HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: Bush is a chinese spy?
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:04:34 GMT

In article <westfgj.921009181922@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> westfgj@eng.auburn.edu (George J. Westfall) writes:
>In article <39232@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:
>>
>>
[...spoof of Bush being a chinese spie deleted...]
>>
>>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.
>>
[...sig deleted...]
>
>i have never posted before but it seems to me
>that to compare an ambassador to a spy is crazy.
>the point of the clinton-moscow debate is why his 
>memory of the events is so slective.  i don't recall
>the pres hedging or dodging on questions about what he
>did in china.
>
>george westfall
>westfgj@eng.auburn.edu 

George,
  Perhaps you can describe in detail what YOU were doing
during Jan. 1970...were you even alive then? I went to
England, Belgium, Germany and Austria in 1983 (less than
10 years ago) and I generally remember what city I was in
and occasionally where I stayed (if it was exceptionally good
or bad), and *some* of the things I saw. I can look at some
of the pictures of that trip and wonder where/what/who the
picture is about, because I have no idea...sorry, if something
is not significant, then it doesn't make an impression. The
stronger the impression, the longer the memory lasts, the
weaker the impression, the shorter it lasts. If I had made
a trip to Moscow in 1969-1970, I would probably remember that
I was there, that the place was different than what I was
used to, and perhaps some of the things I saw (if I saw
a picture of them to jog my memory).

The question of what Clinton did in Moscow is a null issue.
The KGB reported that they had no information on any trip
Clinton made to Moscow. The FBI reported that THERE WAS
NO TAMPERING WITH CLINTON'S PASSPORT RECORD!!!

There are reports and allegations within Bush's own
administration that Bush was very much involved in the
Iran arms deal, and pumping money into Iraq up until
one month before the invasion of Kuwait. For a person
who claims to be like Truman, he certainly doesn't 
accept much responsibility for his own actions, much
less the actions of his own administration...

Come on Bush, come clean about Iran arms deals
and Iraq's loans...

John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson)
Subject: Re: Perot for Pres???
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:23:20 GMT

In article <92275.220751DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> <DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>I am amazed that there are people who can still support Perot
>for president.

 I am amazed at how no one will cut the dude any slack. Have YOU ever
 made a mistake? Have YOU ever changed your mind? Personally I like the 
 fact that the man said " I made a mistake. I hurt a lot of people and 
 I'm sorry". I don't hear any of the other politicians saying anything near
 as honest.

 

> What assurance do we have that in the middle of
>a crisis he wont decide to leave office and let an unknown
>be president? What assurance do we have that he wont use
>the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies as sleuths against
>his "enemies"? What assurance do we have that he wont disregard
>the provisions of the constitution and the Bill of Rights?
>What assurance do we have that he can work with anyone cooperatively?
>Why vote or support anyone who is unwilling to undergo scrutiny?

 And what assurances do we have that the other guy's won't do the same?
 Thats right, none. We just have to trust a little.

>Why waste a precious vote!

 My vote for Perot is not wasted!! Even tho he won't win, my vote for him 
 is a message to D.C. that I am sick of the shit and am about to stop 
 taking it. 

 Also I am becoming more impresses with Perot. His book and 1st ad was the 
 most honest, forward thing I've heard this election year. Out of the 15
 people in my group here at work he has won the votes of 10 of us.

 I suggest that people listen carefully to what he is saying, and stop being
 so damned biased, you might like what you hear.

   Clinton or Bush? Doesn't matter, we'll all be sorry in four years.

>Arthur

 Steve Matson, Rocky Mountain Nationalist.
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: "A DAY TO RALLY FOR REFORM": OCTOBER 14
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:17:43 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
 October 13, 1992

              "A DAY TO RALLY FOR REFORM": OCTOBER 14
        Democratic Leaders and Reform Advocates Rally Behind
             Clinton Agenda to Enact Health Care Reform

      In an unprecedented show of support, on Wednesday, October 14,
 Democratic leaders, health care advocates, citizens groups, business
 and labor leaders will gather in every state across the nation to
 rally behind the Clinton agenda to enact health care reform.

      They will join in asserting the need for Governor Bill Clinton's
 leadership in the White House and reaffirm their commitment to work
 with him in the first 100 days of a new Administration to move
 forward quickly on comprehensive health care reform.

      Events will also launch a Women's Health Care Week to bring
 attention to Bill Clinton and Al Gore's commitment to improving
 women's health.

      "Together, we will deliver a message to the country that
 Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, will break the gridlock and 'deliver'
 on comprehensive health care reform," said Senator Jay Rockefeller
 (D-WV), National Co-Chair of the Clinton-Gore Campaign and organizer
 of the Day to Rally for Reform.

      Governor Bill Clinton will release a statement to acknowledge
 the national demonstration of support for his efforts to reform the
 health care system.

      October 14th efforts in all 50 states:  The day's efforts to
 support the Clinton health care agenda include:

 *    Pittsburgh, PA. -- 12:00 noon, Market Square -- Democratic Vice
      Presidential Candidate Al Gore will join Senate Majority Leader
      George Mitchell (D-ME),  Senator Harris Wofford (D-PA),
      Democratic Senate Candidate Lynn Yeakel and others for the
      noontime rally.

 *    Portland, OR. -- 8:15 AM PDT, Oregon Convention Center, 777N.E.
      Martin Luther King Blvd. -- Governor Howard Dean (VT)will
      participate in a health care forum.

 *    Los Angeles, CA. -- 2:00 PM PDT, Venice Family Clinic, 604Rose
      Ave. --  Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), will joinSenator Edward
      M. Kennedy (D- MA), Representatives MaxineWaters, Henry Waxman
      and others for a tour of the clinic.

 *    St. Louis, MO. -- 3:30 PM CST, Carpenters Hall -- House Majority
      Leader Dick Gephardt and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell
      will join Senate Candidate Geri Rothman-Serot, Representative
      Joan Kelly Horn (MO) and others for a press conference.

 *    Efforts in other states:  Democratic Governors, Senators,
      Representatives and other leaders, health care advocates,
      citizen groups, doctors, nurses, business leaders and labor
      leaders in all other states will participate in health care
      events.

 Contact the regional Clinton/Gore office in your area for more
 information.

                             -- 30 --
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 13 Oct 1992 05:48:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) says:

>
>In article <1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu>, 
>kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu said:
>
>> The problem is the same old thing, character, or lack of it. Why is
>> Clinton not answering questions about Moscow honestly.  I know a lot
>> of you will say that he is, if the answers are honest, why do they
>> keep changing??
>
>I know I may regret asking this, but... what are the questions about
>Clinton's trip to Moscow (besides "Did you go to Moscow?") and what
>answers given by Clinton have changed over time?

Apropos of this, I noticed that the Repubs came out with the "Clinton
led antiwar demonstrations in ENGLAND" charge and the "Clinton 
travelled to MOSCOW" charge at just about the same time. Am I being
overly cynical, or is it possible that, by the vagueness with which
they keep referring to these two occurrences, they are trying to 
plant the idea that "CLINTON LED DEMONSTRATIONS IN MOSCOW"? They know
that TV watchers don't always hear every word.
Could be, could be!
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15960 alt.politics.bush:8512 alt.politics.clinton:9535
From: hbr@iccdev.indcomp.com (Howard Richter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: EMAIL ADDRESS FOR BUSH AND PEROT needed
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:49:08 GMT
Organization: Industrial Computer Corp.

Does anybody know the email address for Perot or Bush.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed Sep  9 11:19:03 EDT 1992
If I could get my membership fee back,
I'd resign from the human race.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle Should Be President
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:52:38 GMT

Quayle should be bound and muzzled.  He should be put out
to pasture wherever the next 'secret' war the Bush/Nixon
CIA apparatus begins(or the hottest one continuing).

President, man are you looney.  I wouldn't even want him
on my doorstep if he was a street preaching morman(actually
any street preaching whatever - DQ just looks like a morman).

Maybe he and George could get jobs on the Quayle Quarterly
reminiscing and writing about the unreported idiotic things 
DQ did behind the scenes at the white house and at the VP's
house which I think a good name for it while Quayle was there
would be 'the out house'.  He sure is out there somewhere.

Here Danny, here boy, here danny.   Thats right enjoy your
Kibbles and Bits.  Good boy.   

--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16632 alt.politics.perot:2104 alt.politics.bush:9053 alt.politics.clinton:10269 talk.politics.misc:51572 alt.politics.libertarian:858
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: VP debates
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:09:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

Same note to apl as before.  Note followups.

Well, these debates are much harder to grade.

Adm Stockdale:
	hit a few populist lines
	seemed a bit out of there--kept walking away from his podium
	utterly in the backdrop  between Gore and Quayle

Quayle:
	didn't fumble overmuch or misspell any words
	hammered away at Clinton's character & tax/spend
	ignored economy, really
	seemed belligerent, but that may be good considering that most
		of country thinks of him as a buffoon--this may be
		seen as forceful and commanding

Gore:
	tried to neutralize character issue, didn't really succeed
	hammered away at economic record, scored a few points
	seemed overrehearsed?

Who wins?  Well, it depends.  Will the character issue resonate more
than the economic issue?  If so, Quayle & Bush won.  If the economy
beats the character issues and/or Gore's attacks on Bush's character
resonate enough to stalemate, Gore & Clinton win.

Only time will tell on that score.  In the meantime, my view is
simple:  there are three issues in this campaign.  They are:  the
economy, the economy & the economy.  This should give the edge to
Gore.

Oh, I should mention one more wildcard factor:  lots of charges, some
of which were false (according to Peter Jennings) were hurled around.
If the charges were out and out incorrect, then this might
retoractively hurt whoever threw out the most inaccuracies.  I'll be
reading the Times tommorrow.
--
Peace.
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
 and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: electoral college question
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:55:34 GMT


In article <1bd2d7INNn0q@eagle.natinst.com>, 
chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) said:

> What is required for a presidential candidate to win a state.  Do
> they just need to have more votes than anybody else or do they have
> to win a majority of the votes in that state.  If they need a
> majority then what happens if nobody gets a majority.  If its
> different in different states I'm interested in how Texas does it.

Texas and just about every other state run on a winner-take-all
system, wherein the person who gets the most votes -- whether it's a
majority or not -- gets all of the state's electors.

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.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate transcripts available via internet
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:41:28 GMT
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.

I can't locate the original posting about where the debate transcripts are
available via Internet.  Could somebody let me know?  Thanks.
Ken Willing   <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:16:17 GMT

tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>
>The Reagan era will soon bite the dust.  Unfortunately, the debt left 
>behind because of the Voodoo Economics practiced in the last 12 years 
>will not.  It turns out that one thing even worse than the "tax and 
>spend" policies we had in the 1970's is the "borrow and spend" 
>policies of the 1980's and 1990's.  Frankly, it makes me mad to 
>realize that I will be paying HIGHER TAXES FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE to 
>make up for the debt run up in the years 1981-1992.  Also irritating 
>is the realization that the quadrupleing of the national debt that 
>occurred under Reagan and Bush's watch is now so massive it is has 
>become the country's 2nd biggest threat to the national security. 

  If you are going to mad about the debt, at least be mad for the
right reasons.  Feel free to look all of this up (in fact I wish you
would), but entitlement spending when Reagan took office was $313 billion
dollars.  Entitlement spending is now $728 billion dollars.  The
Republicans (when they had control of the Senate in '85) tried to
introduce Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to get spending under control
across the board.  The Democrats made them exclude entitlements from
these controls.  

   Also, as a reward to Republican efforts for getting
spending under control with G-R-H, many special interest groups opposed
Republican Senators forcing them to lose control of the Senate in 1986.
This taught many politicians a bad lesson.  If you try to get
spending under control, you will pay.


   The result of the modified G-R-H was that the "discretionary" part of the 
budget (including defense) has been squeezed, growing much slower than
the rate of the economy.  The "mandatory" part of the budget has been
growing much faster than the rate of the economy.  If you look at the
above figures, you will see that the "deficit" can be found in the
entitlement programs alone.  In fact, you could cut out all of defense
and _still_ have a deficit.  Entitlement spending is half the budget
all by itself.  Add on the $200 billion in interest, and "mandatory"
spending is 70% of the budget all by itself.

  The problem is that it has been political suicide to even say
the word "entitlement" so we have and uninformed public and politicians
without backbone.  Fortunately, this is somewhat changing.  Hopefully,
it is not _too_ late, but clearly much damage has been done in
the form of building up the debt among other things.

  At any rate, I've written relatively detailed articles in the past
providing the numbers and sources for all of my above points.  If you
would like me to send a few to you, I'd be happy to do so.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17124 talk.politics.misc:52166
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Early voting (was Re: Clinton has already won the election!)
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:40:34 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

Texas and Colorado allow early voting.  I don't know about Iowa.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:09:00 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>In article <2660@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
>>
>>...
>>    The ad, first aired last Sunday, depicts a Time cover bearing
>> the negative image of Democratic nominee Bill Clinton and the
>> caption,  "Why Voters Don't Trust Clinton." 
>>    In a statement, Time said it decided to sue after lawyers for
>> Bush's campaign rejected its demand to cease running the commercial
>> because use of the cover gave the impression that the magazine
>> endorsed the contents of the ad.
>
>     To me, the cover gives the impression that the magazine
>endorses the contents of the *article*.
>
>     C. Perttunen

Interesting is that I saw this ad run a couple of afternoons ago.
As I was watching it, I wondered if it was something put on by the
Bush/Quayle campaign.  Then I saw that it was Time magazine.
Nowhere on the screen or in the audio did it say something like
"this is brought to you by Bush/Quayle '92".  So, I assumed that it
must be this week's Time magazine cover story and I should go pick
up a copy to see what they have to say.  Well, later in a news
report I hear that it was indeed a Bush/Quayle campaign ad.

So, based on my own experience, their advertising was very
misleading and at least the ad should be changed a bit to make it
known where it's coming from.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,sci.med,talk.bizarre
From: rtsai@tjhsst.vak12ed.edu (Ray Tsai)
Subject: Re: Doctor Comments on Shrinking Bush Penis
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Fairfax)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 20:46:22 GMT

I don't even think that Dr. James Gilroy is Presiden't Bush's
personal physician.... In fact, I'm positive its not, but I
can't remember his name.....

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Ray Tsai                       rtsai@tjhsst.vak12ed.edu
Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
-------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17301 alt.politics.clinton:10982
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: I will not vote Democratic - here's why.
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:54:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

>In article <1992Oct15.131708.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>>In article <16880F99F.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>> In article <1992Oct14.182613.3469@fid.morgan.com>
>>> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

>Its simple....I want to send a message about tax/spend politicians.

There is a big difference between tax and spend and tax and invest.


> relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by FORCING THE
> RICH TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.  We will provide long-overdue tax

>Now Clinton has since said the cutoff is $200,000 but what does that mean?
>200,000 per person, per family? Granted, that is a much more wealthy

That means "per family".  Everytime he makes this statement.  He says
"increase taxes on families making over $200K"  Once or twice he mentioned
a lower rate for singles.  Something like $150K.  

If you won't listen when the man talks, then don't blame him when you
don't know what he said.  

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Waste of time!
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:33:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:

>>In article <afarquha.2.0@cs1.uct.ac.za>,
>>afarquha@cs1.uct.ac.za (A J Farquharson) whines:


>>When your country becomes a democracy, you'll be in a better position
>>to criticize the American political process.  In the mean time, keep
>>your vapid glimpses to yourself.

>When the U.S. ceases to have a greater percentage of its population in
>prison than South Africa (including one in every 10 or 20 Black males
>between the ages of 18 and thirty--all in the name of the War on Some
>Politically Incorrect Drugs), you'll be in a better position to criticize
>South Africa.  In the mean time...etc.

Would you like to tell me what one thing has to do with the other please?
No one is criticizing South Africa (although it wouldn't be too difficult
to do).  The point is that you are in no position to tell us how to run
a democracy when you, youreselves don't have a democratic system. Sorry,
I suppose a democracy for whites is better than no democracy at all right?
WRONG!


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections