HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (cjk)
Subject: more on debates: what about Perot
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:12:59 GMT

Tonight on TV (I think on Larry King Live), Ross Perot indicated
that he'd probably be willing to debate.  What do people here think
about debates including Perot?

My own thoughts is that a three-way debate might not be as
informative as two-way debates (and I do favor the one moderator
format).  I think that Clinton would be clearly more effective over
Bush.  I think Perot would be clearly more effective over Bush.  I'm
not sure between Perot and Clinton though.  A few months ago, Perot
was prone to sticking his foot in his mouth accidentally with his
carelessness about wording.  I don't know that he'd do that again.
I think Clinton has a much better communicator than Perot but Perot
has a "well-by-golly" style that is pleasing to some.

Well, he's not a candidate yet [Perot that is]...so maybe this is a
moot topic.  However, it's interesting.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7898 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4761 alt.politics.bush:7262
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:42:17 GMT

In article <5d1-S4-@engin.umich.edu> picard@engin.umich.edu (Ronald V Picard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.031604.5482@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>From article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, by cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu:
>>>      Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>>> National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>>> 
>>>      In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>>>      saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>>>      Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>>>      two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>>>      to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>>>      of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>>>      1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>>>      for federal poverty programs.
>>> 
>>> It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>>> another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>>> dwarfs his private generosity.
>>> 
>>>      C. Perttunen
>>
>>Now hold it there one ding-danged minute.  Do you KNOW to which
>>charities the the Quayles donated?  A lot of rich people's charity
>>giving goes to the opera, symphony, and moldy art gallery of their
                     ^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^
>>choice.  Nothing  wrong with that, but it doesn't have a lot to do
>>with the traditional definition of charity.
>

Come on, do you really believe that our man Dan is out donating
money to the opera?????  (I'd be happy to learn that he knows what an
opera is.)  Let's get real ... what charities do you think Danny-boy
donates to?  My guesses for the top 5 are:  

5.  The Republican National Party.
4.  University of Indiana Basketball Boosters.
3.  Idaho Farmers Collective.
2.  Relect BUSH/quayle.

and, of course, the big $5600 charitable check went to

1.  The United States Golf Association.  (Of course)

>What an idea!  Anyone want to put together a list of types of 
>charities and their corresponding PC scores?  

Obviously, different people think different causes are 
more important.  But, if you want to equate the Red Cross to
say the "Society for the Preservation of the Lawrence Welk
Museum", so be it.  (I wouldn't want to put PC scores to
different charities.)

John D.







Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 19:28:15 GMT

>In article <1992Oct3.192210.27887@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>
>>However, if I say so, I'm sure to get beaten up because
>>that would mean I'm a Nazi and Nazi's are guilty before proven 
>>innocent.  

Yeah, I always get mad because those documentaries on the Holocaust have
such an anti-Nazi bias.

(big eye roll) Yeesh. What a maroon.
 
Alan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: CSPAN Schedule?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:07:57 GMT

yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:
>Does anyone know how to find out C-SPAN's schedule from
>day to day. They will occasionally post a schedule for part
>of that day, but it doesn't seem to be at any consistent
>time of day. Is there a number to call for schedule info. 

They flash a schedule at the bottom of the screen at about 15 minutes and
45 minutes past the hour, at least at night after the legislative session
is over. They do have a number you can call (I don't have it) that has a
touchtone-controlled schedule gizmo, but the number is not toll-free.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 13:54:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.193231.7840JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:

>Suicide is not illegal in all places. In Michigan, we have a specialist
>named Jack "Dr. Death" Kervorkian who just yesterday, helped another
>terminally ill patient kick the bucket.
>

A minor point, but actually suicide IS illegal everywhere (in the US).
Dr. Kervorkian cannot be prosecuted because Michigan has no specific law 
against "aiding another person" in a suicide.

>"If the State truly did own our bodies, why aren't there laws against
>"over-eating and under-exercising?
>"
>

Give them time.  These laws are coming.

-- 
Mike Axman  
CD-Imaging Advanced Development
Eastman Kodak Company
axman@kodak.com


DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't 
responsible for my postings.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: damning statistics
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:29:59 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <oekuW_O00WBMQ7xe15@andrew.cmu.edu> Andrew E Johnson <aj1j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>I am looking for a series of statistics
>that are most damning of the Bush administration. 
>

George Herbert Walker Bush:

A:	1
B:	2
E:	5
G:	2
H:	2
K:	1
L:	1
O:	1
R:	4
S:	1
T:	1
U:	1
W:	1


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:58:54 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust) writes:
: 
: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

: >    I lov it! Once again you Democrats, liberals, basically
: >cowardly scum of the Earth once again make a personal attack on
: >an opposing viewpoint! What is this, Krystalnacht?  Who are the
: >fascists!  Attack me personally, you damned dogs of scum and cowardice,
: >and I will take you ALL to your graves!
: >                        John Peter Wagner
: >P.S. Pardon the bellicosity.
: 
:  Who _IS_ this guy?!

Rush's alter ego.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8754 alt.politics.bush:7946 alt.politics.elections:15389
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Marilyn Quayle's latest
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:25:10 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

[from clarinet's news service]
>Marilyn Quayle attacked the Democrat's health care program as ``medically
>inadequate and too expensive.''

A response:

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Gov. Bill Clinton's plan to overhaul the nation's
health care system would save more money and provide health insurance to
more Americans than President Bush's proposal, a bipartisan report
concluded Thursday.
	The nation would spend $2.2 trillion more on health care over the
next 12 years under Bush's proposal compared to Clinton's, and 27
million Americans would still have no health insurance, according to the
report from Families USA, a non-profit health care reform advocacy
group.
	[...]
	Bush's plan would save $31 billion in spending on health care by the
year 2000 while the Clinton plan would save $211 billion, the report
said. By the year 2005, the Bush plan would save $46 billion compared to
a savings of $481 billion under Clinton's plan, the report said.
	That translates into the nation spending $10,398 per family for
health care under Bush's plan in the year 2000 compared to $9,219 under
Clinton's plan, a savings of $1,179 per family, the report said. By
2005, the savings would increase to $2,267 per family under Clinton's
reforms, the report said.
	``All in all, the bipartisan panel found a striking difference in
costs between the two presidental candidates' health plans,'' Ron
Pollack, the group's executive director, said at a news conference.
	While Clinton's plan would provide health insurance to all Americans
by the year 2005, Bush's plan would leave 27 million Americans without
insurance, the report said. In addition, Bush's plan would leave 11.8
million more Americans ``underinsured'' than Clinton's plan by the end
of the decade, the report said.
	``Gov. Clinton's plan provides health insurance for all Americans,
despite its lower price tag,'' said Pollack, who stressed that the
report was not intended as an endorsement of either candidate.
	[...]
	The panel included Stuart Altman, who served in the Nixon and Ford
administrations and is currently chairman of the Medicare Prospective
Payment Assessment Commission; Charles Edwards, who also served in the
Nixon and Ford administrations; Karen Davis, who served in the Carter
administration; Arthur Flemming, who served under Nixon, Ford, Carter
and Eisenhower, and Philip Lee, who served under Johnson and is chairman
of the Physician Payment Review Commission.

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.clinton
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:02:47 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: People like this cause converts to the pro-choice camp :)

In article <1992Sep28.105048.7267@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> I suggest that all pro-abortion people start by aborting their own
> children, all of them.  

	No kids.  Two dogs, a cat.  But by definition if I already had kids,
the decision whether to abort the pregnancy would alreay have been made, no?

> Then, when they have found the joy of it
> they can tell the rest of the world and the rest of the world
> can voluntarily join them.

	There are people who have aborted pregnancies, and felt that it was the
best thing to do.  "Joy" probably isn't the word they use, though.  Does your
god shout joyfully when (s)he causes a miscarriage?

	By the way, when did you have your vasectomy?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments)
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 08:46:20 GMT

>In article <1992Sep26.031818.7838@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>>O come now, do you mean that our military is so inept that its special
>>forces cannot take out *ONE MAN*?? What planet are *YOU* living on??
>>We could have equipped some mercenaries, or Kurds to do the job too. 

Well, aside from the fact that Saddam is not an easy man to get to (his
security precautions are enormous, many attempts on his life have failed),
it is illegal to go in to assassinate him.

Yes, it offends me that some poor bastard in Iraq can get drafted into the
army and then get his *** blown off in the air war even though he had no
wish to be there and did nothing wrong himself.  However, targeting heads
of state is illegal, and the coalition would not have supported it, if for
no other reason than the fact that several key nations were run by people
who would wonder if they would be next!

In short, we didn't do it because it is not easy to get him via
assassination (or his own people would have done it), and because the
coalition would not have supported the illegal act.  We did our best to get
him with smart bombs by going after "command and control" bunkers during
the war.  Those *are* legitimate targets.  Reliable rumor says that the
infamous bunker full of civilians was hit because an intelligence agent on
the ground saw Saddam enter the bunker about 2 hours before it was hit.  He
left before it was hit, apparently, if he was really there.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System)
Subject: Re: Why won't you answer, Mr. Gore?
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:11:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.151426.21019@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Oct1.005909.4460@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> >	Money should be used to help develop other country's economic standing
> >so that (in part) they can be better trade partners with the US?
> >
> >	Why can't you answer that question, Mr. Gore?
> >
> >Brett                                                      
> 
>    Kind of like the Export Assistance Program which offers tax breaks to US
> companies to take American jobs overseas?  I DON'T think so.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
I saw this drivel on 60 minutes last Sunday.
The story was blantantly one-sided.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:19:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.233619.39917@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.061728.26710@europa.lonestar.org>, tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>|> Since all the government revenue comes from the Poll Tax, it would have
>|> to be an astronomical tax to fund government at even 15% of its current level.
>|> (which is not even enough to pay interest on the national debt, let alone 
>|> provide services of any kind).
>
>to foot the entire cost, you'd see spending go down pretty quick.  If 
>nobody pays the poll tax then the government doesn't get to spend any 
>money that year.  Simple enough.

Hmmm.  This plan is even more clever than I thought (not).  Well then, lets
see how that scenario will work out in practice:

Since the government does not pay interest on the national debt, the dollar
becomes worthless.  All investments directly related to the US dollar (bank
accounts, treasury bills, bonds, etc) become worthless.  Investments indirectly
related to the U.S. dollar (stocks) lose 90% of their value.  At this point
the majority of Americans have lost more wealth than they saved on lower
taxes or on no taxes, with the ironic exception of the poor.  [Simple enough]

But wait, that's not all.  The government no longer has any money to pay for 
such things as the military, police, courts and prisons, so we lapse into
anarchy.  Now we have a worse political system than existed in 1492.  [Simple 
enough]

Here's where things start to improve:  Cuba and Mexico send their armies over 
and divvy up the country.  Of course they haul all of our possessions back to
Havana and Mexico City.  We've already lost our financial assets, now we lose
all our property.  But at least we save on taxes.

Simple enough.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7734 alt.politics.bush:7130 alt.politics.marrou:1348 alt.politics.correct:5550
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:21:52 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep23.161633.15637@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>God says that homosexuality is wrong and evolution says that 
>homosexuality is a dead end.

What makes you think you know anything about God?  From the offensive tone of
your post (most of which I deleted, but anyone who didn't read it already
can do a ctrl-P to search backwards, when you're done reading mine), I don't
think you know much about God or man.  Well, I happen to be a Jewish agnostic
with leanings toward Buddhism, and I don't happen to think your version of
God makes much sense.  The true arrogance of fundamentalism is that its
followers think they know the word of God, better than anyone else.  In my
opinion, if God thought that homosexuality were wrong, then God shouldn't have
created homosexuals.  That's just my opinion, but it's every bit as good as
yours.  And evolution brought about different types of sexual orientation;
the fact that they have been around for millenia contradicts your latter
statement.

But you're free to believe what you want.  And I'm free to suggest that you
could stand to learn a little more about religion, science, and manners.
(And about AIDS, too - it doesn't sound like you understand the true nature
of the problem.)

   - Dave Borden
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (ce)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 15:41:02 GMT

In article <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>
>I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
>Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
>cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
>progressive result.
>
Congress apparently knows what's *really* important to the American people!

Screw the Deficit. Just make sure everyone gets cheap cable TV...

The Glass Teat, indeed...


*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:13:14 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <1992Sep27.221029.16779@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> But why should I pay for a bus service that is unreliable??  If the city
|> improved it then people would be more willing to use it, and to pay for it.

It's Catch-22.  The city doesn't want to improve it unless people are
using it.  The bus fares were FREE in Austin for several months a
couple of years ago, and they STILL had empty buses driving around
Austin.  What does that tell you about the demand for public
transportation?

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWD Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:13:15 GMT

In article <5684@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>&egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>&: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>&
>&:>who's in the lead in terms of number of books sold, current ranking, etc.
>&:>Ross Perot's Book, Albert Gores, Rush Limbaughs, or Clintons Biography?
>&: Limbaugh's book is on the top (#1) of the NY Times Bestsellers List, as
>&: of Sunday.  <head shaking, wondering "Why?">
>&
>&Winter's coming soon.  People need *something* to burn for heat.  :)
>
>Well, it would be interesting to burn Al Gore's book for the winter.
>Gives another meaning to "There goes the planet."

I'm told that the Honorable Mr. Limbaugh potty trained a dog with
pages from Gore's book on his TV show.  Shitting on the planet,
indeed.


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7475 talk.politics.misc:48195 alt.rush-limbaugh:6002 alt.politics.bush:6909 alt.politics.elections:14420