HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsl7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Shawn Landres)
Subject: Re: W.J.B. Clinton Anagrams
Reply-To: jsl7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Shawn Landres)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:30:26 GMT

In article <Nov.19.19.40.01.1992.26141@cadenza.rutgers.edu> masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:
>rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>
>     Is there any particular reason why the media (& many 'liberals') thought
>     it necessary to refer to President Bush as "George Herbert Walker Bush" &
>     V.P. Quayle as "J. Danforth Quayle," yet never referred to Bill Clinton
>     using HIS full name -- William Jefferson Blythe Clinton?
>
>	Jennifer wholly moist; FBI can tell.

NOT!

So sorry to disappoint you . . . BC's full name is William Jefferson Clinton.
It used to be William Jefferson Blythe IV, but he dropped the "Blythe IV" in
favor of "Clinton" when he was fifteen. No elitist two middle names for this
president, no sir.

/S
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 14:01:02 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Dear Ted Krueger (was liberal agenda)

Dear Ted,  I hate to tell you this:  but approximately one in ten men
whom you have showered with beit gym class, college dorms, college
fraternities, the military, summer camp are gay.  And you survived it.   Kinda
makes you think.   Hmmmmmmm.        Melissa Brown
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17573 alt.president.clinton:611 talk.politics.misc:61165
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton an Alien-Lover! (Was Dumb Kid Accessed Unattended Terminal)
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 01:30:19 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Keywords: <omitted to avoid federal obscenity laws>
Summary: Say it ain't so, Joe!

In article <20NOV199213081339@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:

>2. Both Presidente Clinto'n and President Bush are basically wimps, and
>   as such are a pushover for congressional/bureaucratic spending. The
>   inevitable result of party politics.

Clinton _can't_ be a wimp - hell, I read today's headline at the supermarket
lineup and noted he's flown in a UFO - and I know it's true, because there
was a photograph Right There On Page One of the President-Elect and an alien
(or Perot supporter - it wasn't real clear), presumably the pilot.

The fact that this hasn't been reported on CNN simply proves that the
mainstream media is controlled by aliens (who may be Jewish - check with
Schmidling on that one).

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                      (Sssssssh.... Hard disk dying...)
From: RSE32195@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton's health care plan
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:23:15 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Would someone please send me a copy of Clinton's health care plan/proposal?
I have seen it posted before but didn't save it.

Thanks!  

Stefan Radloff
University of Tulsa
rse32195@vax1.utulsa.edu


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths (was  Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: Bank of America, Capital Products, RMTG #5906
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 02:08:44 GMT

In article <By11EL.7Gq@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>Ed Ipser (ipser@solomon.technet.sg) wrote:
>: 
>: There is no overpopulation problem.
>: 
>: People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
>: contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
>: advancement, generally.
>
>I get it.  This is one of those parodies of Nazi-Holocaust revisionism, where

Hey, Marc.  Lay off the sarcasm and the insults.  The guy may have thought of
something you have not thought of yet.  Flamethrowers diminish intellectual
exchange.

Ed, are you talking about a starvation problem or an overpopulation problem?

My 2 cents:  Famines do not occur because there is not enough food.  Rather,
famines come from a failure of the distribution network to deliver food to
people who need it.  I read in the Economist a while back that merchants are
forbidden to profit from the sale of food in the Sudan.  Hence there is no 
legal private distribution network for food in the Southern Sudan, hence nobody
vigorously delivering food in pursuit of profits.  Also, even as people starve
today, the EEC is trying to figure out what to do with its mountains of food.  Still,
there may be an overpopulation problem.  A booming population in Indonesia strips
the mountainside bare of forests.  Many environmental problems, such as air and
water pollution would be hardly so much of a problem if there were a tenth as
many people.  Big numbers stress the environment, even if they have plenty to eat.

