HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:49:29 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <5236@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>
>-Oh, and I suppose you never make any mistakes when speaking...
>-Repeat after me...this has NOTHING to do with the real issues in this election
>-or the records of the candidates. Now, don't you feel better?
>
>
>After I finish eating my potatoe.

Bakked or masched?



--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 6 Sep 92 07:05:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep5.153616.533@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
wrote:

> 	I don't think that people are slamming bush for sending troops to
> florida, at least I haven't heard theat sentimate. People are slamming bush
> for not responding fast enough. As for the constitution, bush was talking to
> the governer on monday, and could have said: "Hey, governer dude, I got some
> troops. You want 'em?". Anticipating a yes, Bush could have landed the first
> troops monday night, and become a national hero. As it was, he looks distracted
> and uninterested in domestic affairs, reinforcing what people already think.

Hey, Gomer, read up before making really stupid statements:

From Newsweek (Sept 7, 1992):

"During the Miami stop the president offered Chiles federal troops several
times.  The governor, sensistive to old-fashioned political ideas like not
truckling to Washington, and still out of touch with the full scope of the
hurricane's damage, turned him down."  (pg. 27)"

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:22:02 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Sep4120809@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
>Well the polls may show Bush behind, to varying degrees.  Let us not
>forget how far he was behind Dukakis (God knows how the Dems picked
>this guy). [...]

	Umm... no.  Get a grip.  You're falling for RNC revisionism.
Dukakis had a 17 point lead right after the Democratic convention. 
They were roughly even at the time of the Republican convention.  
Bush had already begun to pull ahead by Labor Day.

	Clinton was 23 points ahead and rising out of the Democratic
Convention -- mostly because he got a lot of the Perot folk. 
He maintained the lead more or less into the Republican Convention.
Bush narrowed the gap to as few as 6 points.  This lead has
pretty much evaporated.. right now, he's 15 points behind.  And 60
days or so to go.

	Now he's making himself look like a coward for refusing to
do debates. While they are a relatively new phenomenon, people
do expect 'em.  Wonderful.  And the economic news keeps being
mediocre at best.

	-rj

--
Ranjan Bagchi:   Di.sigsgvirusuise                 Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4689 alt.politics.clinton:4884 alt.politics.perot:1430 rec.humor:28358 talk.bizarre:29686 talk.politics.misc:44778 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5259
From: dward@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:56:20 GMT

Peter Nelson (nelson_p@apollo.hp.com) wrote:
: >> 
: >
: >Actually, Margaret Truman (Harry's daughter) wrote a column to this effect that
: >appeared in the New York Times; it was entitled "I knew Harry Truman...."
: 
: 
:   Frankly, I think Truman must be rolling over in his grave to have 
:   either one of these clowns (Clinton or Bush) trying to grab his mantle.
: 
: 
: ---peter
      Nah, he'd probably just be saying "Frankly me dear, I don't give 
      a damn."

          Dan
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Bush campaign issues ultimatum on debates
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:57:19 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>+clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
>+> 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Bush-Quayle campaign, rejecting the use of a
>+> single moderator in presidential debates, told Bill Clinton that the
>+> president would only debate the Democratic nominee twice if a panel of
>+> journalists asks the questions.
>+> 	The campaign characterized the proposal as an ultimatum, saying in a
>+> letter released Monday, ``If we do not hear from you on the affirmative
>+> by (Friday) Sept. 18 we will assume that you do not want to debate.''
>
>Does anyone know who's on the bipartisan commission?

probably a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals, Emil!  like i'm sure you do,
i smell a conspiracy here!  i mean, why have substantive debate with only
a single moderator if it's going to be to one candidate's advantage?
especially that bleeding-heart liberal, Slick Willie Clinton!  Bush is
in the proverbial catbird seat on this one, boy!  his ultimatum will
prove that Clinton is either unwilling to produce or incapable of producing
snappy sound-bites that the American public just absolutely eat up!
i mean, that's how the debates have worked in the past, right?  why
shake up the format of a doubtlessly good thing?  it's helped sound-bite
masters win the past three elections!  if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

                                                -- dave

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Why Bush would/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:04:52 GMT

In article <mykes.0dl8@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
   mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>The Bowlen amendment was unconstitutional.  If congress is allowed to make
>laws that restrict or eliminate the presidential powers of foreign policy
>institution, then congress becomes the only branch in government.  A GREAT
>example of spitting on the constitution.

Would it have been too much trouble to get a majority of those nine
people known as the Supreme Court to agree with your statement before
they broke the law?  The law may have been unconstitutional, but it
is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not the executive branch.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: I shook Al Gore's hand (and other ditties)
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:45:33 GMT

In <5237@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>I don't know what compelled me to skip my music class today, but Sen. Gore
>was visiting Duke today, specifically visiting the Ronald McDonald House
>on campus. He gave a press conference/photo op inside leaving a group of
>about 50 Duke students and others outside waiting for him to come back
>outside and talk to us. Well, he didn't give a speech much to my chagrin,
>but I did shake his hand telling him, "Good luck." I don't agree with him
>on his political views on the most part, but I don't want to be an asshole
>either.

I got in a quick handshake three summers ago in Tennessee. He was nice
enough, I suppose.

>A few interesting bits about that convening of the group. There were two
>pro-life adults holding signs that said, "Pro-life is THE family value"
>and "Ronald LOVES his kids, why do you want to GORE them." When Gore was
>shaking hands with everyone, the sign-holders asked him, "Why do you want
>to kill babies, Senator?" He eventually replied, "I respect your views,
>sir." It's weird that no one else in the audience picked that up and
>applauded that statement. (Obviously decidedly left-of-center.) Some of the
>other students verbally countered these protestors, but nothing much
>really happened.

Flame me for not having written proof, but I've seen "somewhere" on
the net that Gore at one time pushed for preserving the life of the
unborn. A little flip-flop of his own; perhaps that explains...?

The funniest thing I've yet seen about Gore is his little faux pas on
Larry King Live where his wife called in and Gore failed to recognize
her voice. Poor Tipper! He won't be gettin' any for a while...
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:16:20 GMT

In article <0FPuqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
>Besides, Bush is spending so much time bashing Hillary that his campaign 
>for First Lady wouldn't be complete without a face-to-face showdown.

Ah, is that why he didn't accept Bill's offer to debate?  He's waiting
for Hillary to offer!



--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:07:25 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

: Try taking a look at Gore's statement to that the automobile poses
: a greater threat than the nuke.  
[...]
: Ever wonder what your life would be like if they banned the sales
: of gasoline?

Yes, we might be able to breathe without choking on air pollution for
a change!

Don't you think you're getting a little carried away with your fears?
After all, the auto industry and the oil companies are rich enough
to buy Congress and prevent either one of these things from ever
happening to the degree you fear.

: The only good thing about Clinton/Gore is that they will bring us
: to the economic collapse / second revolution that much quicker.
: 
: (Whereas Bush/Quayle will get us there eventually.)

In a century or two?  That'd be fun...especially considering that 
Quayle (or is that Quayl?) doesn't think he lived in this century....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I didn't live in this
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 century."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			

Marrou/Lord in '92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:29:38 GMT

coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:

[...]

>The Staggers Bill was a fraud. It mandated an instant-check system that
>was and is impossible to implement. It also would have forbidden any 
>lesser checks until its own system had been implemented. Result - no checks.
>Right, KIRK, a *real* improvement over Brady. Not.

Is ignorance truely bliss?  The cops essentially do exactly that when
they pull you over for a traffic stop in any metro area.  They do it 
from their cars in minutes.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Why Bush would/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: SPS
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:28:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.140452.17935@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
|> In article <mykes.0dl8@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
|>    mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
|> >
|> >The Bowlen amendment was unconstitutional.  If congress is allowed to make
|> >laws that restrict or eliminate the presidential powers of foreign policy
|> >institution, then congress becomes the only branch in government.  A GREAT
|> >example of spitting on the constitution.
|> 
|> Would it have been too much trouble to get a majority of those nine
|> people known as the Supreme Court to agree with your statement before
|> they broke the law?  The law may have been unconstitutional, but it
|> is up to the Supreme Court to decide, not the executive branch.
|> 
It's the Boland amendment(s).  They changed yearly.

For the Supreme Court to make a decision there must be a case or controversy.  I.e.
a law must be broken and somebody tried for it's violation before the courts will 
rule on whether that law is constitutional.

In the U.S. the federal courts do not issue advisory opinions.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 16:13:52 GMT

In <BuKF4I.HFz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>I think you're proving that the R-B-R bunch (Reagan, Bush,and the Republicans)
>managed to deregulate the banking industry to the point where the feeding
>frenzy was in the board rooms of the banks.  These "wise men" should have 
>known that poorly educated (in economics) people would snap up multiple cards
>and get themselves in trouble.

Of course they new that, and they wanted to take advantage of it.
So they could cash in.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
                        Love reads like a bad biography:
               All the names are changed to protect the innocent
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5065 alt.politics.clinton:5344 alt.politics.perot:1474 rec.humor:28601 talk.bizarre:30084 talk.politics.misc:45362 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5369
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:57:30 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <BD.92Sep14094144@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:

->Why should he present a liberal position?  For intellectual
->honesty's sake, that's why.  I never said he had to promote liberal
->ideas, what I said was that if he wants to argue persuasively against
->the liberal position, he has an obligation to present that position
->honestly and then argue against _that_, and not set up some straw
->dog argument, for instance a parody of the liberal position, and 
->argue against that false position.

 Have you ever heard Rush crinkle the paper on which an article he reads is
printed. Why do you think he does that ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Reply-To: rcollins@1.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:36:20 GMT

coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
|> The cure for a needed program with problems is not the elimination of that
|> program, despite that being what Reagan's evil minions have tried to make
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> us believe for twelve years now. The cure is to make it *work*.

Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
never heard the term religious left?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<1992Sep13.054606.20803@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Sep13.155656.12652@anasazi.com>
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:08:46

John R. Moore writes:
> Why has Sweden
>had to increase its interest rates to 75% (last week)?

I'm beginning to feel like one of those dolls with the string in its
back... anyway:

The Swedish central bank did _not_ increase its interest rate to
75% because of internal problems in Sweden.  The Finnish government
decided to withdraw its currency from the European Monetary Fund.
Since Sweden and Finland have quite a bit of trade with one another,
this change hit Sweden hard and fast.  The Swedish krona began 
falling, and the central bank was afraid of a "free fall".  A modest
hike of interest rates didn't seem to be helping, so the rate was
hiked up to an obviously unreasonable level to try to stop the fall.
The crisis seemed to be lessening as of Friday; the central bank will
lower the interest rate back to reasonable levels as soon as they
believe it is safe to do so.

This is not to say everything is all well and good with the Swedish
economy.  There are problems.  However, the problems are not on the
scale that would require the interest rate to be raised to that level
under normal circumstances.  The decision of the Finnish government
meant the circumstances were quite unusual, and to imply that this is
simply "business as usual" is misleading and dishonest.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

We're looking for a little, bewildered girl.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4571 alt.politics.elections:12735 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3520 talk.politics.guns:20770 talk.politics.misc:44486
From: kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing)
Subject: Request for campaign news
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:19:07 GMT

For those of us living abroad and without ready access to campaign
developments featured in the U.S. daily media, -- it would be extremely nice
if someone(s) would take it upon themselves to post important info about the
progress of the campaign, even stuff which may seem, to statesiders, too
obvious to need mentioning.  I'm thinking, for example, about polling trends
as they become available (I know some of this gets posted, but often it's in
passing and assumes the reader is already in possession of the factual
information).  A two-line resume of, for example, what the consensus of the
press seems to be on a new development; what a drift up or down in the
polls, for Bush or Clinton, may possibly be coming from;  how things seem to
be developing in California, Texas, Florida, etc.; what the worthy pundits
may be saying about where the campaign is going;  that sort of thing.  

Naturally the Usenet newsgroups are a tremendous help, as is.  But for us
exiles without the daily feed of American TV, radio and wire services, you'd
be surprised how much gets missed, how much we have to read between the
lines.  So it would be nice if somebody or two could take pity, be
altruistic, and think about putting new info in a nutshell on the wire every
so often.    Many thanks.  

Ken Willing   <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
NCELTR, MacqUni, Sydney 2109, Australia
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 10 Sep 1992 15:41:40 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Sep10.141801.10715@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> I agree that this is not one of the things you can pin on Bush and that 
Ed
> should probably drop this in favor of other things he can pin on Bush 
:-).
> However Mark, this is a cheap shot at Carter and is just as vacuous in 
its
> assertion. You are usually more factual than this.

Actually Reagan beat Carter in part on the issue of military preparedness 
as a result of the failed Iranian hostage rescue as Carter received a lot 
of criticism on the issue..   Since Ed had made an issue of preparedness 
in his post,  I felt it was fair game to point out that the military is in 
fact better prepared and equipped today than ever and in all likelyhood 
was able to respond to the disaster faster and more efficiently as a 
result.  This is one promise that Reagan made that definitely was not 
broken.   At any rate, it shows that a lack of preparedness for disasters 
and terrorism , both unexpected events, are not the exclusive domain of 
the Republican party.
I also thought it was very hypocritical of Ed to now claim that 
preparedness was his main issue when most, if not all of his previous 
posts were critical of Bush's delay in sending troops which as we have now 
seen was clearly not his doing.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton