believe that while in  Moscow during 1969 that Bill Clinton
met with and was influenced by the KGB or other anti-American forces?  Do
you believe that this trip casts any doubt on his ability to be a good
President?  If you say yes to either or both could you please explain
the bases for the belief.


Kelly Burns
Burns@ipfwcvax
Burns@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10596 alt.politics.bush:9286
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: China and Health Care interviews
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:12:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Oct15.040610.15970@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Both of my roommates are graduate students from mainland China;
>one is in anthropology, the other in economics; they agree that
>Clinton's ideas as expressed in the debate would be very bad and
>that Bush's granting of MFN was wise in that it opened the way
>for peaceful 'westernization' of China(free-market tendencies)
>rather than cause China to close up and crack down(defensiveness).

   The current (ancient) leaders don't exhibit any inclination to
not crack down and it is likely that anyone who disagreed with that
policy will be purged from the party and government. WHAT INCENTIVE
DOES GRANTING MFN GIVE THEM TO CHANGE ?


>	Some orthopaedic surgeons I spoke to agreed that Clinton's
>health care was a crock, saying that "it will never work."

  And of course one always gets completely unbiased, objective
judgements from individuals who have a very lucrative stake in
the status quo.

>	Taken from the mouthes of people who know and live it, not
>the people who live off the government's presence thereof.

   Live it perhaps. Know and believe are other questions.


-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: casey@anxiety.lexmark.lex.usa.na (Patrick Casey)
Subject: About the VP debate.
X-Disclaimer: These views are the poster's and not necessarily those of Lexmark
Reply-To: pacasey@lexmark.com
Organization: Lexmark International, Lexington KY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:34:54 GMT


Didn't it strike anyone besides me as incredibly rude, how Quayle
interrupted Gore during Gore's opening remarks?  (The Truman, Kennedy
comment). 

Keep in mind that I'm talking about the first part of the debate only.
Everybody was interrupting everybody else later, but that was mostly
during the "free exchange" part I believe.

Also, am I the only one who would love to get rid of the audiences in
these debates?  No matter what the moderators say, the audience
INSISTS on clapping, howling, hissing, drooling, etc.

My $.02.

Patrick
--
Patrick A. Casey      pacasey@lexmark.com         Hi, I.S. big brothers!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8913 tx.politics:5910
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:11:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Oct7.143532.15645@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

[...fred j mccall explains deficit spending...]

>Not allowing deficit spending forces government into a pro-cyclical
>fiscal role.  What that means is that instead of government spending
>acting to 'smooth out' the ups and downs of the economy (with
>accomodating monetary policy), it now must act to REINFORCE them.
>This occurs because government revenues will drop during economic bad
>times (because GNP drops) and they aren't allowed to run a deficit.
>Ideally, the government should run a deficit during bad economic times
>and a surplus during good economic times.  The reason we're in trouble
>now is because they've forgotten that second part up in Washington.
>For further detail, look in the card catalog under 'Economics:
>Keynesian'. 

OK, while I can understand the point you're making here (note that I'm
not saying I agree with you, just that I can see that you might have a
point) the problem as I see it is that not only do we deficit spend
while things are bad, but we deficit spend while things are good which
you pointed out at the end of this paragraph.  Sort of like corporate
execs who justify their high salaries while the economy and their
companies are experiencing problems, "You need to pay us high wages to
chart a course through the rough waters of a troubled economy."  Then
they justify their high salaries while the economy and their companies
are doing well, "You need to pay us high wages because we're doing such
a good job leading these companies."

I suppose I wouldn't have a problem w/deficit spending for the reasons
you describe IFF it was balanced against years in which we had budget
surpluses to balance the deficits.  For now, my opposition to deficit
spending is that I believe that budging one inch and allowing it will
mean that we will ALWAYS get deficits.


Later,
Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Amazing!
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:29:41 EST
Summary: You asked for it, you got it.
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1bf3vbINN1gg@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.104856.4735@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <92286.122240STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>, STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Stan Horwitz) writes:
> 
>  >> Our economy is in a dither thanks to Reagan spending so much and
>  >
>  >	Nope.  The economy during Reagan's two terms was wonderful.  We pulled
>  >out of the stagflation of the 70s into the largest peacetime expansion ever.
> 
> This second statment is true, problem is he charged it, instead of paying
> for it.....
> 
> Tax cut ?          sure charge it !
> 
> Military buildup ? sure charge it !
> 
> Reagan was called the teflon president, wrong, he should have been
> called the "plastic president" 

	Ahhh, I've receieved an email with the same forgetfulness.  I guess
it's time for "Derailing the Reagan Revolution" (again) :).

> It's kind of ironic to go back and watch the malaise speech by President
> Carter, he was right, take a look around.

	It's incredibly funny that you take a *decline* from the Reagan years
as proof that the Reagan years weren't that good.

	Anyway, read "Derailing" and reply (if you ca) to that.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: # 1 in the world?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 15:16:52 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	America is a military super-power, #1 in the world.  So many 
times we heard this from Prez. Bush.  I have some serious doubts now
about this. In the first debate he said that he successfully handled
the problems in Panama and Gulf. Also he added that he would not put 
the US life on line in an unsure territory, Bosnia. "I don't want an
other VietNam", said the President.  Well my questions:

1. Though it is yet to be proved, there are allegations against Prez.
   regarding  the "association"  between him and  the "dictators" of 
   Panama and Iraq. It implies that the #1 in the world engaged only 
   with the ex-buddies of the commander of armed force.

2. President is not ready to take on Bosnia. Reason?  He is not sure 
   about the situation and victory.  What does he mean?  He is ready
   to go to war only if he is  sure of victory.  That is to say, the
   bottom line is not  democracy or humanity, but victory.  Well, in
   case if Serbians attack the  US Embassy and capture the staff, US 
   armed forces are not going to fight, unless the President is sure 
   about the "victory".  Still he claims that we are the # 1......

V:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Tax Numbers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:20:38 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct15235511@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>Clinton says he's only going to raise taxes on families whose incomes
>are in the upper 2% -- those making over $200,000.  Bush says Clinton
>can't possibly raise his $150 billion by only taxing the upper 2%.

>Since I trust neither, I decided to some rough back-of-the-envelope
>calculations:

Actually, you are overstating the amount Clinton would raise. The upper
*5%* earns about $425 billion per year (source: World Almanac). To
earn that much you need to have a family income of above $95,000 (well
below Clinton's 200,000). Applying Clinton's tax plan to the top 5%
will only yeild $21 billion in new taxes.

Yet when asked how he will pay for his $150 billion in new spending he
always says he will take it from the rich.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10356 alt.politics.bush:9106 alt.politics.correct:5681
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:23:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.718901116@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Oct9.175054.24315@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct9.062031.17714@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> The fact is, that it 
>>is against the law for anyone to hang around outside bars and wait 
>>for someone to beat up.  If charges are not getting pressed, or 
>>perpetrators go free, then let's dean with the judicial system 
>>(IMO get most of the liberal, criminals rights types out of robes.)
>
>I wonder why I'm not surprised?  Of course you want to get rid of
>those liberal types...they're the ones who tend to follow the 
>Constitution rather than the law-and-order doctrine that George
>Wallace, Bush, etc. advocate.  I'm sick of criminal rights being
>slammed.  Believe it or not, not everyone who goes to jail deserves
>to be there.  Criminal rights are citizens rights, pure and simple.

My God!  Are you out of your mind?  Liberal judges follow the 
Constitution?  How about all of the NEW rights that the liberal 
supreme court found in the Constitution over the period from the 
50's to the 80's?  The conservative court that we have now actually 
reads the Constitution and tries to find out what the framers meant 
when they read something.  Do you want examples of liberal justices 
creating rights?  Why don't you find a law book and look up "Judicial 
Activism?"

>>By the way, should white people be encouraged to be blackophobic 
>>simply because I can list as many annecdotes about black people 
>>mugging white people as you would like to hear?
>
>Whoops!  We have a budding racist here!  (Maybe a full-blown one!)
>Go ahead, asshole, give me some statistics.  They should be amusing.

Pay attention.  I was trying to show you that annecdotal examples are 
NOT good enough to make claims by.  I was trying to show you that just 
because some stupid criminal heterosexuals beat up on gays that is no 
reason for the gay community to fear all heterosexuals.  Get it?  
kinda like (get ready, I'm going to try to use my former example to 
clarify this one more time) white people whould not be afraid of 
black people (or vice versa) just because a few blacks beat up a few 
whites.  There.  Got it?

And by the way, why is it always liberals who resort to name-calling?  
I have my own theory.  When your point deteriorates, you get frustrated, 
and call names.

Ted


-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Adm. Stockdale as Veep candidate...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:54:00 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes...

>	Stockdale was merely a placeholder on Perot's ballots.  Perot obviously
>intended to get someone else to run.

I sent a letter to Ross supporting Stockdale, about a month ago.

What appeals to me is his involvement in so many of the extremes of
life, and the historical events which have shaped our times -- he was 
never on the sidelines. I think his wisdom, gained through hard 
experience, beats all the bluster and plastic that both parties can
project anyday.

Have you judged the man on one TV event, and against hollywood images?

This is a man they make movies about -- a real blood and flesh living
human being, who has met fate and excelled where lesser men fell. And
how would you have done -- though the fright gripped you in panic -- 
knowing that many millions depended on you before so many other millions 
watching? A lesser man would have locked-up all together. 

It made me remember the first time I parachuted out of plane, everything
was happening way too quick. I couldn't think fast enough to deal with
all it. Though prepared, my mind simply overloaded on the wash of new
experiences, and I was numb -- fortunately the training kicked in. And
thank God nothing got hung.

I only had to get through 2 minutes of feeling like stone. Jim Stockdale
had to endure an hour-and-a-half. But he didn't freeze when caught in the 
lights -- he worked through it and we witnessed what it's like -- no act.

If Yeltsin is assassinated, and nuclear intercontinental missile 
batteries are engaged to force the world to back down. Who do you
want up there... Dan Quayle, Al Gore, or Jim Stockdale? Few have been 
there before -- perhaps John Kennedy? Who will freeze, who will fall
back on drill, and who will deal it head on?

When it comes time for social security to be cut -- who do you think 
our Grandparents would rather be there watching over the Senate (who
I think are a much more real threat than nuclear terrorists)?

And when the Democrats and Republicans herd more pork onto the Senate
floor -- who do you want standing over them... another slithering congress
creep like Dan Quayle or Al Gore? Or someone who's only too human and 
yet when the call to action came, he measured up larger than life -- that's 
Jim Stockdale.

You can't find those answers on television.

>Brett                                                      

-- Stephen Tice     

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Forward an article from another group, 
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:31:00 GMT

Article: 1734 of talk.politics.china
From: poppy@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: A Moral Issue
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:49:04 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

President Bush indicated in the last night show that it was wrong for Clinton
to demonstrate against his own country (against U. S. policy in Viet-Nam War)
in a foreign territory though Bush did seem to more tolerate the demonstration
before the White House during Gulf War.

Cliton was against U. S. invasion when he was in England in 70's.
Those Chinese students are against the "CCP dictatorship" in U. S today.
What is the difference?

It seems to me that dirty politicians sometimes consider issues "morally" rather
than politcially.

I think it was politically right for Mr. Clinton to demonstrate against U. S.
wherever since he believed the war was wrong for americans and world peace.

If it is morally wrong, can it be politically right?

Dose Mr. Bush think it is morally wrong for Chinese students to demonstrate
against their own country (represented by the CCP goverment) ? 


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10278 talk.politics.misc:51582 alt.politics.bush:9057
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:57:48 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1bhsilINNous@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
> due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
> of his billions last year. 
> 
> Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Timothy B. Reynolds
> CLINTON/GORE
> Election Campaign '92
> Houston, Tx 

How much did he make last year??? I know he didn't make billions!!!

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9844 alt.politics.perot:1985 alt.politics.bush:8713
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Debate I: my favorite one-liner
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:40:43 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

It didn't make the post-mortem sound bites, but my favorite zinger was by
Perot with an assist from moderator Jim Lehrer: near the beginning Perot
was bagging heavily on Bush, and Lehrer said "You're out of time." a couple
of times.  Perot broke off in mid-sentence and looked toward Bush (didn't
he?) and echoed "You're out of time."

	Jim, ROTFL
-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	jim@rand.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9080 tx.politics:5928 austin.politics:188 austin.talk:243 austin.general:3144