-- 
 Daniel Brockman             tel 415-953-0406, fax 415-622-2892
 Bank of America, Dept 5906, 555 Calif St
 San Francisco 94104 USA    email uunet!odinba!dan dan@bofa.com
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: We're all stupid!!! (was Gays in Military)
Date: 21 Nov 92 01:19:49 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

#tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:
#|> I heard on Rush's show a GOOD argument for not letting gays in the 
#|> military. 
#|> Ok, when you serve in the armed forces, you get free/VERY cheap
#|> healthcare for the
#|> rest of your life.  (and your spouse)
#|> 
#|> Q. #1  What is one of the most expensive illnesses?   AIDS!
#|> Q. #2  What lifestyle is one (if not the highest) highest risk
#|> category for AIDS?  Gays

The number of HIV cases due to heterosexual intercourse amoung young military
age (not neccesarly in the military though) people is much higher than 
the number due to gay sex.    Once upon a time the gay HIV rate was 
higher, but not any more.

The gay community has gotten scared.  They are practicing safer sex than 
Magic Johnson or Susy and Billy in the car at the end of the lane.

The logical conclusion to this particularly silly arguement of Rush's is
that replacing straights in the military with gays would reduce the expected
health care costs.  Not only will it reduce the rate of HIV infection,
but also pregnancies!

But then again, discrimination against gays really isn't about logic, is it?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The World
	<BZS.92Nov8151938@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Nov9.162010.7537@spectrum.xerox.com>
	<BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> <adams.721495890@spssig>
	<rlcarr.07kl@animato.network23.com> <adams.721933735@spssig>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:31:20 GMT


>>Yes, it must be guaranteed.  However, DON'T YOU DARE expect ME to pay for
>>YOUR decision to have more kids than you can afford.  
>
>Never...I will have no more than I can afford...and would certainly never
>ask you to pay for it in any event...

Of course, sometimes it's not your choice, like if you die or become
incapacitated or it's clear your children are suffering, regardless of
your own principles someone may need to step in for the children's
sake, you can't really write a will which says "...and if the money
runs out let the children starve".

That may seem trite, but unfortunately in a lot of cases you basically
have this situation, fathers who left, mothers who simply aren't
coping even if they are trying, how much do we allow the children to
suffer because of the sins of the parents?


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17403 alt.politics.democrats.d:624 alt.politics.elections:24079 talk.politics.misc:60699
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:55:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

In article <1992Nov17.213359.20087@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> In article <10574@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> Mark Wilson,
> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:
> >Find ways to increase the demand for labor, decreasing wages does this
> quite
> >well.  Or decrease the supply of labor.  Brutal, but it can be
> effective. ;^)
> 
> OR....
> 
Norman's reasoned response deleted...

> Both the solutions you propose are 
> brutal, regressive, and show a lack of foresight.
> 
> Norman
> 
> Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> Senior Engineer
> Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company


Nah, I think he fancies himself a modern-day Jonathan Swift, without realizing
that Swift used *his* sarcasm to ridicule the very attitudes mwilson advocates.

steve soar











postnews line-fodder....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: Lame humor in the late night talk shows
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.083538.9655@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes...
> 
>The 2 step formula of a joke about Clinton on these shows (especially Leno):
> 
>1. Pick a current event involving Clinton.
> 
>2. Then compare or involve or draw a connection to the Three Scars 
>   (marital infidelity, draft evasion, inhaling pot).  The jokes about
>   marital infidelity really lack taste.  Like last night's joke by Leno,
>   (paraphrased) "Clinton walked into the hotel in Washington with Hillary,
>   and the hotel workers all said to him, 'say who's the new babe this time'."
> 
>Give me a break, I am so god damn sick of this, when are these morons going 
>to get more original humor?  How long are they going to do this same humor?
>A few months? A year? 2 Years? All of Clinton's first 4 years? Even his 
>second 4 years?  Give it a rest people. Jeez.


God, they can't stand even a small dose of their own medicine!

I suppose you were equally disgusted with the 4 years of Dan Quayle jokes, by
Leno, Letterman, Doonesbury, Carson, etc., etc., which had only one motif
instead of three: "Hey Dan Quayle is stupid!"

If it's any consolation, you only have four years until they'll be making
Jack Kemp or Bill Weld jokes instead...



Dave
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:45:07 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov17.213359.20087@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

|>In article <10574@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> Mark Wilson,
|>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:
|>>Find ways to increase the demand for labor, decreasing wages does this
|>quite
|>>well.  Or decrease the supply of labor.  Brutal, but it can be
|>effective. ;^)

|>OR....

|>You can take the progressive and more humane approach which is to
|>create new industries through short and long term R&D, and tax
|>incentive-induced company
|>creation. This will, in the long run, benefit everyone. It will employ
|>more people, decrease the need for entitlements, create competitive
|>forces within the nation to force our corporations to invest in their
|>long-term health and improve their quality, use our brightest 
|>and best trained individuals
|>more efficiently, broaden the tax base, make us more competitive with
|>our foreign competitors, shrink the trade deficit, .....

|>Both the solutions you propose are 
|>brutal, regressive, and show a lack of foresight.

|>Norman

|>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
|>Senior Engineer
|>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company

My, my Doc, don't get yourself into another dither.

While enlighted tax laws, (read drastically lower) will help new companies
to form, excessive wage rates will still prevent this from happening.
If the workers are asking for more than they are worth, no amount of
government proding will make them employed.

BTW, I notice that you have gone back to your old sig.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Gays in the military
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:39:12 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

I heard on Rush's show a  GOOD argument for not letting gays in the military.

Ok, when you serve in the armed forces, you get free/VERY cheap healthcare for the
rest of your life.  (and your spouse)

Q. #1  What is one of the most expensive illnesses?   AIDS!
Q. #2  What lifestyle is one (if not the highest) highest risk category for AIDS?  Gays

By admitting gays, you will be raising healthcare costs by making the gov't pay  for
AIDS treatment for the vet and his spouse (same sex  spouse?).  After all, they are the
most likely to get the virus in the first  place.  

I don't want to hear  about non-gay people getting AIDS, either. I know that everyone
could get AIDS in some way, but it is mainly determined by your lifestyle and your 
spouses.   What are the odds of a heterosexual w/ 1 mate who doesn't sleep around
(same w/ spouse) or use drugs as compared to a gay?  NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17672 talk.politics.misc:61396
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:06:33 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>>>Q. #1  What is one of the most expensive illnesses?   AIDS!

Can you show the figures on this. It is not usually a case of long term support
since many have died in the short term after learning of their infection and
AIDS symptoms.  There is of course a lot of money towards research.

>>>>Q. #2  What lifestyle is one (if not the highest) highest risk category for AIDS?  Gays
>

But why would one worry about this, if the majority of people in the military are
heterosexual, then how could they contract HIV infection from the gay military
people.  Also, the majority of gay people are not HIV+ and since I would assume that
the number of gays in the military to be fairly small, then the risk goes down even
more.

>
>>This is false.  Gay men are still the largest group of HIV+ and AIDS victims.
>

This is correct- that is because there is a distinct difference between
HIV+ and AIDS in terms of stages.  Since gays were the first to be exposed
and not know it, they are now appearing as the larger group with AIDS.  Remember
there is a variable period in which after exposure/contraction of HIV you will
suffer the consequences of AIDS and it appears to go from 5-12 years.  Now
if a large number of heterosexuals were infected with HIV during 1985-1990,
the appearance of AIDS then in the heterosexual population would start to climb
between 1990 and 1997 for the 5 year group and between 1995 and 2002 for the
12 year group, with most cases appear in between these two ranges, probably
1995-1998. How many heterosexuals have been tested for HIV exposure?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES!
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:27:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.180151.18426@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
sstarr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Starr) writes:
> AND FOR ALL OF YOU SO-CALLED C
> "CONSERVATIVES" WHO WILL SAY "Oh no, it's the tax and spend democrats
> again!"  THINK ABOUT IT:  YOU MUST PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET.  IT'S THAT 
SIMPLE!
> 
> Look, I don't want to pay any more money to the government than I have 
to,
> but it's time to realize that there is no free ride.  During the eighties
> we all went on a spending splurge.  Now we must pay.  It's the only
> responsible and fiscally conservative thing to do.

Do you support a balanced budget amendment?  IMHO, this is the only way to 
get things under control.  Past tax increases have been far outstripped by 
even bigger spending increases.  I for one would be willing to pay more 
taxes, but only if I knew that spending would be cut or at least kept the 
same.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Robert Bork
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:14:41 GMT

In article <BALDWIN.92Nov23172526@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil>, baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
> In article <bill.722541213@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M.
> Eldridge) writes:
> >I may have my names confused, but wasn't Bork the guy who dismissed
> >the Watergate special prosecuter at Nixon's bequest?
> 
> And, no, he did not dismiss the SP at Nixon's behest, request or
> otherwise.  The AG (Archibald Cox?  I can't remember) resigned in
> protest rather than fire the SP, and explicitly requested Bork to stay
> on and carry out the president's instruction.  Bork did the firing,
> but not for Nixon.

Oooh, I wish I could split hairs like this.  He carried out the
President's instruction, but at the behest of the Attorney General
... have I got it right?  So it was either Cox and Nixon working,
or Cox and Bork, but not Nixon and Bork?

I guess Bork was just following orders.  We all know that makes it OK.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: PRESIDENTIAL DOOKIEHEADS
Date: 15 Nov 1992 17:22:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov9.150724.460@lrc.edu> dorham_r@lrc.edu writes:

>To All cLiNtOn/gOrE supporters:
>	You've won and we ( the intelligent American people) have lost.
>Now please grant me one wish since victory is yours...
>Make a list of all the reasons that you voted for clinton, based upon 
>all the things that he said that he was going to do, then make a check
>mark by it each time clinton actually completes a campaign promise.

\checkmark   "It is time for them to go."

I'm so pleased I no longer care about the other promises!

Next?
andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17353 alt.politics.elections:24035 talk.politics.misc:60584 alt.politics.bush:13935 alt.rush-limbaugh:9880 alt.news-media:1634
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media
Subject: Posting texts?
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:33:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

I wanted to know if those persons who printed up all the speeches and
interviews Bill Clinton did during the election will still be "at work"
with transcripts of press conferences, speeches, and interviews during
this transition period and during his Presidency? I would really
appreciate it (I can't always watch C-SPAN you know; college and work is
a bit tough).

I would like to have the latest transcript of yesterday's (Nov 16 92)
news conference with Foley and Mitchell. 
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17617 alt.politics.bush:13999 news.sysadmin:1498
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Junk Mail
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:50:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,news.admin.technical
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario

In article <davecb.722227806@yorku.ca> davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) writes:
|dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
||Has anyone been receiving automated computer junk mail
||from a site called 'Campaign92.org'?   I've been trying to
||contact the sysadmins at that site to stop sending me
||their crap, but they've ignored me.  I must have gotten on
||their mailing list through my postings to a.p.c and
||a.p.b.  Has anyone been able to contact these clowns?  
|
|I looked, and its a non-internet site gatewayed by lex-luthor (:-))
|	Campaign92.org.	3600	MX	10 lex-luthor.ai.mit.edu.
|
|Their hostmaster is hostmaster@uunet.UU.NET. 
|	Campaign92.org.	3600	SOA	ns.UU.NET.  hostmaster.uunet.UU.NET. 
|
|Give him and postmaster@lex-luthor a call.


	Just a note to mention that "news.sysadmin" is now
	an obsolete newsgroup - it's been superseded by
	the moderated newsgroup "news.admin.technical".


	Followups to this posting have been redirected to there.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e
 _< /_	 	DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN BUSH - H. R. Perotnoid
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:38:30 GMT

In article <cubsfan.722154042@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>The average Republican once again astounds the world with intellignt,
>thoughful political discourse.
>
>Give the poor guy something: At least he was succinct!
>
It's stupid to think Republicans are like this.  The 'average' Republican is
offended by this just the same as everyone else.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc