HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:22:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.143550.1650@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>    I supported Ross Perot, and I wanted to vote for him in November.  But that

Well, do it ... vote for the guy you believe is the best ...
don't let any polls detract from making your real beliefs be heard.

>does not take away from the fact that Bill Clinton will win what quite possibly
>could be the largest victory over a sitting President in American history.

After the first debate, I really dread it.
>
>    Polls are now showing Clinton with about a 16 point lead going into the
>debates, and really the only way that Bush can win the election is for the
>Republicans to come out with a "smoking bimbo" and destroy Clinton
>instantaneously.
>
>    This election will end with much turnover, and it will start at the top.  I
>still believe that Ross Perot has the best ideas, but I no longer believe he
>can win.  I believe that the voting, at this point, shall turn into no more
>than a mere formality of what we have been seeing over the course of the last 8
>weeks; Clinton with sizable leads nearly everywhere.
>
>    When all the votes are counted, Clinton will win, Bush will lose, and Perot
>will have wasted his time.  I'd say it may be in Perot's best interests not to
>bother going on with what the Americans voters now see is a charade.
>
>    This IS NOT a Clinton endorsement; just a statement of political reality. 
>Bill Clinton, with a Democratic Congress, scares me, but I know now that that
>is probably what we are going to have for the next four years.
>
>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.

Geez. Save the creepy story for halloween, fellah. :-)

I don't disagree with your analysis - it would be hard for Bush, or Perot,
to catch up, and yes, Clinton is in the runaway position.
But let's see what the rest of the debates bring.
Maybe America will see through Clinton's act and realize how unfit he
is for the Presidency.

I was underwhelmed by president-presumptive Clinton in debate #1.
I was also impressed by Perot.

I am voting for Bush, because he has the best economic plan, one
that will provide growth, jobs, more businesses and higher exports, he will
provide the best leadership at home and abroad, and he will be the
best to deal, both constructively and using his veto pen, with the
next Congress.
BUT .... I wouldn't be scared of a Perot presidency; and I suspect
neither would many Americans. Who knows, maybe Americans
will turn to Perot as a Different kind of Change.

Pat
	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51914 alt.politics.perot:2192 alt.politics.elections:16923
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:26:36 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <4aYr02rX25iM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> joplin@mcode.amdahl.com (Jerry Joplin) writes:
>In article <exukjb.298.718546956@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>> Could someone answer for me this question. To whom are we in debt? Is the 
>> national debt just "funny money" we owe to ourselves, to other nations, 
>> whom?  To what institutions?  This is a question I never seem to be able
>> to get a straight answer to.  Not being an economist I must rely on experts
>> here.  Exactly what is the breakdown of that debt and to whom is it owed? 
>> //////////////////////////////////////
>> /* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
>> //////////////////////////////////////
>
>Good question!  I'm suprised this isn't asked more often.  About 25% of the
>debt is owed to foreign investors, Govts of Germany, Japan, and individuals
>such as the Emir of Kuwait, etc... The other 75% is owed to U.S. individuals,
>corporations, trust funds, retirement accounts, etc..  
>
>Jerry Joplin   Sunnyvale,CA | I do not speak for Amdahl Corporation.

	****A SOLUTION***

	We pass a law that income tax on all people that loan money to the
U.S. government be 100% we then allow them to collect it all at once and
then we can take it back as taxes. We should be able to handle the remaining
25%.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50822 alt.rush-limbaugh:7069 alt.politics.bush:8587 alt.politics.clinton:9651 alt.politics.elections:16060 talk.abortion:41906 alt.sex:32602
From: vcsc1169@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Ruth Anne Ladue)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:48:07 GMT
Organization: San Francisco State University

What is this thread doing HERE???

-- 
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ruth Anne   
vcsc1169@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
..with nothing particularly witty to .sig....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:54:43 GMT

In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.181610.6870@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:
>> ... Then in another 10
>> years the Republican party will have another ingrained voter block.
>> 
>> Kemp and Baker in 1996.

Nope. Kemp/Gramm or Kemp/Campbell '96.

>One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
>economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
>independent of who is President and what he does.  A Clinton/Gore win

Nope. The Democrats are *hoping* the economy will roll along no matter
how awful their own policies. They, and the country, may be rudely
surprised.

>in 1992 will lead to
>
>     Clinton/Gore in 1996
>
>     Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)
>
>     Gore/Braun in 2004

Pride goeth before a fall buddy ....
you've got an environmental extremist and soemone who apparently
has engaged in welfare (Medicaid) fraud as the prospective
Democratic nominees 12 years hence.
As Bush would say: " ... wouldn't be prudent ..."

Pat
	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo candidate
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: This Time Around, DON'T VOTE !!
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:45:25 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 718397895@craft.camp.clarkson.edu, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick Townson) writes:
>>It might be different if our votes *really* meant anything ... but
>>they do not. It might be different if our votes were sacred; if the
>>will of the people in the USA was really what detirmined how we are
>>governed ... but they are not.
>
>They don't mean anything because such a pathetic percentage of the
>people vote. Officials represent the electorate. If only 51% of
>the people vote, then they will only be representing 51% of
>the opinions.

Actually, the fact that so few eligible voters vote makes my vote worth a
lot more than it would be otherwise.  But do you really want someone like
Mr. Townson to vote?  Bear in mind that he can't see any difference between
candidates of either party, including Bush and Clinton.  What kind of candi-
date would he support if he did vote?  Probably not one that I would want
to see in office.  The way I see it is that his not voting supports whatever
candidate I happen to choose.  I don't begrudge him his right to vote for an
opposing candidate, but I certainly won't encourage him to do it.  That 51%
of the people who vote happen to make up 100% of the voting-age people whose 
opinions count in this country.  The remainder should not vote unless they are 
concerned enough to educate themselves about the real issues and candidates.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51242 alt.politics.elections:16350 alt.politics.bush:8802 alt.politics.clinton:9964 alt.politics.perot:2021
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:27:23 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <BvzMI3.556@doppler.ncsc.org>
kmoore@ncsc.org (Kevin Moore) writes:
 
>In article <1b4jpgINN33f@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu
>(Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
> >
> >State  EV   Bush Clinton Perot
> >  AR    6    25     58!    6
>
>How is it that Clinton has no lead in Arkansas? Are they wiser
>to this guy than the rest of the nation?
 
>||  Kevin Moore                      North Carolina Supercomputing Center   ||
 
You call 58-25 "no lead in Arkansas"?!?!?!?
 
What exactly is your criterion for "lead"?  Whatever it is, you must
have Bush winning every state by a huge margin.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52473 talk.abortion:43065 alt.sex:33181
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:30:07 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <Bw73x2.Bxv@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>Well, it's up to her whether or not to have the child - it's HER choice,
>isn't it?  I mean, the man doesn't have any rights here.  It's not like
>we wanted to keep him ON the hook.  We wanted him the hell out of the
>way so we could get this abortion done if we decided we wanted one.  
>The woman isn't FORCED into a medical procedure.  It's her decision.

Steve, I give you credit for presenting the only new and original 
argument I've seen coming from the pro-life direction in years, and
I admit there is some validity in what you say.  It's a problem that
needs to be dealt with.  The issue you pose is...why is it assumed that
a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, i.e. to choose whether
or not to be a mother, but a father has no right to distance himself
from the pregnancy if it's carried to term, i.e. to choose whether
or not to be a father.

The point you are selectively ignoring is that we are talking about a
woman's body.  The issue of whether or not a woman has the right to
abort a pregnancy inevitably turns into an issue of whether or not she
has the right to control what happens to her own body.  Whether you like
it or not, whether you want to admit it or not, you are saying that she
doesn't.

You seem to see a ridiculous assumption in saying that "the man only
contributes a bit of tissue."  For all the vitriol you apply to that
remark, it's still true.  It is not the body of the man that is changing
during the pregnancy.  As long as the body of the woman is what is under
discussion, she is only one which has the right to choose what happens
to it.  Frankly, the feelings of the father don't count for shit.  His
body is not what is being discussed.

Nothing gives anyone the right to tell a woman that her body, for the
next nine months, is going to be a factory to produce a baby whether
she likes it or not.  That is equivalent to saying that her body is
not her own, it belongs to society.  All your sophistry doesn't get
around this basic point.

Joe


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52120 alt.politics.clinton:10732 alt.activism:17514
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Early voting in Texas
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:10:01 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	Actually anyone can vote early.

	It's called an absentee ballot.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:04:52 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) says:

>ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
>votes than George Bush.  Namely:
>
>	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush

So, since there are 538 electoral votes up for grabs, that only leaves us
104 short.  Interesting.

>
>This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.
>
>Stratocaster
>

Thanks, but I think I'll cast my vote anyway...


>
>-- 
>	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
>      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
>				   
>There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: ==> 3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:31:25 GMT

In article <12OCT199207165832@gergo.tamu.edu> dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.204755.1383@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>}In article <92285.153100U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>}>          3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN
>}>
>}>From the Chicago Tribune   Sunday, October 11, 1992
>}>(First published in the Boston Globe)
>} 
>}I'm less concerned that the people in the Bush ad were all friends
>}of the campaign (this is a surprise?), but I'm much more curious
>}as to how the tax increases were calculated.  Is there any factual
>}basis to the ad?  Or is it lying that is especially blatant by
>}the Bush campaign?  

They used economic analyses of health care proposals submitted
to Congress. These "pay or play" plans were used as a model for Clinton's
vaguer plan. Most of them used a ~3% payroll tax for funding.

Clinton however lives in a magicland where programs cost no money.
Clinton still won't say where he's getting the money for his plan,
and won't admit that he will institue a payroll tax like that.
He claims that savings in the health care budget overall will provide
the money.
Sure. That's like saying you can get a car for free, because, heck,
the high gas mileage will save you a ton of money. Think about it.

>}(Wouldn't it be a great commercial to show this Canes fellow being
>}interviewed saying that the Bushes were lying about how his taxes
>}would be raised under Clinton?) 

It would also be false ... you're taxes will indeed be raised.

>I think that maybe the only real way they could have calculated this
>was by assuming that, under Clinton, these people would make a lot more
>money in a year, thereby increasing their total taxes, though not
>necessarily their tax percentage. :)

Nope. Your incomes will decline, and you will still pay more.
Indirectly, through business tax increases, and directly, through
a payroll tax.  It's either that or an ever higher deficit.

Pat
	Bill Clinton: the Status-Quo candidate
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ALLCU (?)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:01:25 GMT
Organization: pubs
In-reply-to: susanh@cmptrc.lonestar.org's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:04:08 GMT

Susan Highlander writes:

   Can anyone tell me what the term "ALLCU" is? I have heard it in connection
   with Perot, but have no idea what it is. I was told it is pronounced 
   "Ashu", so I'm assuming it's not an acronym, but a name or word in another
   language. Email me if you have any clues what this means. Thanks.

Could you mean ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union?  I never heard
it pronounced a-choo.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jot@teak09.cray.com (Otto Tennant)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
In-reply-to: cb@tamarack13.timbuk's message of 7 Oct 92 12:45:29 CDT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
	<1992Oct6.003817.15753@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Oct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com> <CB.92Oct7124527@tamarack13.timbuk>
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:06:40 CDT

In article <CB.92Oct7124527@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
>Path: hemlock.cray.com!cb
>From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
>Lines: 34
>Organization: pubs
>References: <5OCT199219033406@utarlg.uta.edu>
>        <1992Oct6.003817.15753@pony.Ingres.COM>
>        <1992Oct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com>
>Date: 7 Oct 92 12:45:29 CDT
>
>John VietNam Veteran Moore writes:
>
>   To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
>   Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
>   "willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
>   and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
>   least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
>   reprehensible and offensive.
>
>   Oh, by the way, he says that he went to Moscow during a time of
>   "warming relations." They may have been warming between him and
>   the Soviets, but the soviets were actively involved at the time
>   that he went there. Furthermore, one could not travel to the
>   USSR without their permission, and they did a background investigation
>   of people before granting permission (you had to give them a lot
>   of personal information, and then wait a long time). They tended to
>   admit people who would further their anti-US cause, and ban people
>   who would damage their cause. They were especially fond of anti-war
>   leaders, as they felt (correctly) that the war could only be
>   won for them by the actions of these people.
>
>   Then, there is the fact that a several of pages from his state department
>   file are missing - specifically those from that period. This is VERY
>   suspicious.
>
>Mr. Vietnam Veteran, the pathetic issue that you're flogging is what's
>known as a red herring.  Have you ever heard of being a tourist?  I know
>quite a few people who visited Moscow in that era--AS TOURISTS.  Why
>don't you apply your cold-war mentality to something productive, such as
>trimming your hedge with napalm.
>
>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com
>

Gracious.  In the absense of extenuating circumstances, one would be
a tourist in Moscow at the time as a "fellow
traveller^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H tourist".  Failure to recognize the
Evil Empire for what it was is certainly relevant information, not a
"red herring."  Sorry, Chris.
--
===============================================================================
J.Otto Tennant      Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.         jot@cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.              Virgil                          (612) 683-5872
655 Lone Oak Drive                                                
Eagan, MN 55121
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Wow.
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:00:40 GMT


Found this in the September 1992 edition (volume 22, number 3) of _The
Docket_, the three-times-a-year newsletter of the Civil Liberties
Union of Massachusetts (CLUM), on p.7, in the "Report from the Western
Regional Office" column:

    _John Doe v. Registry of Motor Vehicles_.  This complaint filed
    with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is
    against the State Registry of Motor Vehicles.  The Registry has
    denied an individual the right to take his driver's test on
    account of his HIV positive status.  Our cooperating attorney is
    Springfield attorney Cynthia Turnbull.

Wow.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton & Santa Claus, Both Myths.
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:15:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   I get the feeling that everybody is crowding around Clinton like he was
Santa Claus, waiting for him to hand them their gift. This Santa, however,
will be buying these gifts on credit and using YOUR credit card to do it. We
can't all take and expect nobody to give. When will we open our eyes and
realize that this country needs mutual sacrifice? Maybe it will take another
four years of "HA! Fooled ya again!" I hope not.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:47:45 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.174154.7572@oracle.us.oracle.com>, 
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) said:

> > And, of course, let's not forget that there actually was no "war"
> > at all.  It's kind of hard for me to get mad at someone for not
> > being loyal to his country when the nation itself -- or at least
> > its government -- never had the guts to actually deal with the
> > issue of formally declaring war.  [wdstarr]
>
> I fail to understand why Clinton's actions should be excused because
> of the shortcomings of Nixon and Congress.

I disagree that any of Clinton's actions require any excuse.
 
In any event, I made the point about the failure of the United States
government to declare war only because someone else -- I've long
forgotten who it was or exactly what was said -- had made statements
about Clinton's actions having taken place during time of war.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>