HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 13 Oct 1992 21:25:22 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: ==> Bush: You Know He's Hurting--Paying For Good Spin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 October 13, 1992


                       YOU KNOW HE'S HURTING

       A First in Presidential Campaigns: Paying for Good Spin

     [Statement of Bob Boorstin, Deputy Communications Director]

      When it came to fanciful and bizarre campaign television ads, we
 thought we'd seen it all from the Bush campaign.

      But today's contribution adds new dimensions to the word
 desperate. You know you're really in trouble when you have to pay to
 try to convince people that you won a debate.

      Once he finishes paying for his spin, the ad turns back to what
 George Bush knows best: distorting Bill Clinton's plan.

      So at the risk of repeating ourselves -- and in contrast to what
 the citizens on the ad told the Bush cameras -- we repeat ourselves.

      Bill Clinton's plan will cut taxes on working families. The
 Clinton plan includes $60 billion over four years in middle class tax
 cuts and $12 billion in tax cuts for the working poor.

      Commenting on the Bush's campaign last ad to make such claims,
 The Wall Street Journal said, "...Mr. Clinton has proposed to cut
 taxes for the sort of [middle class] workers featured in the ad."
 [WSJ 10/2/92]

      George Bush and his admeisters can continue to talk about
 tax-and-spend. But that doesn't change the facts: the Clinton/Gore
 plan will cut $140 billion in federal spending, cut the deficit in
 half in four years, and give middle class families a tax cut of $300
 per child.
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Forward an article from another group,
Date: 9 Oct 1992 05:49:32 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <5907@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>documents? Why doesn't Clinton himself say what he did while in Moscow,
>and why doesn't there seem to be a definitive record of his activity
>there? Jane Fonda still is not seen very highly among many Vietnam vets

He did say; he said he was a tourist along with several of his
classmates -- including, it seems, a Reagan-appointed judge.

What do you mean by "defiitnitive record"? Clinton's postcard
collectioon? Some CIA report on the doings of all of the (thousands) of
tourists in Moscow?

This represents utter desperation: Vanya the KGB agent as Willie Horton.
andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: dbn7350@zeus.tamu.edu (NASH, DAVID BENNETT III)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.194546.19965@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...
>In article <1992Oct11.030319.9764@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.154536.10425@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>>>how is this fallacious?
>>>    1. irrisponsible behavior is the primary factor in the spread of AIDS
>>>    2. eliminating such behavior will slow the spread of AIDS dramatically.
>>>
>>> 
>Blah. Blah. Blah.  That's not what I see.  I see a media and advertising
>saying use a condom when they know that condoms aren't that effective
>in stopping AIDS.  I read a statistic of 16% failure in stopping the
>AIDS virus.  That doesn't sound too effective to me

That's also a 84% effective rate for condoms, and that's one hell of a lot
better than no condom at all.


[stuff about government wasting money on "no sex" pamphlets deleted]

> 
>I'm amazed that you actually stumbled onto a point.  You're right.  There
>are a lot of programs that could save more lives.  Most AIDS activists believe
>that AIDS is going to run wild.  If they are right then we need to make
>it a priority.  But I would much rather see all of the money spent on
>condom adds spent in education in how having sex especially anal
>sex spreads AIDS.  As for the other lifesaving issues, call your
>congressmen and tell them to get off their asses and stop spending 
>money on stupid money-wasting programs.  Elect a Libertarian.  Do
>something but stop posting spurious observations.

Where is all of this leading??? Concentration camps for people who have 
anal sex? And why are views different from your libertarian ones spurious?


dbn3.

-- one of the best star pilots in the galaxy.\dbn7350@zeus.tamu.edu
-- an enemy of the Ronald Reagan Republicans.\Texas A&M Biochemistry Undergrad.
-- let's get this show on the road. . .
<EOF>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:11:13 GMT

From article <1992Oct13.013623.5288@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, by watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe):
> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
> 
>>He just seems too wishy-washy and eager to please, and
>>its a bad omen for the first Democratic president in twelve years.  How is he
>>going to stop the Democrats favorite pork projects that have been sitting 
>>on the shelf for 12 years just waiting for a Democrat to pass them?  All 
>>in the name of 'infrastructure' or 'putting people first', of course.  
>>You think the debt is bad now, I'm getting extremely bad vibes from Clinton 
>>in that area.
> 
>>By the way, I'm undecided as of now.
> 	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sounds like "I didn't inhale".
> 

I'm not ABC.  I don't have to give equal time to the listing of Bush (anti-
abortion), Perot (protectionist) and Marou (goes a bit farther than I'd like
in about everything) faults also.  

Besides which, this is the Clinton group.  Where, if I'm not mistaken, Bill
Clinton is supposed to be discussed.  If I wanted to discuss Bush; well, what
do you know, he has his his very own group, and I imagine I'd be posting
there.

SEH
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10211 talk.politics.misc:51509 alt.politics.bush:9007
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:42:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct13.163554.16192@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

>In article <9587@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>
>>The scarry thing is, this lady will probably vote this year.

>No, the scary thing is that there are people scared by the thought that people
>with differing opinions can vote too.  Well, it's not really scary, it's
>pitiful.

Just where in the hell did you get that idea.  My disgust was not with the
fact that the lady held an opinion that was different from mine, it was with
the fact that the lady held an opinion that I felt was completely divorced
from reality.  If you feel diferently about her opinion why don't you
tell me about it so I can show you where you are wrong.  Until then why 
don't you can the ad hominems.  Your attack was off the mark and at best
a cheap shot.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10162 alt.politics.bush:8964 alt.politics.elections:16526
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:46:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Oct10.200451.25877@samba.oit.unc.edu> Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns) writes:
>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
>

By itself, a trip to Moscow is no problem.  Set against the context of
Clinton's various mis-statements and bouts of selective memory, I'd 
say that his failure to "remember" what he did there is somewhat telling.
In general, I'd like to know what specific principles guided Clinton in
his opposition to the Vietnam war during that period, and how he feels 
about those principles today.  A lot of the anti-war movement centered
on the idea that Communism was a legitimate expression of popular will
among the people of southeast Asia.  Did Clinton believe this?  How does 
he feel today?  I guess I'd say that the Moscow trip (and his failure
to come clean about what he did there) symbolizes the doubts of many
people about being able to trust Clinton, and about his capacity to act
effectively as commander in chief.

Notice how he waffled on the Iraq war.  Does he have what it takes to stand
up to world tyrants?  What would his reaction be to, say for example, Chinese
military pressure against Taiwan?  

I guess in a nutshell, I don't think I know what principles guide this man
when it comes to making tough foreign policy decisions.  He sometimes _talks_
a good game, but many of his actions, statements, and mis-statements lead me
to doubt the value of his word.
 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: Amazing!
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Francisco
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:31:31 GMT

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

I keep hearing this piece of happytalk.  And all I can remember
about Reagan's two terms is the arrival of hordes of homeless
people on our streets (street people used to be few and far
between, and almost loved as eccentric "characters"), the
decline of federal, state and municipal services (remember when
libraries were open all day, six days a week?), the decline of
our healthcare and educational systems, the crumbling of our
public buildings, parks, bridges, highways.  And I remember
statistics like the USA's infant mortality rate far exceeding
the rest of the industrialized world, literacy and math skills
lagging behind, the chilling news that we imprison a higher
proportion of our citizens than *any* other country, that more
African American men are behind bars than in universities...

Bush stands up and tells us we're the envy of the world.  Not
all the world.  Not anymore.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10262 talk.politics.misc:51553 alt.politics.bush:9045
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:20:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.195837.4272@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
} In article <1992Oct12.111941.13258@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
} >Have you bothered to include the number of people who purchased houses
} >many years ago and today are unable to sell them because they would get
} >socked with taxes? Nah, thought not.
} >
} 	"Get socked with taxes?"  People around here are "unable" to
} 	sell their houses because nobody can buy them.  and that's at
} 	severely depressed pricing with low interest to boot.

Around here we have a different problem.  People sell their houses so
fast that they have a hard time finding a vacancy in the interim.

} >> RHETORIC: Under George Bush, the misery index has increased from 9.4
} >> to 10.4 percent in September.
} >
} >What was the peak misery index under Carter? 

Not sure of the exact figure, but it was in the 20's.

} >> In the same time period, Arkansas'
} >> index declined by almost one-fifth.
} >
} >So? I wasn't aware that Arkansas had national monetary and fiscal
} >policymaking powers.
} >
} >
} 	Where do these "misery index" figures come from? 

Misery index = inflation rate + unemployment rate.  I believe it was a
figure coined by Jimmy Carter to use against Gerald Ford in '76.  Reagan
then used it against Carter in '80.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: <None>
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:24:24 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1bgurbINN4ho@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
...
> Now close your books, kids.  We're going to have a math test.
> 
	You should concentrate on passing history first.
> 
> On a sidenote, why Bush must lose: being in the tight grip of a 60 year
> political and economic cycle with 3 successive conservative Republican

	No such thing as a 60 year cycle.

> administrations having screwed us over yet again with 10 years of false
> prosperity, wealth concentration, under the misbegotten conceptions of

	Ahhh....false prosperity.  Right.  Read "Derailing" and make comments
(if you can) about what if false.  Might we suggest _The Seven Fat Years_ also?

> supply side economics, climaxed by stock market crashes, acorss the board
> bankruptcies, major layoffs, homelessness, and lame duck administrations
> presiding over looming bank failures (as will occur in December when the
> shit hits the fan), it is a matter of historical inevitability that Clinton
> win this election with over 60% of the pupular vote and a vast majority of
> the electoral vote.

        Clinton (if he wins) will win more because of what Bush *hasn't* done,
than because of what he has done.  Not exactly a rining endorsement of
Clintonomics.

> Nothing personal Mr. Bush.  You may have been an okay president now and
> then in places.  But history is casting you in the role as another Herbert
> Hoover, like it or not.

        Nope, sorry.  I'm writing him up as another "spectator" president.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10392 alt.politics.elections:16764 talk.politics.misc:51730
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 14 Oct 1992 19:31:33 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

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 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:03:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.231919.4815@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	Just so everyone gets the timeline correct:
>
>	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
>it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can point
>to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that was
>only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did not" vote
>for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.
>

Well...to a reasonable person, it then seems that Quayle was misleading
more than Gore was lying...on a standalone basis, the record shows Gore
voted against the initiative, and in any standalone vote that he would
be opposed, and that it is only in the context of a much larger
agreement or law, in which there are other attractive elements would
Gore be forced to weigh the positive elements of the rest of the package
vs. the negative impacts of the initiative to which he would normally
be opposed.  

Gerald
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10092 alt.politics.bush:8913
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:58:42 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: dump Bush
Distribution: usa
 <1992Oct7.165036.1065@wixer.cactus.org> <uZtPr*T41@caleb.UUCP>

In article <uZtPr*T41@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) says:
>
>Remember Jimmy Carter?  Most of the amazing things he and his Dem
>Congress did were bad.
>

Name ten "bad things" that Jimmy Carter and his "Dem Congress" did.  Carter
didn't get along with Congress because he tried to skewer "pork barrel"
projects such as a tremendous number of water projects.  He and Congress
didn't get along - that's one reason his Presidency is considered by some
to be a "failure" - just like GWHB's.

One thing he didn't do was run-up a $4 trillion national debt (despite
Reagan's assertion to the contrary).

Pop Quiz - who was the last president to have a surplus.
Answer - Lyndon Johnson (and his "Dem Congress")!

Hope this helps!

Jeff Luck            *The opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University     "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU           -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:45:09 GMT

In article <1bk6bvINN20u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>
>I have no reason to read his plan. I could never vote for a hide and seek 
>quitter. Face it the media got on him and he cut and ran. 

Only for the "pander bear"!

>
>He is hiding, just admit it, why doesn't he give his book out if it 
>is to help the American People ? It's not like he can't afford it.
>I have passed out over two-thousand copies of the Clinton Plan "FREE".

Good thing you put "FREE" in quotes.

While you berate Perot for selling his book, no one forced me to
spend my money on it, which is more than you can say about Clinton.

>Perot gets things done by being one of the lobbyist the Rep. are locked up
>with. Are you in Texas? if not come down here and look at the School system
>he "fixed", it's on the verge of financial collapse.

Financial collapse in the school system is primarly caused by the
Deomcrats, whose solution to any problem is to throw money at it
and use their influence to get their cousins well-paid jobs in the
resulting worse-than-useless bureaucracy.

Just like Clinton's job training plans - how much of the money
extorted from us will pay for the bureaucracy, 75%?

> >Have you read Perot's book?
>
>No, it's irrelevant, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

And he trusts Clinton.  How myopic can one be!?

> >I have read all four platforms and decided on Perot.
>
>You Perot people just might re-elect what we are all trying to unelect,
>think about it on the Nov. 3.

I don't believe in "unelect"ing anyone, particularly if it costs
my children their future.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 07:59:14 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct14080719@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>In all honesty, I have found myself confusing the sequence of events
>for even important things in my life... even things that have happened
>only a year or two ago.

  Uh oh, kiss your political career goodby. However, we may have some openings
for you in the CIA or on the National Secrecy, errhh Security, Council,
>
>I wasn't born 25 years ago, but I wonder how much I'll remember of my
>college days--accurately--in 10 more years.

  Depends, how much of it have you spent sober ?

>
>In the end, tho', I suspect it doesn't really matter.

  Unoriginal: in the end we're all non-matter.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Debates
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:30:16 GMT

In article <5989@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>Wrong, that's been the liberals' answer to everything. Why do you think
>Bush and Republicans accuse Democrats of "tax and spend" policies?
>-- 
 
    Beats me.  And why do you think Bush and Republicans accuse a lot more
other things ?  
    That's the way they work.  Accusation, hate, deception, cover-up, all
what the Bush people know these days. 
 
    There is a famous saying: If you repeat a lie a thousand times, it 
becomes truth. 

    The Bush people certainly believe so.

*********

    However, many people still know that, 

    Tax And Spend = George Bush
    Borrow and Spend = Ronald Reagan
    Steal and Spend = Richard Nixon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Subject: Re: Red Willie??
Summary: Red Baiting  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:12:29 GMT

In article <Bvus84.91F@oryx.com>, xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek)        writes...

>"I paid my own way, I got a visa, and _mostly_ I was just 
>a tourist."  (emphasis added).
> 
>By his own words, he admits that he was there, at least
>in part, for purposes other than tourism.  
  What portion of the trip was pleasure and
>what portion was business??  What were the "non-tourist" 
>activities in which he participated??  Might this be a 
>Freudian slip of some sort, or just a "pathetic"
>choice of words?
>sentences, therefore there must be something else.  
 (or something close to this).  It makes you
>wonder?
>Oh well, das vadanya, Comrade Clintonovitch.
> 
And this, class, is a classic example of that ancient practice called
"Red-Baiting". Although this exercise enjoyed its pinnacle during the
McCarthyism era, it has enjoyed a brief revival during this current
election. You can identify this practice by the almost exclusive use
of innuendo in place of facts, the substitute of pointed questions
for statements, and the insertion of Communism for evil. 
	What makes Red-Baiting so effective is that it requires
no facts, and presumes guilt before innocence (ironically the same
technique that their Communist "enemy" uses).
	Study this example carefully students. You will see it
several more times in the coming weeks.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush