HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Does he or Doesn't he?
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:35:06 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


		Peace Marcher Recalls Clinton in London Parade

	Jesuit priest and Georgetown prof (and peace activist:) Richard
McSorley rememvers student Bill Clinton helping to carry a coffin around a
London square in 1969.  When the marchers were denied access to the US embassy,
Clinton tried to negotiate with police.  McSorely said he also met Clinton at
an anti-war prayer service.

	Up till now, Clinton has denied such participation.

	Heh.  I expect more people to step forward with memories of Bill "not a
major organizer" during his "not dodging the draft, but not really
participationg, either" days.

	Slick Willie, won't you please come home?  (Anyone knowing the words to
the Bill Bailey song is welcome to post a parody :)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Bye 4 now
Keywords: duty calls
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:56:09 GMT




Well gang its been real and its been fun so I guess it must have been real fun.
I'm currently embarking on a development project which will consume all my work
time plus a large % of my free time. Any time left over has to go to my wife
and kids cause they're more important to me then the net. When duty calls in
the real world you have to answer cause duty pays the bills! If anyone out
there thinks we have unfinished business(it could happen)or just wants to 
open a discussion on any subject I can be reached via e-mail at:

			stank@herb.net.com

I WILL respond to all e-mail received and post responces to the net if 
requested. I simply no longer have the time to dig through the 100s of daily
post received in this group alone. I leave you with the 
                     
                         "Rules for this and all Elections" 
                      as printed in the unabridged mind of Stan 

1. VOTE
2. Vote your conscience and to hell with what anybody else thinks
3. No matter who wins don't give them a free ride (question authority)

Follow these simple rules and it will, at least, make it much tougher for the
people to get screwed by politicians.

Stan Knight
|"I'll be back."	--Arnold--	|
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: blood
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:48:46 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Oct8.152712.6702@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>How much blood do I have in my body? Lots?
>
>	Take a little. There. It's only a mosquito bite. It will grow back.
>You need it. It's ok.
>
>	Why are you still drinking? Have I not given you blood to solve
>your problem?
>
>	What? Your friend wants a drink? Well...Ok. Only another mosquito
>bite...
>
>	[many mosquito bites later...]
>
>	Hmm. I feel weak. Why are you all still drinking of me? I cannot
>make more blood if you do not give me a breather. You are taking more
>than I can produce....
>
>	[death of the host, death of the parasites follows]
>
>	Drive a stake through the hearts of the vampires; eliminate
>the leeching Democrat party.

Well, you seem healthy enough, physically, perhaps not mentally.  You're in
a good school, and you'll probably get a pretty high paying job when you're
out, and taxes notwithstanding, maintain a fairly high standard of living,
perhaps a very high standard of living.  But what about those who need help?
Strike a blow for humanity - cast out the cruel and heartless Republican social
program cutters.

     - Dave Borden
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9661 alt.politics.bush:8597 talk.politics.misc:50847 alt.sex:32622
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 11 Oct 92 04:23:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Oct11.030319.9764@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
    Life is a series of "irresponsible" activities.  Do you live in a plastic
    bubble?  Or do you too engage in irresponsible activities?  (Do you eat
    butter? Margarine? Beef? Do you smoke? Drive small cars? Spend long hours in
    front of computer terminals bad for your eyesight instead of getting aerobic
    exercise?)

The question is, would you have sex with someone you know has AIDS, and trust
your life to a condom?  Do you teach your kids "I know you're little more than
a rabbit, here, have a condom"?  Isn't the big push toward "safe" sex a
little like saying if you play Russian roulette with only one round in the
chamber it's safer than playing it with six?  Since the failure rate of
condoms is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-30%, isn't continuing to
condone "playing around" about the same as condoning Russian roulette?
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: 13 Oct 92 12:53:48 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Rick Eames writes:
>Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> Pardon. What difference does it make? Are you supposed to have one set of
>> beliefs at home and different ones abroad? If you think soldiers
>> are dying needlessly and your voice might spare them, are you supposed
>> to check the map before speaking out? I've never understood that.
>> Sorry. 
>
>1) It makes a difference when you misquote *anyone*.

Correct but a non sequitur. Unless there's a buried ellipsis there which
I'm not picking up on. Ellipses should have those little dots...like
a buried power line.

>2) You may not like it, but WWII veterans do look at life different than
>you or I do.  I understand where Bush is coming from because my grandfather
>felt the same way about protestors overseas.  It bothered him a great deal.

A lot of resentment by veterans was stirred up consciously by words like
"Demonstrating against your country." The operative/inflammable/misleading
word being, of course, "country." The difference between "country" and
"policy" is not a stretch to comprehend and the politicos who smudge
the line do so deliberately.
>
>For the party of "Understanding" you folks have a huge gap in understanding
>generational differences.

I know I do. Part of the general fallibility of being human.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Coup de grace:CLINTON Cowardice
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:48:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Vince, stop posting those quotes so much! People will actually start to
believe you!!! :)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
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.
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: 21 Military Leaders Endorse Bill Clinton for President
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:11:58 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <1992Oct14.140250.23769@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <29233@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
>> Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
>
>fired by Bush for incompetance in running NASA. He has a personal axe to
>grind with Bush.

Are you sure of this?  I thought he was fired because of "personal
differences" with the chairman of the National Space Council, the
Hon. Dan Quayle of Martian respiration fame.

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	U.S. National Debt: $4,097,515,340,496
	Your Share: $16,032
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:56:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.175145.21355@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>From article <1992Oct13.170602.16404@Princeton.EDU>, by niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):
>> In article <1992Oct13.012718.17235@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>>>While to the people calling, Perot was honest and funny, Clinton
 
>> Funny, yes.  Honest?  Hah!  He lied about crack babies.  First he
>> claimed he was going to do things, and then he admits he doesn't
>> actually have any plans yet -- he's going to form committees to think up
>> plans after he gets elected.   

>How did Perot lie about crack babies?   His comments about crack
>babies were in response to a question about legalizing drugs and Perot
>pointed out that they were a graphic example of why that was not a
>solution to the drug problem.  Were was the lie?

To be fair, it probably wasn't a lie, but just an ignorant comment.
Crack babies don't exist.  That's the problem.  (The original study that
was done forgot to take into account that the women who used crack while
pregnant had also been drinking -- and all the symptoms could be
explained by fetal alcohol syndrome.)

But what's really scary is when he insinuates that he wants to turn the
WarOnCivilLiberties into a *war*, comparing what we need to do with the
bombing raid on Libya.

>Perot never said that he does not have any plans yet, there are steps
>to address the drug and crime problems outlined in his book.  It may
>come as a shock to you but even the most ambitious plans proposed by
>candidates still require a lot of work to hammer into a final form
>after the election. 

Yes, but it would help if he had some.  It's great how he has that book
-- but have you *read* it?  It isn't really specific at all.  Just
wordy.  He has things in there like "save $140 billion in health costs
through reforms."  But says that the reform plan still has to be worked
out!  How does he know how much money is going to be saved if he doesn't
know his policy?

>Beyond that, Perot has not carved any of his programs in stone. He has
>said from the very start that he wants to be able to adjust plans and
>fine tune them as we learn more about the problems.

The Presidency is *not* an on-the-job learning experience.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9208 alt.politics.bush:8284
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:49:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

osa@orville.unh.edu (Bart Simps.. er.. Oktay Ahiska) writes:


>"Dean" == dean.kaflowitz  <decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> writes:

>Dean> Well, Barbara Bush recently stated that "sex is death."

>No, she said that "promiscuous sex is death."

Well, if you want to pick nits, then yes she did say "sex is death".
But almost in the same breath she followed that up with "promiscuous
sex is death" after realizing her obvious gaffe. Without sex there
would be no life.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10989 alt.politics.elections:17310 talk.politics.misc:52458
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Dan Quayle: Attack Puppy Unleashed
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:50:10 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct14.215011.3797@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

>I have a copy of PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST and nowhere in it does it mention
>the $200,000 number. It has numerous vague comments about "forcing the very 
>wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes". Please document 'very wealthy'
>and 'fair share'. Lets be accurate in what we say....

I don't know what the legal definitions are, but the operating ones seem
to be.

Wealthy:  Anyone who makes more than I do.

Fair Share:  Increasing taxes on anyone who makes more than I do.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: buckmr@vccsouth15.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:42:02 GMT

rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes:

>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>: 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.
>: 

>--
>Ron,
>Do you realize what you're saying!  Basically, you don't care if the passing
>of this bill helps or hurts the country, just as long as it hurts Bush's
>credilbility!  I don't know if this bill will raise or lower cable prices,
>but I do know that the reason that it was pushed through the Congress so
>quickly was to hopefully embarass Bush.  This IMHO is not the correct reason
>to pass legislation!!!  I'm so sick and tired of bills being voted on based
>on re-election impacts rather than the good of the country.  I believe that
>the Congress should be totally cleared out, put limits on the length of
>their terms, and get rid of all PAC contributions.  Maybe then something
>constructive would get done.

 Honey, get a GRIP!!

1) Congress is NOT going to get voted out. Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for
re-election and even though there will be about 100 new members in the House
things won't change that much.

2) Bush is an ***hole. He is against everything I believe in. So if he gets
over-ridden on this issue, perhaps he'll get over-ridden on something more
important, like the gag rule.

THAT was the point of my posting...
-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735 ``D.C., April 25 1993''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Repeat after me: "Mel Gibson is a Catholic Fundie from Hell!"
Repeat after me: "Mel Gibson is a Catholic Fundie from Hell!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10183 alt.politics.bush:8980 alt.politics.elections:16539
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush: "steering America"  (NOT)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 19:43:57 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu said..
>root@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Super-User) writes:
>> Bush thinks we should "stay on course"..
>> 
>> [Holland, MI:  10/12/92]
>> 	BUSH:  When it comes to steering America through 
>> 	the new global economic challenges, America needs 
>> 	a driver who knows the highway.
>> 
>> So he fires the people who have been doing the driving..
>> 
>> 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- White House Chief of Staff James Baker, [...]
>> 	has asked all members of the Cabinet and other high administration 
>> 	officials to sign letters of resignation immediately after the 
>> 	Nov. 3 election.
> 
>     Are you suggesting we should keep the current team (Darman, 
>Brady, Baker, Martin, Cheney, Kemp, etc.) but only with a better 
>coach (Clinton)?  

Certainly not.  Especially not handler-in-chief James Baker, who is a
firm supporter of trickle-down and supply-side economics.

	BAKER:  I am proud to have spent the last 3 1/2 years [...]
	defending and advancing supply side economic principles.

My suggestion was, precisely, that Bush's "presidential" actions do 
not even come close to his TV interview promises.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:09:28 GMT

In article <ldr3alINNfu0@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>|> Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>|> |> Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>|> |> 
>|> |> >The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
>|> |> >due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
>|> |> >of his billions last year. 
>|> |> 
>|> |> >Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!
>|> |> 
>|> |> This is very misleading.  You don't pay taxes on the money you have accrued,
>|> |> you pay taxes on the taxable income made THAT YEAR!  All of R. Perot's money
>|> |> is relatively old, he hasn't made anything other than interest (and then
>|> |> most of it in tax DEFERED anuities) since GM paid him off.  You take the
>|> |> little bit of taxable income (proportionally speaking) that he made
>|> |> last year, then deduct (a quite proper practice) all the money he GAVE
>|> |> AWAY, and he probably did only make $30,000 to the good last year.
>|> |> 
>|> |> You Clinton people need to really try to think about things before
>|> |> you just spout them off, but I know that isn't in the agenda...
>|> |> 
>|> Actually, we Clinton people figured Perot was good with money.  2 Billion
>|> in a CD at 5% is $100,000,000.  If you give away 99%, you still have 
>|> $1 million left in taxable income.  I realize it isn't quite this simple,
>|> but $30,000, sure!
>|> 
>This mornings paper had better data.
>
>	Clintons	approx $125,000     	Taxes 20%
>	Bushes		approx $1,250,00	Taxes 15%
>	Perots		approx $200,000,000	Taxes 6.7%
>		(I'm sure about the tax %, but I may be low on the income)
>
>But the rich pay their fair share, right?

     You will note the extra zeroes by Perot's name.
 
     But I keep forgetting.  It isn't how much you pay that matters, but
how much it hurts!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Happy 17th Anniversary!
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:11:26 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Followup-To: soc.singles

In article <1992Oct12.230052.5190@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (C. Perttunen) writes:
>>     Wasn't it a touching moment during the debate when Gov. Clinton 
>>(also known as "The Love Gov") "extemporaneously" acknowledged his 
>>and Ms. Rodham's 17th wedding anniversary -- even considering that 
>>up to 12 of those years were shared with Ms. Flowers?
> 
> Yes, it was touching indeed.
> 
> This just goes to prove that an intellectual partnership outlasts one
> based on lust and physical attraction only.
> 
     It also goes to prove that an "intellectual partnership" was
not enough for Mr. Clinton -- he needed a second partnership
based solely on lust and physical attraction.  Moreover, Mr. Clinton
was willing to jeopardize his "intellectual partnership" by concurrently
having lust-and-physical-attraction partnership(s).  (Hopefully,
President Clinton will never take for granted his *professional* 
"intellectual partnership" with VP Al Gore.) 

     C. Perttunen

DISCLAIMER:  Once again, this post should not be viewed as one 
             questioning Bill Clinton's patriotism.
From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:56:04 GMT

From article <1992Oct12.160633.1035@ms.uky.edu>, by fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis):
> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
[...]
>>Did he participate in any demonstrations in the US?  If not, its somewhat
>>like smiling to someones face, but talking behind their back.  
>>
> 
> My understanding is that he took part in the large demonstration called
> the Moratorium during the time when he was a student at Georgetown.

Thanks.  By the way, it's a non-issue with me, I figured I'd just
give what was to me the obvious point of the attack.

SEH
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10010 tx.politics:6000 austin.politics:196 austin.talk:251 austin.general:3183
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 12 Oct 1992 23:52:05 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <BvrtFI.9u0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>purp@wixer.cactus.org (Jim Meyer) writes:
 
>: Why? It strikes me that a democratic Congress and a democratic President
>: could do amazing things, rather than squabbling as the current
>: Legilature and President have.

>What worries some people is just what amazing things might occur with
>a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President.

>Sometimes it's nice having different parties in "control" of different
>branches of the government.  Granted, a lot of things might not get
>done, but at least neither party can enact its Great Plan to Ruin the
>Country.

Two devils to advocate here:

1. The last time we elected president a southern governor of the 
   congressional majority party it didn't seem to work out quite
   the way suggested.  Clinton will have plenty of problems with
   congress if elected.

2. Part of the reason for separation of powers in the first place
   was to limit the effectiveness of the government.  Gridlock is
   part of the design.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush