HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bush is a chinese spy?
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:30:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: na




What was Bush doing in China pretending to be an Ambassador only
20 odd years after the Korean war? What was he doing in a country
filled with commies? How dare he accept the ambassadorship to an
enemy nation that had killed so many brave American soldiers in
the Korean war? He and KGB spies lived in the same city.. was he
in contact with them? Was his puking at the Japanese dinner a secret
code signal for his 'masters'? I saw him talk nicely with Raisa 
Gorbachev once? Maybe they were having an affair? 
He should level with the American public on all these matters. 

Proof? You ask. heck, who needs proof anyway. Let HIM prove that I
am incorrect.

BTW, why was Bush supporting the arms sale to a country that had
kidnapped and held hostage American citizens for 400 odd days?
And then lied about it. There actually is a proof for this.



_______________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                      |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
#######################################################
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DEBATE: OPINION FROM AN UNDECIDED
Date: 12 Oct 1992 17:42:19 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>I dunno.  I deliberately avoided watching the debate, for two reasons.
>(1) I was afraid that if I did watch, I wouldn't be able to keep from
>throwing something heavy right through the screen at George Bush
>sometime during the show (and I really can't afford a new tv right
>now), 

Good point!  I avoided throwing heavy objects at George Bush by
venting my anger through the IRC channel #Debate.  I look forward to
seeing _YOU_ there next time, Bill.  The original poster was disgusted
at how refined Bill Clinton looked.  One of the popular reactions on
IRC Sunday night was "Nice Hair".  :)

George Bush Intoned:
>   I said something the other day where I was accused of being like
>   Joe McCarthy because I questioned -- I put it this way; I think
>   it's wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize
>   demonstrations against your own country on foreign soil.  Maybe
>   they say, "Well, it was a youthful indiscretion."  I was 19 or 20,
>   flying off an aircraft carrier and that shaped me to be Commander-
>   in-Chief of the armed forces and I'm sorry, but demonstrating --
>   it's not a question of patriotism.  It's a question of character
>   and judgment.  But he has made -- not admitted -- a mistake and I
>   just find it impossible to understand how an American can
>   demonstrate against his own country in a foreign land -- organizing
>   demonstrations against it when young men are held prisoner in Hanoi
>   or kids out of the ghetto were drafted.

>If you think that sort of blathering counts as "dusting" one's
>opponent, well, you're entitled to your opinion.  

Bush is famous for his blathering.  It would be nice if we could have
a President capable of speaking in complete sentences. 

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
The "War on Pot" makes Cocain look like an economical high.  Brilliant.
From: pete@edsr.eds.com (Pete Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: On Adm stockdale
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:57:21 GMT
Reply-To: pete@edsr.eds.com
Organization: EDS Research

In article <ISBELL.92Oct15012650@panther.ai.mit.edu>, isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
> I found myself turning the volume down when it was his turn to answer
> a question because I was so embarrassed for him.  I thought I was
> alone, but apparently lots of folx did this.
> 
> I dunno.  Clearly the "skills" displayed by the VPs aren't terribly
> relevant to their positions, so I lost no respect for the man--and he
> was sincere and committed--but, really, I mean, jeez, it was painful
> to watch.  And I'll bet he's such a nice guy.  And smart.  And so on.
> 

I was also embarrassed.  But what struck me most was the other candidates'
reluctance to attack or refute his views.  For example, when he said that
he thought abortion was a non-issue and everyone should be concentrating
instead on the deficit, I was amazed that Gore did not point out that it IS
a very big issue with a lot of people.

I felt there was a similar attitude in the first debate - neither Bush nor
Clinton had anything really negative to say about Perot's opinions.  I 
assume this is because both major parties feel that many Perot supporters
will ultimately vote for Clinton or Bush when it comes down to actually
voting, and they are being very careful not to alienate any of these people. 
Or maybe Clinton and Bush just feel guilty about attacking someone who is 
not a fellow politician.

-- 				
Pete Humphrey
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Upper--middle--lower class??
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 22:22:49 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Hello,
>We've been hearing a lot about taxing/no taxing the rich, the middle
>class, the poor...but my question is what is the "definition" of upper, middle
>and lower class??  

In a political context, the "rich" are the people making more money than
you are.  As in "we could have a utopian welfare state with womb-to-tomb
free education and health care and guaranteed jobs and fiber-optic
data highways and space stations and Piss Christ and supercolliders and
housing for the homeless and PBS and preservation of family farming
and foreign aid for the downtrodden peoples of the Third World etc. etc.
etc. *if only the Rich would pay their Fair Share of taxes."


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: agents of change
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:48:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.123945.7314@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>A vote that is not for Clinton is a vote for Bush.
>
>A vote that is not for Clinton is a vote for Bush.
>
>Bucky

It appears it is time for the Parable of the Lizards (courtesy of Keith
Lewis and Doug Adams):

[ Taken in part from one of the _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ books]

                       THE PARABLE OF THE LIZARDS

	"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further
    grinding, "take me to your Lizard." 

	Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this... "It comes from
    a very ancient democracy, you see...." 

	"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?" 

	"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more coherent than he had
    been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple.
    Nothing anything like so straightforward.  On its world, the people are
    people.  The leaders are lizards.  The people hate the lizards and the
    lizards rule the people." 

	"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." 

	"I did," said Ford.  "It is." 

	"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why
    don't the people get rid of the lizards?" 

	"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford.  "They've all got the
    vote, so they pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more
    or less approximates the government they want." 

	"You mean they actually VOTE for the lizards?" 

	"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." 

	"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" 

	"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong
    lizard might get in.  Have you got any gin?" 

	"I'll look.  Tell me about the lizards." 

	"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened
    to them," he said.  "They're completely wrong of course, completely and
    utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it." 

A vote for Bush may be a vote for the wrong Lizard.  A vote for Clinton may
be a vote for right Lizard, but a Lizard nonetheless.

Don't Choose the "right" Lizard.  Vote Marrou/Lord on on November 3.

                                      James Parker
                                      jap@cb1focus.att.com
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush - Desperation, Depression, and Danger
Date: 13 Oct 1992 02:45:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Time is running out for Bush.  As Judgment Day approaches and the Bush
juggernaut just sits there like a stripped '72 Dodge Dart, the Bushpeople
are doubtless feeling the pangs of hopelessness.  According to some
Republican insiders, Bush himself is getting out of touch with reality.
As the "bunker mentality" takes hold, we face the very real danger that
Bush will be persuaded to use the power of the Presidency to save himself.

In order to prepare the reading public for the worst, I would like to invite
discussion on the following scenerios:

1.  Bush creates or exploits an international crisis.  I think that no
"Desert Storm II" is possible, given the time constraints, but a sudden
replay of the Panama invasion in some part of the world is likely.  We
may see a "pre-dawn vertical insertion" in Bagdhad, so that Saddam Hussein
("The Dictator", as Bush so cleverly named him) can be brought to justice.

2.  Initiatives against the persons of Clinton and his people.

  a.  The Frame-up.  It shouldn't be too hard to plant a big bag of heroin
  on Clinton or someone near him, there to be discovered by an alert DEA
  agent.  Frankly, the a-page-is-missing-from-Clinton's-passport-record
  miniscandal stunk to high heaven.  Prepare for more of the same.

  b.  Psych-ops.  Clinton, Gore, Hillary, and top functionaries are
  harrassed by the IRS, FBI, etc., in an effort to impede their effectivness.

  c.  Assassination.  God forbid, but remember, Bush is ex-CIA.  It would
  be so much easier for him if Clinton would drop over dead, no traces,
  no fingerprints, the medical examiner baffled...

I hope that Bush would have the grace and good sense to fade away quietly
rather than use scorched-earth tactics like these to preserve his power.
We shall see.
-- 
Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
"The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17360 talk.politics.misc:52513 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5541 alt.rush-limbaugh:7654 alt.fan.howard-stern:2159 talk.politics.guns:22243
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.howard-stern,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:32:58 GMT
 <1992Oct16.150925.28008@netcom.com>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct16.150925.28008@netcom.com>
jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

> >Does this remind anyone else of Lee (Willie Horton) Atwater?  Does Matalin
> >play blues guitar?
> 
> Yeah, Matalin reminds me a lot of Atwater - both told the simple truth, and 
> both were savaged as nazis and sleaze campaigners for daring to tell the truth
> about the political opponents.

Bzzzt!  But thanks for playing.  I've read Matalin's daily would-be
gossip column before.  Simple truth?  Well, you got the first half
right.

What does this have to do with half of these newsgroups, anyway? 
Follow-ups to talk.politics.misc.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16999 sci.econ:8117 talk.politics.misc:51996
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:34:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct14.135647.5914@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>In article <Bw0tDA.IJ0@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>   This is clearly NOT an ordinary recession with an ordinary cyclical
>>   recovery; if it was we would have already started to see a major
>>   turnaround by now!   Today's Wall Street Journal published another
>>   economic consensus forecast showing only 2.7% growth next year with
>>   some economists adding that if they were wrong then 2.7% is on the
>>   *optimistic* side.   If this were an ordinary cyclical recession
>>   then next year would be 5-6% GDP growth!
>
>I agree with both posters.  Economicly, GDP growth will be slow for the 
>next few years.

>around).  Even 2+% annual growth (twice as much as under Bush) and 
>slowly falling unemployment will be enough for the Dems to keep the 
>White House in 1996.                                 

      . . . assuming they don't try to fix the deficit.  But NOT
      addressing the deficit would be slow economic suicide.
                                                            

>>   As I've been saying, we will almost certainly have to get serious
>>   about the deficit in the next few years and once we do we're going
>>   into a *depression* with double-digit unemployment and massive social
>>   unrest.  (again, if anyone can make the numbers come out some other
>>   way >please< post them to the net!!).

>While there is always opportunity for politicians to screw things up, I
>don't see a 1930's type depression.  

      I didn't say a "1930's-style depression", I just said "depression".
      During the 1930's unemployment hit 25%.   This time I would expect
      it to "only" be in the 12-15% range.   But the longer we wait to
      deal with the deficit the higher it will be when we finally get
      around to it.


---peter
From: mcmanus@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Pat McManus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: electoral college question
Date: 13 Oct 1992 14:21:42 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

In article <1bel85INNd6c@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>
>In a previous article, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) says:
>>
>>I say "just about every state" because I have a vague memory -- and
>>I'm ashamed that I don't know this one's true-or-false value for
>>certain -- that there's one renegade state, one of the smaller ones
>>(Maine?), that tries to awards its electors on a basis that's
>>proportional to the popular vote within the state.  But in general,
>>winner-take-all is the rule, so if, for example, Texas goes 34%
>>CandidateX, 33% CandidateY and 33% CandidateZ, CandidateX will get
>>_all_ of texas' electoral votes.
>
>Maine is one of them. I believe the two electoral votes represented by the
>two Congressional districts are awarded according to vote within that
>district; the two others (corresponding to the Senators) are at-large
>and have to be awarded according to the statewide vote, so the split must
>be either 4-0 or 3-1. I don't believe it has ever been anything but 4-0 
>since this was adopted.
>I think the other state that does this is a midwestern state.

The other state is Nebraska. But hey, they have a unicameral legislature too.


-- 
Pat McManus     | Internet: mcmanus@wpi.wpi.edu | Fido: Pat.McManus 1:2608/25
Marrou/Lord '92 |  Govern less, govern better.. | Worcester Polytech CS '96
<< Let me spend MY OWN tax dollars, I'm a better shopper than Uncle Sam. >> 
VOTE! If you don't vote vote you can't complain. 21 days until election!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject:  Raising taxes on the poor.
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:36:21 GMT

I don't recall exactly how many times (2?) and by what amounts,
but wasn't Clinton responsible for raising the taxes on GROCERIES
in Arkansas?

Any economists care to ellaborate on the regressive nature
of consumption taxes, especially those on things required 
to sustain life?

Here's a layman's view:

Take an example.  Two families of four.  One making $20,000 (subsistance).
The other making $100,000 (rich?, comfortable?).  

Family #1:  Has to use $8,000 per year on food to survive (~$5/day/person).
If the tax on this is 5%, then they pay $400, or 2% of their total
income (start rolling in other consumption taxes like those on
clothing needed for schoold & work, and the percentage of
total income really jumps!)

Family #2:  Spends twice as much on groceries (living high on the
hog).  They therefore pay $16,000 * 5% is $800, only 0.8% of their
total income!

This couldn't be any more unfair!  A family barely surviving paying
2%, and a rich/comfortable paying 0.8%.  (Anyone with the actual
numbers of what the current tax rate is & what families of different
income levels pay for groceries would be greatly appreciated).

Now, who's responsible for this?  Here's the opportunity for you
Clinton supporters to DEMONSTRATE (prove with transcripts, etc)
that Clinton was FORCED by his state legislature to go along
with these taxes.

It's also a chance for Bush backers to prove, if possible, that Clinton 
didn't put up a fight or even suggested the tax in the first place.

I really want to know whose idea this was, and what Clinton's response
was!





-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: BUSH, CIA, KENNEDY ASSASSINATION
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:05:50 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

I remember when this story broke, too.  There is indeed a memo
from the period making reference to a CIA man George Bush from
1963, in reference to the assassination.  The CIA, breaking its rules,
released the name of a George Bush who worked for the CIA at the
time.  "The Nation," which broke the original story, claims to have
contacted him, and that he denies being part of the investigation,
that he never saw the memo.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
From: fssue@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Sue Simonyi)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 14 Oct 1992 14:23 EDT  

In article <1992Oct14.153713.10151@osf.org>, dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes...

>Until now, I've kind of joined the opinion that maybe the Democratic ticket
>is upside down.  Now I know.  Of the six of them, Clinton is the one with
>the most depth and substance, caricatures notwithstanding.
>-- 
>David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org


David,

Could you explain why you think Clinton has depth and substance? I am trying 
hard to see something genuine about Clinton...  The man is a puppet, being
manipulated by many strings.  He could not stand on an issue on his own, he'd
fall just like that puppet does once the strings are let go.  Personally it
scares me that the two men Clinton and Gore might get into the whitehouse.  You
think we got problems now ..... wait till they get in... You won't know if
youre coming or going... if Willy keeps on with his wishy-washy stands he takes
on issues.  Not mentioning the increased spending for the social programs,
and all the goodies he has promised everyone... who is going to pay for all
these things?  Where is Clinton's sense of reallity?  It is awfully nice to
want everyone to have a home, and everyone have access to a doctor, and that
everyone be taken care of (I think that was the appeal to communism and
socialism in eastern Europe and other former communist countries).  You see
reallistically you cannot do that.. it does not work... good example of this
has been the fall of the eastern block, USSR.  I hate to see the U.S. get into
this situation; socialized this and that.  This is another subject...  I still
don't know where anyone can see any substance in Clinton?  Where is it???
Gore.. has a bit more substance I must say.... he does seem too polished;
he has the typical Harvard look (that really doesn't matter...in case of 
discussing substance).  

Anyway... I have a hard time seeing anything genuine in Bill Clinton.

I like the phrase Dan Q. used last night "You are pulling a Clinton".




P. Sue Simonyi              |  "I like work; it fascinates me, 
216-891-2261                |  I can sit and look at it for hours."
fssue@mars.lerc.nasa.gov    |  Jerome K. Jerome, Three Men in a Boat.
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:46:12 GMT
Reply-To: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssf

In article 18719@nwnexus.WA.COM, jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.222643.17181@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>>
>>> There is no third alternative yet.
>>> Come up with one and we'll discuss it.
>>
>>How about ABSTINENCE? (No, I forgot, that's a dirty word around
>>here!...)
>>
>
>Gee, I thought I made myself clear...I guess not.  How in the hell does
>ABSTINENCE STOP PREGNANCY?  Abortion stops pregnancy.  I want an alternative
>to abortion.  I don't want an alternative to sex.  
>
>Like I said before, apparently not clear enough for some people to get it...
>Give me an alternative to abortion that stops a pregnancy and we'll
>discuss it.
>
>Jennifer


Have you considered getting a hysterectomy?  This common medical procedure is
very safe and has been successfully done thousands of times.


Then you could have as much sex as you want and not get pregnant.


|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Bush slips up on Today show
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:41:02 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct14082541@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>
>BUSH ADMITS KNOWLEDGE OF SWAP:
>   President Bush Tuesday admitted knowing that arms were being
>swapped for hostages in the Iran-contra affair, contradicting what
>observers say is a long history of denials. Later, Bush counsel C.
>Boyden Gray said Bush misspoke and didn't mean to say he knew of
>the swaps while vice president. Democrats demanded Bush release

   What's new ?  He said "never, ever, never , ever", the next day 
his pleasure secretary (oops, I mean press secretary) came out and said
he didn't meant to make a pledge. 
 
   The man has no principle, no idea, no character, whatoever. 
 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc