HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:51:32
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov's message of Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:15:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.021513.22956@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
     So Reagan can't take credit for the boom years and Bush can't be blamed
   for the stagnant years.  People had good times spending like crazy and now

But he did, and that's what irks me.  Moreover, Bush did too.  Like your
heading says: You get what you deserve.  For taking all the credit he could
in 1988, Bush deserves to lose it all now.  Call it a credit plan for the
Presidency.  :->

	---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu


   -- 
   Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
   NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "Well, if (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) are moderates, I'm | These pontifications
   a world champion speller." - Vice-President Dan Quayle  |      are my own!    
--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4595 alt.politics.clinton:4719 alt.rush-limbaugh:4500 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5223
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:23:27 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
|> 
|> George Bush could cure cancer tomorrow and some people might cliam he
|> did not act fast ennough.  Either that or claim he only did it because this
|> was a political year.
|> >
No, we would wonder why he was spending his time in the lab and not in the
white house.  Bush was elected President of the United States by the people
of the United States.  His primary job is our overall welfare.  Not his
long suit.
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:23:14 GMT

Mr. LaFave, I would like to know why you think the rag is biased.
Also, when you respond on the net you are not only responding to Mark, you are,
in reality, speaking to everyone.  You have kept this flame-war alive as much 
as anyone else by having to have the last word.  If you think someone's post is
a personal insult, respond by E-Mail and tell him so, if not then respond to 
the constructive comments on the net or don't respond at all.  You should also 
be a little bit more careful in your demand for politeness since you have 
demonstrated that you can sink to the level that you say you deplore.

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Clinton Staff Blasts 'numbers game'
Summary: Associated Press Article
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:45:59 GMT

LITTLE ROCK, Ark.(AP)-

Is the great tax debate over? Bill Clinton's staff has released a list
that shows 127 tax and fee increases during his tenure as governor, one
less than the number cited by the Bush-Quayle campaign.
	That might surprise people who remember Clinton aide George
Stephanopoulos calling the 128-item list issued by the Republican camp
as "ludicrous." He said the list "shows that the Bush-Quayle committee
can add about as well as Dan Quayle can spell."
	Clinton himself said about the Bush-Quayle list:"Like they said
they know it's not true, but they do it because they think it works."
	But his own list compiled by the Arkansas Department of Finance
and Administration, says there were 34 tax increases and 93 fee increases
during Clinton's 12 years in office, for a total of 127.
	His list also includes 73 instances in which taxes ws.
Clinton's been governor.
	The Bush-Quayle list counted at least four fees or taxes twice,
which means the ticket actually listed 124 increases.  Items on the
Clinton list do not always concur with the Bush-Quayle list, but the
bottom line is nearly the same: Going strictly by the numbers, Clinton
can't quibble with the Bush-Quayle line.
	But the debate doesn't stop there. Betsey Wright, the Clinton aide
who had the list compiled, said Clinton's point has always been that Bush
used minor fees to distort the Arkansas governor's tax record, and the 
president is lying about his own tax record. 
	Before last month's Republican  convention, Bush surrogates 
accused Clinton of raising 128 taxes, without mentioning fees, but Wright
Bush and Quayle were careful in Houston to say Clinton raised 128 taxes
and fees, but Wright said the damage was already done.
	"They're careful now to say taxes and fees, but they've already
established in people's minds that it's just taxes," she said.
	Part of the problem is the definition of tax. The bulk of the items
on both lists are standard user fees, such as court costs for convicts.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:29:20 GMT

In article <mykes.0dfl@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

	[re: maybe GHWB called the governer and offered aid, and was refused]

>Alex, sounds like you were eavesdropping on the phone call.  How the heck do you
>know Bush didn't make the offer?  How do you know he wasn't anticipating a yes?
>YOU would paint him to look distracted...  it serves your agenda nicely.  And
>reinforcing what _SOME_ people think.

	Mike, do you think before you write? If Bush had made an offer of
federal aid, and the offer was refused, I'm sure that we would have heard 
about it by now. Bushs own comments "He [the governer] could have called
me sooner" indicate that no converstation ever happened.

	[re: the federal bailout after HUGO]

>He did, at the expense of the economy and hence his image...

	Lessee, first Lyndon Johnson killed the economy, or was it Carter,
then it was the deadlock congress, and now it's Hugo. Where will the buck 
stop next?

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:41:02 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

: Have you seen the figures on the increase in youth crime, teenage
: pregnancy, violence among youths, and so forth? Liberal control of the
: educational establishment and entertainment has certainly provided us with
: an interesting set of moral absolutes.

Funny.  I thought parents were supposed to teach their kids morals, not
the Government or its various agencies.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                     


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4461 alt.politics.clinton:4518 alt.politics.elections:12676
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton makes Quayle look like a genius (was Re: A few things)
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:14:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
@mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
@>    Even if he doesn't intend to appoint him, how can he say that Cuomo
@> would make a good justice after earlier saying that he's tied to the mob.
@> I suppose next he'll say that John Gotti would make a good Secretary of
@> State {:^) .  His pandering really showed through when he made that
@> statement.
@
@Hey, bubba, I gave you seven examples of Bush's pandering since 1980.  Do you
@have any response to those, or are you just going to be a broken record?

I don't think it's productive to play a numbers game. "I can name Bush's
pandering in three notes." "I can name Clinton's in two." ...

First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush did pander to ... let me
see, the Religious Fundamentalists, the pro-lifers, the NRA, China(?),
... I can only guess four of your pander-bears -- since 1980. We do
elect politicians to represent us and get government funding for us.

On the other hand, whenever Bush is pandering to the conservatives, he's
described as "securing their tenuous vote" (which is partly true) which
is some fringe element of society (which could be true). However, when
Clinton panders off to liberals, I don't hear any whispering of him
"securing their tenuous vote" (which is partly true) which is some
fringe element of society (which could be true).

I don't know if a man who can call the opposition party the home of
American "nazis" (sorry, can't recall the quote) could be qualified
to sit on the highest judiciary bench in the land.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Bush Declines Debates: WHY?
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:39:16 GMT

In article <Bu2t2K.6Fs@mail.boi.hp.com> rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) writes:
>
>Okay, can anyone give me a good reason why GHWB declined the presidential
>debates?  I can't believe that this would be in his campaigns best interests.
>Debates have come to be expected and are the norm for presidential elections
>so what gives?  Is he really that afraid of being exposed as having no ideas?
>Are the republicans terrified at the prospect of an unmuzzled Dan Quayle going
>off half cocked?  What kind of positive spin can they think they will get out
>of this cowardly decision?
>
>Anyone???

Here is a wild guess:

 Bush wants to lose.

 Why?
 
 Bush isn't an ultra right winger, before coming into office he was fairly
 liberal on social issues, and even called Reagans plans vodoo economics.
 Maybe Bush doesn't feel like being a pawn of the radical right for another
 four years? As far as his position in the history books he is much better
 off if he quits now. The blame for the current economy will largely fall
 on Reagan while Bush will get some credit (although not nearly what he
 claims) for handling the collapse of communism. 
 But if he doesn't quit now....
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5049 talk.politics.misc:45343 alt.politics.clinton:5326
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:52:07 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep10.212650.8832@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>The National Review is run by Buckley and has the likes of Reagan, Selleck,
>and Heston doing adds for it. These do not exactly constitute a covey of
>liberals. Read the rag sometime and then tell me what constitutes bias
>journalism.

>Dr. Norman J. LaFave

Wow Doc, truth by innuendo.  Is this the kind of research you did to
get your Phd.  Yes these gentlemen are well known as having a conservative
bent.  They must like the magazine, otherwise they would not do adds for
it.

Therefor the rag is biased and not worth reading.  NOT.

You still have not given any evidence to back up your claims.  All you have
done is ask us to prove you wrong.  I guess you did not take any classes
in logic along the way to the Phd of yours.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:13:39 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <Sep.7.12.04.01.1992.8034@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
- john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
- 
- > The fact that the trial lawyers are overwhelming supporting Clinton
- > and putting huge amounts of money into his campaign.
- 
- It seems to me like the last time I saw actual numbers on this, Bush
- led Clinton in number of dollars raised from trial lawyers.  Of
- course, that report was about a month ago and may be out of date.
- Does anyone have more recent numbers to back up or refute this claim?
- 
- --Scott

Figures I saw in august said the trial lawyers *association* had given
about $2.5 million to Clinton and $1.3 million to Bush. I have never
seen a tally other law organizations or law firms or law firm PACS or
individual lawyers. It would not surprise me to learn that when PACS
and individuals are added in to the total, the republicans may have
received more than the Democrats. Does anyone have any figures on PAC
receipts for repubs & dems?
						- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:56:21 GMT


mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:

	Rude statements deleted

>   Sir, These are tough times, tougher times than before, to most people.

You weren't around for Carter apparently, kid.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4597 alt.politics.clinton:4721 alt.politics.elections:12758
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Date: 10 Sep 1992 16:11:53 GMT
Organization: Read my Lips
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep10.044420.4763@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>  Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
>missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimneys'.
>Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
>thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
>Dukakis tank ride all over again.
>

Are these the same analysts who told us that the Patriots were 90%
successful during the PG War, then 80% then 70% then finally revealed
that there was only _one_ confirmed kill of a Scud by a Patriot and
that the Patriots had exacerbated the damage in Israel?

With all the misinformation coming out of the DoD, it's surprising
that anyone can speak intelligently about defense matters.  Some
people even think that Bush stated half a dozen times that it was
a war "with Saddam Hussein, not a war with the Iraqi people."  A
quick survey of the corpses would seem to indicate that he could
not possibly have said that.
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Bush is "never, never going to raise taxes again" and if you even
mention it he's going to get his Daddy to beat up your Daddy.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5057 alt.politics.clinton:5333 talk.abortion:36406
From: nfs@kastle (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:20:24 GMT

In article <kZsqqB3w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>nfs@tyrolia (Norbert Schlenker) writes:

>> The majority thinks it's time that the peace dividend gets paid out;
>> there are certainly no lack of domestic problems at which money can
>> be thrown, and at which people expect it to be thrown.
>
>As to the peace dividend, that's one of the biggest myths of the
>'90s.  You forget that most of the defense budget is a giant jobs program...

I don't forget it, but a majority of the electorate "knows" that the
peace dividend is coming.  All the talk is about how to spend it, and
ignores the fact that most of the current defense budget is already
spent in the U.S.  The alternatives to blowing this money on defense
goods are legion - ask any politician where he could use a few extra
hundred billion - but the politicians are ignoring the fact that 
diverting these funds to "domestic programs" will result in less
domestic economic activity.  That won't stop them, of course.

All you Democrats had better hope Bill Clinton doesn't win in
November.  The depression is coming, and whoever wins is going to be
raked over the coals for not doing enough to stop it.  Do you really
want Clinton to be the next worst thing to Herbert Hoover in the
public's mind?  Believe me, you want Bush to win - he'll be the last
Republican president for a long long time.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: Bush, Owls and Trees
Reply-To: ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:01:58 GMT

In article <ARILD.92Sep15104524@milan.ims.uni-stuttgart.de>, arild@milan.ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Arild Hestvik) writes:
> George Bush is now going to veto any extension of the law that protects the
> spotted owl (i.e. preventing timbering in areas with this endangered
> species). This to save jobs in the timber industry. George: "It's time we put
> PEOPLE ahead of OWLS!"

And George Bush is a cock sucking ass hole too.  When the remaining forests are cut
down, not only will there not be any owls, but there won't be any timber jobs either.
Just another indication of the complete lack of long-term planning about anything
by Bush.  He's a desperate man if I've ever seen one.  But it is rather enjoyable
to watch grovel for a few votes
-- 
Ron Williams
ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com

	Utah - the state that wants to put a Pizza Hut in the
 	middle of Zion National Park.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4982 alt.politics.clinton:5238 alt.politics.perot:1464 rec.humor:28546 talk.bizarre:29979 talk.politics.misc:45218 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5339
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Sep 92 06:18:28 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
|alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
|	   Rush may not be interested in running for office, but he's
|   sure interested in becoming a Republican party insider. There's big
|   rewards available for someone who can be a daily 3 hour commercial
|   for the Republican party.

|There are?  Care to enumerate these rewards?  

You ask *this* stupid question of the political party 
that raped HUD?  

Trim your newsgroups line, if you can figure out how.
You don't have permission to crosspost to talk.bizarre
until you can demonstrate that you have a cerebral cortex.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"I am going tomorrow where I shall find a man who has not one agreeable
quality, who has neither manner nor sense to recommend him.  Stupid men
are the only ones worth knowing, after all."   Jane Austen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5006 alt.politics.clinton:5272
From: sbbrown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen B. Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:32:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University Radio Observatory

In article <1992Sep14.010305.28786@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>	Clinton says he's going to:
>	1)	cut taxes
>	2)	balance the budget
>	3)	reduce the federal deficit
>	4)	institute national health care
>	5)	start a jobs and worker retraining package
>
>	Where's he going to get the money from???
>
>pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA


	Bush says he's going to:
	1)	cut taxes
	2)	balance the budget
	3)	reduce the federal deficit
	4)	provide broader health care [hasn't said how]
	5)	start a jobs package [he's done several just this year]

	Where's he going to get the money from???

	This is an interesting observation, but it doesn't provide much
of a basis for making a choice.
-- 
Steve Brown, N8HFI              sbbrown@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Chief Engineer, The Ohio State University Radio Observatory ("Big Ear")
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections