HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:05:22 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?

> 
> 
>	One thing is nearly certain. During the next four years the
>president of the United States will have to call on young men and
>women in the military to fight and die. We all hope and pray that this
>does not happen, but only a reckless fool would refuse to consider it
>as a real possibility. It is entirely likely that the cause they are
>asked defend will be a questionable one. After all, Presidents and
>Congresses have been known to make mistakes.
>	So, who do you want to be asking your children to march off to
>war and not return? Do you want the man who, when it was his turn to
>go, weaseled out by running off to England?  Or do you want the man
>who flew off the aircraft carrier wondering if he would ever return? Do
>you want the man who meditated on his future political viability while
>in a comfy dorm room at Oxford?  Or do you want the man who was
>wondering about the value of war while floating in the Pacific Ocean
>after being shot down?  
>	The President of the United States has to have the moral
>authority to lead the military. He is, first and foremost, the
>Commander in Chief of the most powerful army the world has ever know.
>If Gov. Clinton is elected, every soldier who is asked to fight and
>die will have the right to say : "HE DIDN'T GO WHEN HE WAS CALLED, WHY
>SHOULD I?" Any notion of self-sacrifice in the name of duty will have
>to be compleatly abandoned. While Gov. Clinton may be a fine
>administrator, a great speaker, and a good politician, he lacks the
>moral authority to be Commander in Chief. He can still be patriotic,
>he can still love his country, he can still serve in politics; but the
>moral authority to ask someone to die is purchased with actions, not
>with talk.
>	Before you fire up your flame throwers, take some time and ask
>yourself how you would really feel if Gov. Clinton told you that your
>child (or you) had to go and die for this county? 


>From: pawlicki@kodak.com



Based on your logic we should only allow men who have beeen injured in
War to be president as only they have experienced the full range of
combat experiences.
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:37:22 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

If it should happen, I'd prefer a commander-in-chief that understood the evils
of war.  I'd also prefer sons/daughters/commanders-in-chief with enough smarts
to questions authority.

Between Bush and Clinton, I'd prefer Clinton.

Add Perot and I'd prefer either over Bush.

Add Marrou and I'd prefer him over the rest of the lot.  He's the most strongly
opposed to wars on foreign soil.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Vice Shrub won
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:54:04 GMT

Yup, I think Our Man Dan actually won.  He came out there shooting,
was aggressive with the occassional little fact, and didn't make an
obvious gaffe.

Gore was wooden, and there were a couple of lines I thought he should
have followed up on but didn't.  So much for zinging your opponent
with the single-moderator.

Quayle was helped in part by having the closing zing a number of
times, when I thought the discussion could have continued for quite a
while longer.  Lawyers are right when they say they'd rather have
closing arguments before a jury.  Further, expectations were so low
for him that he would have come across peachy by not saying, for
instance, "Hypocracy is when hippos rule the world."  But give the
Vice Shrub credit: he came prepared.  Quayle as the GOP nominee in
'96?

Adm. Stockdale.  Hmm.  I felt sorry for him, especially at the
beginning.

The debate shouldn't change the overall election.  Quayle may have
improved his political stock, but that won't necessarily help Bush.
Won't hurt, but it won't help: Bush is still seen as the one
responsible for everyone's woes.  Gore.  Hmm.  Trickier to assess, but
I don't think he screwed up the Democratic ticket by letting Quayle
get away at some points.  Stockdale's performance won't help Perot at
all.  It might harm his ticket: he bumbled fairly badly in the
beginning (but he's such a NICE, Santa-like bumbler, unlike Quayle,
the Ken-doll bumbler in '88), and Perot seems to have picked him
without considering if he were qualified to step into the President's
shoes if, say, an eagle picked Ross up and carried him away.  This
won't reflect well on Perot's judgement, but then Bush had these
problems in '88, and it didn't hurt him much at all.

Three funniest lines (these are approximations: I don't have the text
in front of me):

3) When I ran my own civilization...  -- Stockdale
	[yes, I know it was an unfortunate situation in the POW camp.
	 It's just the way he said it.]

2) I didn't have my hearing aide on...  -- Stockdale again

And the most irony-laden/Freudian slippish line....



1) I want a President who tells the truth... -- The Danster himself
	[Was it only me, or did other people have visions of
	 Iran-contra and Iraq-gate, not to mention "Read My Lips"
	 a-dancing through my head?]

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:06:40 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <3074@news.cerf.net> adler@nic.cerf.net (Bruce Adler) writes:
]While we're at it, someone should ask Clinton where he buried
]Jimmy Hoffa's body.

I wouldn't be surprised if you got two different answers on two different days!


-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:31:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.182627.6519@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Not true in many cases. If I had a voucher for what the state spends on
>the average child of that age I could send my daughter to the most expensive
>school in the city.

Not necessarily.  Private schools have the option of refusing
admission to any student.  If you and every other parent
flocks to this "best" school, clearly most of you would
be disappointed.

I am FAR from a big booster of the current public school system,
but the voucher plans I've seen so far from the Republicans
do not impress me at all.  As soon as I am satisfied that
no voucher (tax) money goes to religious schools, then
I'll pay attention.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:03:34 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
	<1992Oct15.150830.20069@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>

In article <1bj2arINNagm@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. 
Sherman) writes:
>This is a pet peeve of mine.  How come John Sununu, Pat Buchanan and
>Mona Charen, ex-Republican Administration members all, get to pose
>on CNN as journalists?  

CNN at least seems to make an effort to be partially non-liberal.

Erik Witte
<ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15721 alt.politics.clinton:9185 alt.politics.bush:8267
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:32:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.025825.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

>Since you're so keen on quotes today, try this one:
>"The wise man's heart inclines him toward the right, but a fools heart to the
>left." 
>--Ecclesiastes 10:2

It's the old "God is a Republican" argument.  You'd think the 
reaction to Houston would encourage you to take a new tact.  
(Interestingly enough, the terms "right" and "left" refer to 
the general assembly from the French Revolution (~1790).  
I wonder how the ancient Hebrews could make sence of a statement
that apparently [according to our good Republican friends] had
no meaning until a few millenia had passed.)

>
>> That's a personal matter, none of our business.  If you insist on harping on
>> this topic, then I'll insist on an explanation why Bush 
>>won't deny ever having an extramarital affair.
>He did. And so did Miss Fitzgerald, for that matter.
> 

He denied having an affair with Miss Fitzgerald, but
he did not deny ever having had an affair.  (He was asked that
question point blank).  In effect, he told the reporter (quite
correctly) "it's none of your business".  Does that answer
mean he's had an affair?  I don't know and I don't care.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: af610@yfn.ysu.edu (Ben Hanson)
Subject: DATELINE: Washington II
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 10:46:48 GMT


 Former-President-to-be George Herbert Walker Bush today announced
that Governor Clinton loosened articles of his clothing and exposed
private parts of his body while young children were in the same
public restroom, in Moscow, during the Viet Name War.
 "I don't have all the facts.", the President said, "I just want
Governor Clinton to come clean to the American people."

-- 
Ben Hansen
af610@yfn.ysu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Bush v. Clinton: ""Who do you trust?""
Organization: Clark University
Date: 17 OCT 92 01:40:56 GMT


In a previous article, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) wrote:
>In article <92290.143553JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu>, JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu wrote:
>> I admit to having serious reservations about Clinton, but at
>> least with Clinton I know I have a chance for improvement.  Bush
>> has done NOTHING during his time in office to convince me that
>> I can believe what he says.
> 
>Yeah, you're right: his international performance has been nothing.  How
>quickly the winds change when the danger is gone. Churchill suffered the
>same sort of weirdness.

For every foreign policy decision that Bush could perhaps consider
successful, there's a questionable one, or at least one that would 
seem to deserve more scrutiny than it's gotten. Arms-for-hostages and
the timing of the Iran hostage release? Iraqgate? China (massacre & 
trade status)? Slow reaction to Soviet collapse? Handling of Earth Summit?

Maybe people have gotten used to a lack of overt initiative.

-				|   "Don't torture yourself, Gomez.
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|    That's my job."
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    			- Morticia Addams
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Oh yeah? (VP debate)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:21:50 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

David Veal writes:
>     The problem with practiced pre-planned remarks is that you're 
>generally stuck with them even when they have nothing to with what's going 
>on.  That's what's caused the "index card syndrome" we've seen in past 
>presidential debates, where a question is asked, and the candidate goes 
>through his notes until he finds something with a common word and then gives 
>a mini-speech on the subject.
>     May not answer the question, but then we're not really watching to hear 
>an answer.  If we haven't got their inevitably staged answers down pat by 
>now we're terminally clueless.  We're watching because we want to be there 
>when somebody screws up.     Nobody had their mind changed last night.  The 
>responses here on the net are proof enough that people saw exactly what they 
>wanted and expected to see. 

True enough. It'll be interesting to see what the audience asks tonight.
In the past, the audience has confounded the sensation-expectation
and asked challenging, unexpected questions. 

We all know the stump-the-band type questions:

Perot and anti-semitism...
Clinton and the Fullbright connection 
Bush and Obstruction of Justice in IraqGate

But people will probably amaze everyone and ask $$$ questions. Politics,
go figure.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Nobody knows, from sea to shining sea, why we are having all this trouble
with our republic.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: buckmr@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Magic Johnson vs George Bush?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:35:21 GMT

isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:


>MAGIC WENT TO TWO MEETINGS:
>   Magic Johnson says he attended two meetings - not one as
>President Bush said in Sunday's presidential debate - before
>resigning from the National Commission on AIDS. But Johnson's two
>appearances were one more than all three members of the
>president's Cabinet who have seats on the commission, said Carlton
>Lee, chief liaison officer of the commission.

Gee...What a surprise! Bush lied to the American public again.

From The Great Communicator, to the Great Prevaricator! :-)

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ***Clinton-Gore '92***
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
0.5% of the U.S. population owns 48.4% of the assets. 1% owns 61.8% and 10%
owns 91.7%. -- Source: Arthur B. Kennickell,_ Demographics & Household Savings_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:51:52 GMT

In <1992Oct15.060138.887@europa.lonestar.org> 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. 

I think you need to look at a couple more meaningful numbers than just
absolute magnitude of the debt; percentage of GDP and percentage of
foreign holders.  I don't believe there were any huge rises in debt as
a percentage of GDP until Bush got in office.  So, it would seem that
you can blame Bush, certainly, but no matter how ideologically correct
it may be in certain circles to want to 'smear Reagan', this is
another one that just doesn't seem to quite stick.

[If Democrats will learn to quit running against Reagan and
Republicans ever figure out that they're not running against Carter,
Mondale, or Dukakis, we might see some actually factual and reasonable
discussion of the issues in this country.  Given the typical political
climate, let's just say that I'm not holding my breath waiting for
that one.] 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: vice presidential debates
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:31:16 GMT

In article <1672@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
>Who won the vice presidential debate of Oct. 13, 1992?

>I will offer my opinion. 

>Dan Quayle won.

My opinion:

Quayle acted like a child among adults.
Quayle lost big time.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15833 alt.politics.clinton:9375 alt.politics.bush:8394
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Domino Poll
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:00:07 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <Bvu3CH.95L@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
> On CNN, a group of retired Republicans expressed that Bush was
> losing touch with reality. I think they should know well and
> Bush supporters should beware that this country can't
> survive continued leadership from the geriatric ward.
> Russia retired her senile leadership, it's time the
> USA did likewise.
> 
> -- 
> -- Pat Monardo
> -- pjm@cshl.org

I agree, lets get rid of Metzenbaum, Bentsen, Pell, Glenn, Inouye, 
Kennedy, anyone else?? Yes the 76 year old guy with the bad heart
valve from I think North Carolina, can't think of his name, starts with
an S.

Ken
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton - facts only.
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:11:37 GMT
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rice University

This is my impression of the facts in this case.  Anyone with (rational
unbiased) criticism is encouraged to amend:

1.  By his own admission, Clinton went to the USSR in 1969.

2.  The state department keeps files on peoples' travels (specifics?).

3.  News organizations successfully filed Freedom of Information act suits to
    obtain Clinton's file.

4.  Clinton's file had been tampered with.

5.  The FBI is currently investigating the tampering.

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16975 alt.politics.bush:9289 alt.politics.clinton:10598 alt.politics.perot:2202
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: On Adm stockdale
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:26:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

I found myself turning the volume down when it was his turn to answer
a question because I was so embarrassed for him.  I thought I was
alone, but apparently lots of folx did this.

I dunno.  Clearly the "skills" displayed by the VPs aren't terribly
relevant to their positions, so I lost no respect for the man--and he
was sincere and committed--but, really, I mean, jeez, it was painful
to watch.  And I'll bet he's such a nice guy.  And smart.  And so on.

Hey, media elite watch: if Quayle had done something like that, we'd
have laughed him off to Mars (where he's claimed we can breathe)
instead of said nice things about him.  Is it because of the Media
Elite(tm) or because the man takes himself seriously or what?  What's
the difference?


--
Peace.
                           "If I could find a way to get [Saddam Hussein] out
                            of there, even putting a contract out on him, if
                            the CIA still did that sort of a thing, assuming
                            it ever did, I would be for it."
                                           -- Richard Nixon
                                   -\--/-
    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: machman@hardy.u.washington.edu (the machman)
Subject: Re: drug wars (was re: VP debates)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:48:10 GMT

fajack@cc.usu.edu writes:

> But there is a very major difference between drugs and alcohol.  You will get
>addicted to drugs very quickly.  Occasionally, I'll have a beer or two, and
>never touch it again for maybe over a month.  But I don't think I could say 
>the same for drugs.  From what I heard, after you have it the first time, you
>just crave for more.  You just cannot compare the two.

"It" meaning "drugs"?  "The two" meaning "drugs and alcohol"?  Jack, it's
not nearly as simple as you have been led to believe.  Every drug has 
different effects and different addictive rates.  To lump them all together
as "drugs" and claim that "it" will make you crave for more, displays a
level of ignorance that renders the rest of your argument practically
worthless.  For example, did you know that ex-Surgeon-General Koop has
claimed that nicotine is more addictive than heroin?  Did you know that 
LSD and marijuana have a physical addictiveness of practically zero?

>	I think to win the drug war is to attack the demand side (not the
>supply side).  For example, we can revoke driving license or impose jail
>sentence on those people who buys drugs.  As long as there is demand, there
>is always supply to meet those demand.  Look at the oldest profession in the
>world.   It still exists because there is always demand for it. 

And there will always be demand for "drugs", Jack.  That's reality.  Now the
question is what's the best way to deal with that reality?  Criminalizing
drug use has always failed in the past.  What can we do differently now to
reduce the problem?  More enforcement, more jails, more destruction of civil
liberties is not the answer.  We need to look at other possible solutions, 
and legalization is one of them.  

>Jack Teh

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 14 Oct 1992 01:46:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, matt@physics3.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) says:

>If I ever run for office, I sure hope that nobody ever makes an issue
>out of how a memory I have of my tourism in Japan.

Nobody will, unless you run against someone as weak and desperate as Bush.
THAT'S what this is really all about.

-- 
Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
"The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17123 talk.politics.misc:52164