HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdavis@convex.com (Ray Davis)
Subject: Re: Transcript of Sunday's Presidential Debate
Keywords: transcript, obfuscation, confusion
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:51:18 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>   All I'm attacking is his claim
>   that his campaign is somehow free of "special interest money".
>   I.e., he is clearly especially interested in getting elected.
>   He is spending vast amounts of money in this quest.   It's not
>   clear to me how his campaign is any less a special interest
>   than any other well-financed organization trying to promote
>   some cause, platform, or agenda.

What Perot means by "special interest money" is money provided by
organizations and/or mega-corps to back a candidate who will support
whatever their cause is.  An example would be the insurance industry
sinking megabucks into Joe Blow's campaign, after Joe agrees to
support legislation which will be in favor of the insurance industry.
Often the candidate (or person in office) will back their cause only
because of the money.  This is standard politics in DC, and one of
the things Perot wants to get rid of.

I wouldn't call him supporting his own campaign as the same sort of
special interest, unless he secretly plans to become even richer than
he already is by backing causes that help his perticular investments.
I hope not, and I doubt so, since it would be obvious.

Ray
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Famous Republican Draft Dodgers
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:14:30 GMT

mq> Mike Quigley

mq> Let's not hear anything more about Clinton's war record.

  That isn't the issue. I really don't care whether Clinton dodged the draft
  or not, since I would definitely have done so if I were in his place. What
  ticks me off is his lying/hedging/oiliness on what his actions were. Why
  doesn't he just come out and say "Yes, I didn't want to get drafted, and I
  pulled as many strings as possible and did what I could to avoid it", rather
  than the pap we're hearing from him.

  Be straight and honest, for chrissakes! Clinton's a politician, though, so
  that's too much to hope for.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51567 ba.politics:6080
From: greis@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gayla Ann Greis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Help With All Candidates Platforms - Help me make up my mind!
Date: 15 Oct 1992 18:16:57 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: greis@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

    Once again, with the elections only a few weeks away, I find myself in the
dark on what most of the candidates think/feel about most of what I consider
the "issues." It seems to me, that this year more than most years in the past
that all the other candidates, with the exception of Ross Perot, have been
forgotten. Now I know that the Libertarians are running a candidate, yet I know
little about the Libertarian platform, much less what their candidate is
orientated towards. (Other than gov non-intervention)  The socialists I would
assume have a candidate in the race again, yet I haven't even been able to find
his or her name *anywhere!* So yes, I am one of the few yet totally undecided
people out here, although I do know who I'm leaning toward. I would like to
spreadsheet some of these candidates for myself, and my friends. Please help me
out if you can. This isn't a poll - it's so I can be a better educated voter.
 
    So, here's what I'm asking...
 
Who are *ALL* the players and their running mates in this election? (On at
least one state's ticket. I don't consider Joe Walsh a serious candidate.)
How do these candidates feel about:
  1)Education
    -School Choice
    -Fundamentalist vs Whole Language
  2)Jobs
    -Creation
  3)Taxes
    -What Will Be Done With The Deficit
    -Dealing With Social Security
    -National Health Care
     *Abortion
      .Public Funds vs Legal At All
     *Care Of The Elderly
     *What Will Be Covered
  4)Environment
    -Cleanup Approach
    -Restrictions On Business And Homes
  5)Defense Spending
    -Peace Through Strength Or Pacifism
    -What Will Be Cut In Post-Cold-War
     *Manpower
     *Machinery
    -Foriegn Policy
     *World's Baby-sitter vs Home First
 
Thanks for taking the time to read this. Please flood my mailbox with
responses. (Even if you think someone might have already responded.) Please
answer on things that you KNOW though. Please e-mail so that I can protect your
anonimity. I want to have *EVERY* candidate listed, even if they only appear on
the ticket in one state. Thanks for your help!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51039 alt.politics.perot:1981 alt.politics.elections:16191 sci.econ:8081
From: jej20@ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:22:17 GMT
Reply-To: jej20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct11.175448.26944@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>Good question!  I'm suprised this isn't asked more often.  About 25% of the
>>debt is owed to foreign investors, Govts of Germany, Japan, and individuals
>>such as the Emir of Kuwait, etc... 
>
>This is false.  Less than 10% of the debt is owed outside the United States.
>-- 
>ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
>also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first

No, the 10% number is false.  I have heard the 25% figure used many times,
but I checked this against an excellent article written in today's
San Jose Mercury News.  Actually foreign investors hold 29% of our debt.  

The Emir of Kuwait owns $8 Billion of our debt.  Think about this.  
This year alone, U.S. taxpayers paid the Emir of Kuwait over $500 
million in interest payments.

Where are you getting the 10% number?  

Jerry Joplin   Sunnyvale,CA | I do not speak for Amdahl Corporation.
joplin@mcode.amdahl.com     |  
Compu$erve: 70441,2627      | All these worlds are yours, except California
From: pjm@isis (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Republicans for Clinton/Gore
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:28:21 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

In article <Bw8Cs3.HwJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>
>The same person who gave them my name must be the one who convinced Bush that 
>he didn't want three debates with the format of the VP debate and then led the 
>negotiating team to agree to last night's format. Were we keeping George up 
>past his bedtime? From the way he kept checking his watch you might think so.
>Seriously though, is there something wrong physically with Bush. He looks like 
>his batteries have worn out.
>

I realized that this was a serious blunder when i read a
small article in the NYTimes. It revealed that Bush 
crammed during the afternoon for this Debate 
(probably after he realized what "facing the people" could mean).
In contrast, the article reported that Clinton managed a nice little nap.
Clinton outfoxed Bush bigtime with this one.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:31:10 GMT

(Steve Adams) writes:
>David Veal) writes:
>>(Steve Adams) writes:
>>>(David Veal) writes:
>>>>(Steve Adams) writes:
>>>>>(Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>>>>>>If you accept that Clinton is going to win, then why don't you tone down the
>>>>>>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?  

And this dumb comment sparked a remarkable exchange:

>>>>>Just like the left toned down all of their screeching during Reagan and
>>>>>Bush's Presidencies?
>>>>
>>>>     Y'know, "They started it," just doesn't impress me.
>>>>
>>>The issue here is wanting a double standard.  It's ok for the left to
>>>screech all they want when the White House is under control they don't
>>>like.  But conservatives are supposed to tone down and give the opposition
>>>a chance.
>>>
>>>Typical liberal/left double standard.
>>
>>     Who said it was ok?  The misdeeds of one party doesn't excuse the 
>>misdeeds of the other.

*I* say it is okay.  The screaming banshees on the left
can wail on all they want. They can bash Reagan, Bush, Eisenhower, Lincoln,
Columbus, or whoever and whatever. This is America, a free country, right?
(At least until next Jan 20th.) Right or wrong, let them wail and flail.

As for me, I will speak my mind and stand up for truth, justice and
the American way. :-)  Don't tell ME to tone down, when I see America
as a car teetering over a dangerous cliff, and Clinton saying he
wants to "move America forward". No thanks, Bill.

>>     These people want to be leaders?  Fine.
>>
>>     They can start by leading by example.
>
>Of course.  THEY can start.  How about the LEFT starting?  No?  Of course
>not.  Once again, double standard.

The leftists are engaged in being "public nuisances". That is their goal,
their mantra, their groove. Pebbles in the shoes of civilization.
To ask them to behave responsibly is like asking a baby to stop drooling.

Pat
" Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice !"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre
From: das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:04:36 GMT

Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:

: As a citizen of this country you have a right to try and change the laws of
: this country.  As an employee you have a right to try and get your employer
: to change his family leave policy.  This breaks down when as an employee
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
: you use the laws of this country to force that employer to give you a
: family leave policy.
: 
: This may be legal, but it sure as hell ain't right.
: 
: 
Why does anything break down under this circumstance?  Looks to me like
a fine way of solving the problem.  As an employee, you are in a low-power
situation for purposes of bargaining.  As a citizen you are on more
equal footing with your boss.  Why not try to get it legislated?

Dave S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:35:30 GMT

In Sunday's prez debate, Perot insisted that what Clinton did
20 years ago was much less significance than what Bush has(n't)
done in the last 4/12 years. His campaign has been based on
the "issues are the most important thing". But in the veep debate,
Stockdale basically contradicted his running mate. He said that
character was more important than the issues and used the
analogy to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. What does the ticket
really believe?
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
     CLINTON/GORE FOR PREZ, DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-24TH)
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: MY VIEW OF THE DEBATE
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:46:41 GMT
Organization: pubs
In-reply-to: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 12 Oct 1992 16:30:48 GMT

Thomas Hill writes:

   #3 I think Bush showed that he is a man of character. Nobody can
   question that he is a decent man.

I question it strongly, and I must have missed all the signs of his
excellent character.  I fail to see any character in a president who
would stoop to "Bill Clinton should come clean about WHETHER he went to
Moscow" (my emphasis on quote from Larry King show).  He's a weak,
shallow person who's willing to use any crummy tactic.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:56:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.190031.16935@pb2esac.uucp> rgrodr1@pb2esac.uucp (Robert Rodriguez) writes:
    >In article <1992Oct8.164807.681@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >
    >>If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead
    >>White Loathsome Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the
    >>Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome Oppressors using dull rocks
    >>to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of Vision and
    >>Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.
    >>
    >Of course they would still have a calendar, advanced
    >agriculture, and be able to perform open heart surgery on
    >each other.

Really? The first two were done by ???? I.e., where did you ever get
that time machine?

And the comment about open heart surgery is bizarre.

Unless of course, you are referring to certain central American
aborigines that had this wonderful practice of ripping the living
hearts out of sacrifices -- perhaps they notice sometimes that
in 1 out of a thousand cases, if they didn't rip the heart out
after tearing open the chest, the person once in a while lived?

Sorry to tell you this, but cutting open a mans chest does NOT
make you a surgeon.

As "they" say -- ask your local doctor ...

Oh, and don't forget some of the other barbaric things the Loathsome
Oppressors did to the various aborigines in the world, like ending
slavery and the tretament of women as property somewhere below the
status of dogs.

Damn us L.O.s' we just don't tolerate some of those "unique"
indigenous cultural aspects very well now, do we?





-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50433 ca.politics:8559 ba.politics:5977
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (BIIIIFff!!!1)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Message to Biff!
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:09:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: <8451.2645@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>

In article <8451.2645@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len B.) writes:
>Email me Biff!!! I can't reach you.....I'll reply with phone #

U KEN CXLL ME AT (AREA C)DE) (415)-553-7400

AXKS 4 BIFF! *(MAKE SHUR U PRONOWNS IT WITH THE *!*) 
THEY WILL ACT DUM AT 1ST.THEY WILL PROBABLY
HNAG UP ON U.  THE SECRET IS: ON THE N"TH KALL WERE N THE
HOUR IN GREENICH CT, YOU""L BE TRANSFERRRRRED DIREKTLY 2 ME.
IF THAT DUZN"T WERK TRY (AREA C)DE) (415-)556-6800.

--
BIIFF@SS>FIB.GOV

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:24:20 GMT

In <1bcqknINN2k2@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>
dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.201644.24229@cbnews.cb.att.com> N. Richard
>Caldwell, nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com writes:
>If there's an electoral tie, Perot wouldn't have a chance.  There are too
>many party ties within the House for Perot to get a majority selection.

While it's way too early to be counting chickens (we haven't even seen all
of the eggs, yet) I'd like to ask why you think the American congress is so
much different from the average American voter on the issue of gridlock?
Maybe they'd be GLAD to have the opportunity to elect a truly non-partisan
executive to work on the tough issues in the next term.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Americans believe Anita Hill
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:10:19 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: The same way they think GHWB showed Willie's picture

In article <1992Oct6.201554.19629@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
> The results of a recent poll by NBC and the Today Show indicate that a  
> majority of Americans now believe Anita Hill was telling the truth about  
> Clarence Thomas.  What took you so long?
> 

	Two factors are influencing this:

	1) General rise of female candidates/pride promoting awareness

	2) The media as "Willie Hortonized" the affair so that every mention
casts Clarence Thomas as a liar.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50527 alt.politics.clinton:9354
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:05:03 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Eric Sieferman) writes:
|> In article <56.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
|> >Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
|> >followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
|> >Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
|> >demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
|> >of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
|> >come clean with the American people?"
|> 
|> Wow!  Good question!  Come to think of it:  Bill Clinton,
|> where were you on July 30, 1976, the day my stereo 
|> was stolen?  Come Clean!!
|> 
Excellent question, but I think we should also know where George
was that day.

On a more serious note, I hope the Clinton campaign is collecting a
list of conservative republicans who visited Moscow as students about
the same time.

I'd also like to know why it is OK when Bush can't remember a who attended
a white house meeting in 1986, but blasts Clinton when he can't remember
who he talked to in 1969.  Clinton also needs to be held to task for not
asking the bell hop if he was a KGB agent.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.101649.25878@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
    >No comparison to the reaper, the cotton gin, vacuum canning
    >(a process still used today)? Those inventions weren't just
    >as important in their time as the telephone is today?

All those were invented by men. In fact, the first practical vacuum cannning
process was invented by a (half) black man. But, maybe since that is a
dead black male, it's almost just as bad?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:42:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.143550.1650@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>    This IS NOT a Clinton endorsement; just a statement of political reality. 
>Bill Clinton, with a Democratic Congress, scares me, but I know now that that
>is probably what we are going to have for the next four years.
>
>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.

     Well, that's good to know.  And to think, I'd have wasted my time going
to the polls.

     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is Perot an idiot or am I?
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:19:08 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1992Oct14.150957.25152@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) writes:
> Question: Did Perot, in his half-hour commercial or at the debate say something to the effect of 
> 
>      
> 
>      Look at our problem with Japan, all we get from them is radios, TVs
>      and VCRs, which will fall apart in five years, and they have our MONEY!!
> 
> Did he say anything resembling this? If he didn't, I'm the idiot (albeit a 
> minor one).  If he did say it, he is an extreme idiot.  I wouldn't be surprised if he did say it, in general his economics stinks!
> 

I don't remember it in the debate and I didn't see the infomercial...but...

He did state that china was a big country made of many provinces... and that
the leaders are all old and won't last much longer...

ho ho ho... funny...


-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/