HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:13:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.031141.26634@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <iqnd9jq@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct12.050859.10782@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> >>
> >>There will be ice floes on the River Styx if Clinton becomes President.
> >
> >It sure will be nice when we get an administration who can deal with reality
> >for a change.  21 more days!
> >
> Saying that there will be ice floes on the River Styx is a polite way
> of stating the unlikliness of something.  Think of where Styx is supposed
> to be, and imagine it getting cold there...
 
Granted the ignorance of sarcasm is a terrible crime, but forgive the
person due to the circumstances ... perhaps you can tell us exactly
how Bill Clinton can AVOID being President?  If you look at the state
polls published here the other day and count all states where he leads
by 10% or more, he's in.  Bush can have the rest.

What magic does George Baker ... oops, I mean BUSH ... have that he can
salvage a victory with his abysmal popularity?  I'd really like to know.
 
*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8288 alt.politics.clinton:9219 alt.politics.elections:15736
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: BUSH:  Innuendo update
Date: 9 Oct 1992 02:34:19 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

This week's additions to Mr. Bush's campaign by innuendo and speculation:

10/04/92  -  Larry King Live [about giving loans to Saddam Hussein]

    KING: Loans? Did we give him loans?
    BUSH: Yeah. Do you know who wanted to make loans, grain 
          credit loans, and got ahold of Mr. Hamdoun, the
          Iraq ambassador, on grain credits?  Governor Clinton. 

10/05/92  -  Good Morning America [about Bush's statement the day before]

    GIBSON:  Were you implying that the governor had done anything wrong?
    BUSH:    No.

So the pattern is already clear -- make a rediculous statement, get all
the news stations to carry the quote, then take it back the next day.
However, Bush couldn't quite stop there.  He had to make the issue
sound sinister -somehow-..

    BUSH: [...] But it's ironic, isn't it, that the Iraqi 
          ambassador meets with the governor of Arkansas, unless 
          the governor of Arkansas has something to do with 
          encouraging rice sales, grain sales, to Iraq.

Which, of course, was exactly the case.  Clinton had in fact met with 
the Iraqi ambassador in 1986 when he was in Arkansas for a meeting with 
rice interests.  "As governor, I had a courtesy meeting with him",
in a time when relations with Iraq were "normalized" by Reagan.  

But wait, there's more!

10/07/92  -  Larry King Live  [about Clinton's trip to Moscow]

    BUSH: Larry, I don't want to tell you what I really think
          'cause I don't have the facts. I don't have the facts. But
          to go to Moscow 1 year after Russia crushed Czechoslovakia,
          not remember who you saw--I think, I really think the answer
          is level with the American people. 

10/08/92  -  Houston, TX

    WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN MARLIN FITZWATER:  We don't know anything 
          about the Moscow trip -- we don't really know why he went or 
          what he was doing.

..So there's the retraction.  No big surprise -- the reaction to Bush's
statement by moderates and undecided voters was to refer to it as
a reminder of McCarthyism, "Red Scare", etc.

So that leaves us with the obvious question -- what statement will they
make tomorrow (Friday) and then retract on Saturday?

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8098 alt.politics.clinton:8972 talk.bizarre:33242 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5056 talk.abortion:41240
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:38:51 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Oct15.173941.7395@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, pat@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:
> Allen Halsell (cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov) wrote:
> 
>>It will be _much_ worse.  If the networks bother to make predictions like
>>last time, they'll project Clinton around 6 p.m. Eastern (if not 6 a.m :-)
> 
> 	i seem to recall that the networks have made some kind
> of gentleman's agreement that they will not make any predictions
> until all the polls are closed in the lower 48.

  I don't think any such agreement exists, though they have agreed not to
project a winner in a given state before the polls have closed in that state. 
I'd say, barring a major blunder by Bill, he could be projected the winner by
about 8:05 PM CDT.

  And yes, that's about when Reagan was made the winner, as I remember in 1980. 
As far as 60% of the vote goes, I think Perot might get as much as 20% of it,
so Bush would have to still blunder badly to get down to 20% himself.

						Mike Falkner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:11:41 GMT

In article <iqnd9jq@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.050859.10782@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>There will be ice floes on the River Styx if Clinton becomes President.
>
>Groovy.  First the VP gets all het up over what a fictional character does or
>doesn't do on a TV show, now we get weather predictions for a mythological
>river for November 4, 1992.  Can any Bush supporter deal with reality, or is
>that asking too much?  Is this the reason why Bush has been incapable of
>working with Congress, a congregation of real, live, adult men and women, not
>some fictional collection of imaginary people?
>
>It sure will be nice when we get an administration who can deal with reality
>for a change.  21 more days!
>
Saying that there will be ice floes on the River Styx is a polite way
of stating the unlikliness of something.  Think of where Styx is supposed
to be, and imagine it getting cold there...

Simon

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9260 alt.politics.clinton:10557 alt.politics.elections:16935 alt.rush-limbaugh:7466
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:41:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <1992Oct14.225858.16983@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

>Nobody (but you, so far) is equating tort reform with denying rights.
>I don't want to deny your right to legal recourse in the event of
>malpractice; I merely want to make sure you get more than your lawyer
>does.

	Then you want to deny me the right to pay my council whatever
I choose.  The whole point of tort reform is putting restrictions on
the individuals right to sue. You either want to make it more difficult
for me to sue my doctor by restricting the amount that I can spend on
a lawyer, or make it more dangerous to sue by making me liable for reverse
costs, or you want to limit the amount that I can receive for my injury.

	Don't get me wrong - I've been the victim of frivioulos lawsuits
and watched my insurance company get blackmailed into paying for injuries
that did not happen. I've also watched people try to back tort reform
without sucess. Not only do the lawyers dislike it, but the public doesn't
care for it either. It seems that part of the american dream is getting
rear ended so you can buy a new car.

>Again, your right to sue will not be infringed. Several states have put
>caps on the amount someone can sue for in a particular case. It's been
>put to the test.

	Uh huh. And look at the overwelming popularity of No fault insurance.


>I doubt that. We've got hundreds of seats up for grabs in Congress, and
>there is a substantial anti-incumbent mood in America. Bush may have
>problems passing legislation to help America and it's economy if he
>faces a Democratic Congress (like he has lately with the much-needed
>capital gains tax), but who knows what'll happen next month?


	Sorry bud, but it looks like we're not only looking at a
democratic congress, but we're looking at *more* democrats in the
Senate and a continuing majority in the house. It's a good thing 
Bush won't have to deal with that, huh?



-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8249 alt.politics.clinton:9148 talk.bizarre:33354 misc.test:11621 talk.abortion:41448
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,misc.test,alt.fan,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fathers, abortion
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:15:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct8.231551.7211
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things

In article <1992Oct8.035325.25496@athena.cs.uga.edu> milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister) writes:
>From ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu Wed Oct  7 23:04:26 1992
>
>DON> What is your address?  I'd like to come over and take everything you
>DON> own.  Its my choice after all.  If theft is not the right choice for
>DON> you, then don't steal.  But don't try to force your moral convictions
>DON> on others.
>
>	Don, look.  The subject of whether or not a woman has control over 
>	her own body has absolutly nothing, nata, zilch, read-my-lips
>	NOTHING to do with stealing.  

Of course it does.  Didn't George Herbert Hoover Bush say he'd
support his granddaughter if she'd have an abortion, just like he'd
support her if she were caught stealing?  Are you contradicting the
President of Our Great Land?  Even if he will be out in a few more
weeks...


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: early@vela.acs.oakland.edu (early)
Subject: New Book
Keywords: Finance, Bank, Savings, Mortgage, Interest Rate
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: w
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:40:02 GMT

Research Solutions to the Financial Problems of Depository
Institutions by J. Austin Murphy.

For further information contact:  Dr. J. Austin Murphy, School
of Business Administration, Oakland University, Rochester, MI
48309-4401, U.S.A.  or JAMURPHY@oakland or Tel.:  313-370-2125.
:wq

-- 
Kevin E. Early                     Tel.:    313-370-2961
Assistant Professor of Sociology   e-mail:  early@vela.acs.oakland.edu   
Department of Sociology                     early@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Oakland University                 FAX:     313-370-4280
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9069 alt.politics.clinton:10297 alt.politics.elections:16662
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:56:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Oct14.031141.26634@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Saying that there will be ice floes on the River Styx is a polite way
>of stating the unlikliness of something.  Think of where Styx is supposed
>to be, and imagine it getting cold there...
>
>Simon
   
   Your ignorance shines through on all your posts, but this is as
   good as any to pick.  Styx is not associated with the xian hell,
   which is obviously what you *think* you're thinking of.  Even that 
   association is wrong: as Dante describes it, portions of the xian hell
   are room temperature, and the innermost portion is eternally 
   frozen (where Styx would end up, if any of this existed).
    
   Wayne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:31:28 GMT


In article <Sep.30.09.44.18.1992.1435@romulus.rutgers.edu>, 
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) said:

> > We do not have 70% of the world's lawyers.  We have LESS THAN 10%.
> > Many countries--Japan, West Germany, Italy, and much of South
> > America--have more lawyers per capita than the US.
> 
> Again, by what definition?

Well, I'm a law student, but I'll try to apply some common sense here
anyway... since Quayle was talking about the situation in America
vis-a-vis lawyers, it seems that _in this context_ the definition of
"lawyer" should be "someone who, if he did in the United States what he
is currently doing in his native country, would be called a lawyer."

Under this definition, I don't think that Quayle's "70%" figure flies.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9595 alt.politics.clinton:11126 alt.politics.elections:17457 alt.rush-limbaugh:7691
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:20:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct15.034149.11160@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.225858.16983@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>
>>Nobody (but you, so far) is equating tort reform with denying rights.
>>I don't want to deny your right to legal recourse in the event of
>>malpractice; I merely want to make sure you get more than your lawyer
>>does.
>
>	Then you want to deny me the right to pay my council whatever
>I choose.  The whole point of tort reform is putting restrictions on
>the individuals right to sue. You either want to make it more difficult
>for me to sue my doctor by restricting the amount that I can spend on
>a lawyer, or make it more dangerous to sue by making me liable for reverse
>costs, or you want to limit the amount that I can receive for my injury.

I'm sure a big reason why Clinton doesn't back tort reform as blithely as
Bush claims to is that a tort reform law has to be very precise and clever
to get around constitutional problems.  Bush has no experience with consti-
tutional law.  Clinton has taught the subject.  Clinton is obviously aware
of the difficulties.

Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|		"Never" is about six months.   -- Charlie Gibbs		      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Too Close for Comfort
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.193218.1993@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>"Bill Clinton."  Actually I'm enjoying myself tremendously.  Now the
>Republicans know how so many Democrats have felt for the last 12
>years ... as far as Bush pulling it out, don't hold your breath.
>I've been there; it's hopeless.  I suggest you put it aside and start
>thinking about Jack Kemp to make yourself feel better.
>
>Any other Dems out there feeling unexplained emotional highs from
>time to time?

There, there.  Let's not gloat.  At least until Bush loses Texas.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Will we even know on November 3: Split electorate?
Originator: news@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:31:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

What do "you people" (sorry, Ross) think of the possibility of a split
electorate on Election Day?

Please no flames here:
If there's anyone who's not sure what I mean, it's that a candidate must
have a majority of votes from the electoral college. Majority -- not
plurality. That means that you've got to have 268 of the 535 electors
casting votes for you. In a three man race, that's a problem.

If the electorate is split, (please -- someone correct me if I screw this
up) the House votes among the top three Presidential candidates, and the
Senate chooses between the top two VP hopefuls. I believe it's the new
house -- not the lame duck house -- that votes.

							- greg
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8034 alt.politics.clinton:8890 alt.politics.libertarian:659
From: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com (Carl Paukstis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: monopolies (Was: Re: cable TV)
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:28:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser) writes:

>Your analogy is meaningless. Imagine that McDonalds is the only 
>restaurant in your town. In fact, imagine that it's the only source
>of food in your town.  In order to eat other food you have to 
>move to another town. Now imagine that McDonalds decides to start
>charging $5 for a Big Mac. Next month they up the price to $7. 
>Then $10. Then $12.  Are you gonna move or are you gonna ask for
>someone to control their prices?  

I don't know about YOU, tovarisch, but _I_ am gonna open a hamburger
stand!  Who's gonna stop me?  The same folks who aren't stopping McD's
from charging $12 per burger?  I own a frying pan, knife, stove, sink,
etc. and a pickup truck to go get the ingredients.

I will almost certainly branch out into pizza, or even groceries!  I'm
gonna make a fortune capitalizing (!) on the stupidity of all those
folks living in this hypothetical town who didn't think of this idea
before me.  I'm gonna make a pile right away, by selling at about 80%
of McD's prices, and I'm gonna salt it all away because REAL soon I'm
gonna have competition.

This probably makes me evil?  After all, I could sell for $2.49 and
still make a profit.  And I probably will, when M. Laser's fantasy ends
and competition sets in.  But while I was raking in the dough, waiting
for McD's to regain sanity and the other folks in the town to wake up
and enter the market, I was profiteering at $10 (ONLY 20% cheaper than
McD's) instead of being a public service at $2.49, right?

(Imagine there was no AIR!  Wouldn't you DEMAND that the GOVERNMENT DO
SOMETHING?  Imagine we all lived on the moon and ate green cheese! Sheesh.)

Is M. Laser so obtuse that I must point out that these hypotheticals
just won't wash, because these monopolies just won't exist for long,
without government force backing them.  EVEN CABLE TV!  No, not just
DBS and other line-of-sight devices for competition, but actual coax
cable (or fiber) laid by another company could compete, given equal
access to rights-of-way, etc.
--
Carl Paukstis, RRR&RSG           | "Good men must not obey the laws too well"
 ISC-Bunker Ramo / Spokane, WA   |    -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
 Phone: +1 509 927-5439          |  
 Mail: carlp@frigg.isc-br.com    |  My employer accepts no responsibility...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:03:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.033816.14161@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>Now wait a minute, all you Clinton supporters are constantly espousing his
>great credentials (Georgetown lawyer, Rhodes scholar, etc.) and now you're
>saying that the best he can do in the real world is $35,000 a year to
>somehow cast him as a member of the middle class?  If he loses, at minimum
>he'll have a top position at his choice of Universities (at > $100,000 a
>year), but more likely he'd choose a seven figure salary at a big
>corporation as a Democratic lobbyist.  Look where Dukakis wound up -
>Harvard.

More like a choice to go into government, where salaries aren't as
high as, say, Wall Street.  Sure he could do better in private industry,
but some people consider public service an honorable career move.

When Clinton went into government, I don't think there was the same
revolving door as there is now.  Remember that his political maturity
occurred around JFK.  Remember Kennedy's ideal of public service.

Dukakis is at Northeastern, not Harvard.  I don't know what his stipend is.

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Bush in Fantasy Land
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:59:00 GMT

tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:

>In article <1760@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
>>> 
>>It hadn't even occurred to me that that's what Bush and his sleaze-doctors
>>were trying to imply until I heard various talk-show callers demanding to know
>>"the whole story" about Clinton's speeches in Red Square.  Listening carefully
>>to the debate last night, I was convinced that Bush was trying to do exactly
>>that by juxtaposing "Moscow" and "demonstrations against the US" without
>>actually saying it.

>Its a shame when Bush sinks to such lows, but I dislike it for another reason.
>Bush insults our intelligence when he thinks we care about non-issues.  I
[stuff deleted]
>There are great stakes involved in this election and only a moron would base
>their vote on character non-issues.

But don't hold your breath: I would not be surprised if we hear before Nov.
3 that Clinton is a child rapist and wife beater as well as a pot-smoking peace
activist working for the KGB (did anyone catch the funny program of Comrade
Clinton in Moskov on NPR last night?). Every day in the last few weeks the 
accusations have become more and more absurd. I believe that the Bush campaign 
*can* sink lower than this. Hey, who cares about the economy anyway? Main thing 
is that George, Dan and Jim can keep their jobs.

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu