HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Where will Bush want to have his library ? Maine or Texas
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:30:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.150035.26288@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>
>   Next year, the Bush Presidential Library will need to be built. My 
>question is, where will Bush want the library be built ?  Texas or Maine  
> 
   Why build one ? I would think the RTC probably has a few Texas hotels
he could use.



-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8396 alt.politics.clinton:9377 alt.politics.elections:15835 alt.rush-limbaugh:6959 talk.politics.misc:50544
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:49:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Oct9.033429.21854@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
>Also, lets face it:  no law is going to give you authority as a parent that
>you do not actually have as a parent thru your relationship with the child.
>All the law can do is make your child have to be more covert and at risk
>when s/he defies your *claim* of authority, which is not the same thing as
>true, actual authority.
>
>

Ahh, but here's the rub... I expect the laws to *not* encourage my children
to be covert.  It should be damned near impossible for my children to do
anything *covert* except buy me a birthday present :-)  Unfortunately our 
society thinks the State knows whats best for my children when they should
be deferring to the parents.  I think the law should only encourage my 
children to come to me, or to a *community* resource (not the state) to get 
help.  That's why I believe (for example) that the welfare dept should be 
asking parents why a minor even needs an abortion, instead of allowing them 
to get one without their parents knowledge.

I legitimately claim my parental authority - I also realize that it is my
job to maintain it with *my* children, but *LAWS SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO
UNDERMINE MY PARENTAL AUTHORITY*. Period.  To do so only makes the job of
a parent more difficult - resulting in more children with problems...
-Paul
--
---
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: djp002@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Bush the Demagogue!!!
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:54:20 GMT

Bush the Demagogue!

	As a political science major, I have watched the last two presidential
elections with keen interest. I have been extremely disappointed and dismayed
with the state of political campaigning in America.
	In my class covering the Presidency, we were told that a demagogue is
an individual that plays on people's fears in order to advance his or her
cause.  This individual usually obscures the real issues as well. Ever since
the time I first came to know Mr. Bush, the 88 election, I have come to the
conclusion that our President is a classic demagogue.
	In 1988, it was Willie Horton. George Bush succeeded in diverting the
public's attention from the real issues like the economy by exploiting the
tragic bureaucratic bungle known as the Willie Horton incident. Never mind that
the furlough program that released Horton was created by a Republican governor.
Horton came to symbolize the apparent failure of Dukakis to govern effectively.
	In 1992, Bush is back to his old tricks. The economy is in dire straits
so Bush has resorted to attacks on Clinton's patriotism 20 years ago by
innuendo and implication; implying that Clinton is a Communist in disguise and
can't be trusted. Come on, George. Play fair. Owe up to your failures. Stick to
issues that effect people in 1992, not 1968!		David Puderbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: The First Battle of October
Keywords: Presidential debate, Clinton, Bush, Perot, St. Louis
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:47:07 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>reckoned with in this election.

>III. Bush is also a winner of the debate. As I have told my friends,
>Perot won "artistic impression" while Bush won "technical merit" if this
>debate could be characterized as a figure skating competition. Perot did
>not neutralize Bush. On the contrary, Bush launched a huge ICBM when he
>reminded HRP that the US and Russia had achieved a deal concerning
>nuclear weapons. [Sorry about the pun, but I had to do it.] Perot did
>win on sound bites, but I don't know if you ask all his supporters if
>they think a $.10/year for five years tax on gasoline is really a good
>idea. Besides, who are "the people who will be helped the most" by this
>tax? Who are the "working people who will get the jobs created because
>of this tax"? This country is not the size of Germany, France, Spain, or
>any other individual European country. We have to transport tons of food
>from farm to market on trucks and rail. Increase the cost for gasoline,
>you will increase the cost for food, and you have just socked the poor
>since now they can no longer afford to feed themselves.


Just two notes, 1) Tractor trailors don't run on 'gasoline', they run
on desiel and 2) even if you tax deisel (sp?) you could always tax
it less, or give truckers tax exempt desiel (farmers already get it).

>yIV. Clinton was helped by Perot, but he didn't help himself.

 don't get the logic here, most people say Perot is helping Clinton,
because he and Clinton are closer (at least in that they both are
pushing anti-incumbent type campaigns).  I would think that this
would come closer to running two democrats against a republican, 
which has historically split part of the vote.  I noticed before the
debate that if Clinton+Perot support split, without Bush moving much..
it would be like a 33-33-33 race.

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The First Battle of October
Keywords: Presidential debate, Clinton, Bush, Perot, St. Louis
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:42:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

ych@cs.utah.edu (Yuan Hsieh) writes:
-eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
->VII. Drinking game. For the next Presidential debate, for every time
->Bush says "tax and spend" all Democrats must drink a beer; for every
->time, Clinton says "invest" all Republicans must drink a beer. Have fun.
->And program your VCR.
-
-Ha, a better game would be to guess how each candidate would respond to a
-particular question.  For example, if you are a democrat, and you guessed 
-Bush's answer, all republicans in the room must drink, if you can't, all
-non-republicans must drink.  Double, if you can guess the irrelevent answers
-to the question.  Triple, if you can guess the one-liners.
-
-Try it, it's amazing how easy this game is, at least for the first debate.

Must be hell when the second debate comes around given the format. Isn't
it single-moderator with AUDIENCE questions?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:17:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.155017.27382@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>At the time of the protests, no one had any reason whatsoever to expect
>that ANYONE would come home in bodybags. Kent State was the only
>protest where people were shot.

Oh this is really good!! Maybe you lived a different history then the rest
of us. Maybe you're just so young that you don't remember and assume
because Kent State was the one that received the most press that it was the
only one where this happened. Kent State wasn't even the worst.(as in # dead)
Check out a library about # of protestors killed by the National Guard/police
during the 60s while protesting the war. Let us know what you find!

Stan Knight
|Just ain't nothin' like creative history is there?| 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8285 alt.politics.clinton:9211 alt.rush-limbaugh:6918
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: 9 Oct 1992 00:53:19 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

john@anasazi.com said..
>harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
>>rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>]> BTW, it was perfectly legal and commonplace for Americans, of
>]> all political persuasions, to travel to the USSR in the 60s.
>]
>]Back in the 60's, I don't recall Americans of any persuasion flocking
>]to Moscow in great numbers. (What the heck *for*, supercold winters,
>]cheap vodka, and maybe perhaps a few snapshots of all those 
>]residents standing in line for a chance to buy just about 
>]anything?).  The only Americans who would have had any incentive
>]to go to the SU then were the appeasement peace-freakie types.
>
>Back in the '60s, you couldn't even get into the Soviet Union except
>by invitation, and invitations were only issued when the Soviets felt
>that the visits would benefit the Soviet Union in their long range war
>against America.

This is simply false.  At least eight of the 32 Rhodes scholars in 
Clinton's class also traveled to Moscow on their own or in small groups.  
There were no restrictions on tourists traveling to Moscow.  Thousands
of Americans toured Europe at the time, because it was very inexpensive.

>If it is true that Bill Clinton was in Moscow with the peacenicks,
>why aren't we reading this in the newspaper or seeing it in the news?
>Either it isn't true, or the media is being far more biased than
>normal this year. To me, this is an important issue. I wouldn't vote
>for Jane Fonda for dogcatcher, and if Bill Clinton went to Moscow
>for the peaceniks, he fits right in there with Jane.

Incredible -- it sounds like you've already made your own conclusion
here, even though you admit it's not being reported, most likely because
it's not true.

As all Rhodes Scholars are encouraged to do, Bill Clinton
traveled as a tourist during his 40 day winter break in 1969.  He
visited several countries in Northern Europe during December 1969 and
early January 1970.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer                                       Notice 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com       Due to budgetary constraints the light at 
aschaffe@netcom.com                 the end of the tunnel is being turned off.
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Dornan the Barbarian
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:32:10 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <BvxDAq.677@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
]This idiot is on CNN now. I can't believe this stuff.
]It reminds me of a World Wrestling Federation "press event".

It reminds me of Pat Schroeder, but I see her a lot more often. Both
are extremist loons.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Anyone else notice the polls?  (MEDIA BIAS)
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:46:50 GMT

In article <crb2.719249329@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>The funniest thing about the whole ordeal (more funny than
>noone even reporting what going the other way would have been
>seen in a drastic movement in the polls) was the commentator
>said (as the graph popped up briefly) that other polls
>probably differ, but this is what ABC found, and to remember
>that with a 4% margin of error the Clinton lead could be as 
>much as 13%!  My immediate thought was 'now that's grabbing
>for air!', because the 4% error ALSO means that Bush oculd
>be in the lead!  Sheez...the news is really turning into
>a no-holds barred, we're gonna do anything it takes to get
>Clinton elected, silly looking group.

Welcome to the Peter Jennings empire.

>
>I think anyone who could watch the major networks and not
>see some bias is really out there, farther than the buses
>go.

You got that right.

Organization: Junior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:15:39 -0400 
From: "Donpaul C. Stephens" <deathbird+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Enthusiasm

is what gets people to the polls to actually vote.
if you *like* your candidate, you are more likely not to only *say* you'll
support them, but to actually support them by casting your vote

if Perot's supporters are so vocal & active in comparison to the backers of
the other candidates, then he could actually do better than standing a
chance. People, only a little over 50% of the registered voters voted
for President when Bush won office. This election year is getting good :-)
-Donpaul
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:49:01 GMT

In article <1b2dvoINNqvr@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>|>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>|>Bill Clinton now only makes 35,000 per year (source 10-8-92 USA today)
>|>He seems very in touch with the adverage person to me. He has been
>|>poor, no one will argue that. He worked and payed his own way through
>|>school. When he finished law school he went back home to Ark to practice
>|>instead of Wall St. 
>
>|But you forget that along with that Governor's salary, Clinton gets room
>|(the Governor's mansion) and board (fine dining every night).  I thought it
>|was estimated that these and other perks came out to over $100,000 a year.
>|Bush gets perks also, so I think it can be said that neither of them can be
>|considered paupers.
>
>Which one (if either) of them would be a non-pauper out of
>office?  According to the above, Clinton out of office is 
>left with $35K/year;  Bush out of office still has oil money.

	$35K/Year is upper middle class in Arkansas; add his
wife's salary(at least as large, if not larger) to his household
costs, plus the small size of his family(Does he have any kids?)
And you will come out with at least $70K/year household income
for a small family. That is upper class living in Arkansas, and comparable
to the income of a doctor.  Bush's ~$100K/year is upper-middle-class
in Washington D.C.(Well, throw out the Demo sponsored druggies and
welfairies and he's upper-mid-class).  

				John
>
>---
>cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:45:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.162909.6653@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

|> Agreed! Let's drop the cost of health care by dropping the threat of
|> medical litigation... oops, sorry. For a moment, I forgot that Clinton
|> supports the trial laywers and their movement to ensure that we spend
|> our dollars in the hospital instead of the court.

	Tort reform is a great idea, but it's hardly a universial cure.
Denying people the right to sue an incompetant or fraudulant doctor is
never going to sit well with the public, so any tort reform idea is
only going to be able to cut a small portion of the lawsuits. 

	Since a major problem with malpractice claims is the settlement
amounts for legitimate grievances, it's going to be necessary to put
caps on the amount that once can sue for. I doubt that the federal 
government can do that, given that the right to sue is a constitional
one.

	I'm willing to bet that the Bush tort reform act is a whole lot
wimpier then they make it out to be, either that or it will never pass,
even if Bush did win in November.

-- 
                               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:8025 alt.politics.clinton:8872 alt.politics.elections:15467
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush breaks another promise
Date: 7 Oct 1992 18:46:48 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

(from Bush's "Agenda for American Renewal")

    I want to create enterprise zones in inner city and rural areas.  [...]
    In our inner cities, we need to restore hope by clearing away the
    handicap of crime, building a core of property owners, creating
    business incentives, restoring infrastructure, and focusing our
    programs on work and discipline.

    Enterprise zones can create solid economic foundations in
    distressed communities. 

(from clarinet's news service)

      The White House, [...] is signaling a likely veto of a 28-Billion-dollar
    urban-aid and tax-relief bill. The measure would create 50 enterprize
    zones in inner cities and other areas.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer                                       Notice 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com       Due to budgetary constraints the light at 
aschaffe@netcom.com                 the end of the tunnel is being turned off.
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8309 alt.politics.clinton:9273 alt.politics.elections:15753
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:38:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]

In article <1b2dvoINNqvr@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>---
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>|>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>|>Bill Clinton now only makes 35,000 per year (source 10-8-92 USA today)
>|>He seems very in touch with the adverage person to me. He has been
>|>poor, no one will argue that. He worked and payed his own way through
>|>school. When he finished law school he went back home to Ark to practice
>|>instead of Wall St. 
>
>|But you forget that along with that Governor's salary, Clinton gets room
>|(the Governor's mansion) and board (fine dining every night).  I thought it
>|was estimated that these and other perks came out to over $100,000 a year.
>|Bush gets perks also, so I think it can be said that neither of them can be
>|considered paupers.
>
>Which one (if either) of them would be a non-pauper out of
>office?  According to the above, Clinton out of office is 
>left with $35K/year;  Bush out of office still has oil money.

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.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9054 alt.politics.clinton:10270 alt.politics.elections:16634
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Why I can't stand the Democratic party
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:55:34 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct9.040257.16894@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>Maybe we
>can agree that the core of Cuyahoga county is dominated by the Democratic
>party, but Republicans have made an impact in the higher income outer
>suburbs.  

Okay, we agree.

John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:36:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.162712.11857@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
#In article <Bw1pu9.BHu.2@cs.cmu.edu> 
#garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#
##nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
#
### dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes to Stan Knight:
#
#### On a side note, several pro-choice women on talk.abortion 
#### have been viciously attacked by radical pro-choicers for 
#### their support or non-opposition to third-trimester abortion 
#### restrictions. I wonder why these radical pro-choicers rarely 
#### attack men (such as yourself) who express the same opinion? 
#
### Hey Doug, you sexist wimp. I just did call Stan on his opinion.
### Or do I, as a non-white woman, not count?
#
## I doubt that DOD thinks that you count, Nadja.  
#
#Of course she counts.  Don't lie Ms. Garvin.  

I'm not lying, DOD.  

## I also doubt
## that it would have mattered if every supporter of legal 
## abortion had just called the guy on his opinion.  
#
#So far, only Ms. Adolf has called Stan Knight on his opinion.
#You and the rest of your pro-abort buddies have been silent.
#Perhaps it's the fact that Stan Knight is a man?  Your pro-abort
#buddies seem to always attack women who express support for 
#moderate abortion restrictions, but rarely do they attack men.   

Your sexism is not shared by everyone, DOD, nor is your desire
to rewrite history to suit your agenda.  As much as you would
like to control the actions of everyone on the net, most
people are capable of deciding for themselves when they
want to respond to a given article, and when they believe
that someone else has already done an excellent job.


#Doug Holtsinger, who's still waiting for Ms. Garvin to "call"
#Stan Knight on his opinion.  

Susan Garvin, who is still waiting for DOD to "call" Suzanne
Forgach on her statements about the religious nature of
the anti-abortion movement, to provide any real proof about
his claims regarding the Democrat party's stand on abortion
and Roe v. Wade, to quit lying, and to learn to quote an
entire article.

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