HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:09:36 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <1992Oct9.144937.16119@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.033429.21854@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>
>>Also, lets face it:  no law is going to give you authority as a parent that
>>you do not actually have as a parent thru your relationship with the child.
>>All the law can do is make your child have to be more covert and at risk
>>when s/he defies your *claim* of authority, which is not the same thing as
>>true, actual authority.
>
>Ahh, but here's the rub... I expect the laws to *not* encourage my children
>to be covert.  It should be damned near impossible for my children to do
>anything *covert* except buy me a birthday present :-)  

The law does not encourage kids to be covert by allowing them to get
abortions without parental consent.  If the child is having sex and not
telling the parents about it, s/he is already being covert--without the
encouragement of the law.  If the child gets an abortion without going to
the parents, she simply continues an existing pattern which is independent
of the law. Even if a parental consent rule breaks into the pattern, it
does it by force rather than relationship.  That means that a child
determined to continue the covert behavior will have an illegal
abortion because there is no relationship to support disclosure and she
will not have the baby because it will force revelation of her sexual
activity.  There is no way to substitute law for actual family
relationships, and that is what people are often trying to achieve with
parental consent rules, unfortunately.

>society thinks the State knows whats best for my children when they should
>be deferring to the parents.  I think the law should only encourage my 
>children to come to me, or to a *community* resource (not the state) to get 
>help.  That's why I believe (for example) that the welfare dept should be 
>asking parents why a minor even needs an abortion, instead of allowing them 
>to get one without their parents knowledge.

You would use that knowledge to try to build your relationship with your
child.  It would amaze and appall you to know that most parents, when
confronted with something their kids have done, see it as a condemnation of
their parenting and attack the child for the threat to the parent's
self-esteem.  The more I see of parents and how they handle things, the
more disgusted I get.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: swami1@troy.uucp (22535-swaminathan)
Subject: Re: Willie Horton endorses Clinton.
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 13:04:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.192726.6050@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>Willie Horton who is currently serving two life sentences plus 85 years in 
>prison has endorsed Bill Clinton stating that it is because of what the 
>"Republicans did to me".
>
>Mark T. Evert
>Friendswood, TX
>
>My opinions are strictly my own.

Somebody must be desperate.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: asmith@vax.wi.edu (bert smith)
Subject: Re: SHOULD WE TRUST GEORGE BUSH
Organization: Volunteer Clinton/Gore Email Team
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:05:16 GMT

In article <1b314sINN84i@fido.asd.sgi.com>, aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
> Should I trust the president who promised "30 Million new jobs", and
>     delivered more than 1.2 million of them -- *to Mexico*?

Should we trust a president who has the signs for his re-election printed in
South America?

Jobs, jobs, jobs......for the Americas.  [Too bad he isn't interested in 
creating jobs in the United States.]

-bert
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: Fathers, abortion
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:26:34 GMT

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
: Part of the  genetic coding from an infant comes from the father.
: The federal government would prevent the father from having any say
: in whether or not HIS offspring, equally as much as the woman's is to die,
: instead giving complete say to the woman.  That is, a man can do nothing
: for his child. It is all in the hands of the woman to kill the child.
: He can do nothing to protect it.  It seems the man is the one being
: prevented from chosing the destiny of his offspring by law.  The Republicones
: would simply not have the feds interfere whatsoever in the matter of abortion.
: But the Demos would give complete power to the woman. I would call that
: a female oriented party, much as it was once a white oriented party.

The Ramones fuse with the Republicans, and we get Republicones.
I like it. Can I vote for the Elviscrats?
:
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: PRACTICAL USES OF INNUENDO, RUMOR, LIBEL AND SLANDER
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:42:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

p00078@psilink.com (FLAMETHROWER) writes:
>Let us take a few "facts", string them together, and try to start some rumors.
>
>2. George Bush was at one time the U.S. envoy to RED CHINA.
>4. George Bush has consistently supported keeping restrictions from being
>   applied to RED CHINA, even after the student uprising, when the central
>   govenment slaughtered hundreds of studentd seeking DEMOCRACY.
>6. RED CHINA was exporting weapons to the middle east, especially IRAQ, and
>   is still doing so.  Yet, George Bush has not endorsed embargoes against
>   RED CHINA in the same way that he has against NORTH KOREA.

Throw in one more fact:

7.  George Bush took Jennifer Fitzgerald to China for extended periods,
    while Barbara stayed home.

And we can come up with an entirely different hypothesis:

    RED CHINA is blackmailing George Bush with evidence of his affair
    with Jennifer.  They probably bugged his and her rooms.  

So, voters, which would you rather have -- a president who once might
have talked to KGB agents 23 years ago without knowing it, or a president
who is possibly being blackmailed by RED CHINA even as we speak?

(You're right.  This is fun.)

David
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:16:35 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Oct9.232258.21266@cs.mcgill.ca> jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.200743.15382@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>>Ordinarily I'd let this go, but I just love the way the asterisks
>>are used here, as if to make the arguments seem more valid or important.
>>Here we go...
>>
>>In article <9210081734.AA21278@MIT.EDU> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>>>
>>
>>"-30-30-" ????  How impressive.  Gives it a real ring of authority!
>>Seriously, I'd like to know if Clinton participated in anti-war 
>>demonstrations overseas.  I'd find it hard to distinguish such events from
>>"anti-American demonstrations."
>
>Has your government ever done anything you've disagreed with?  Is is possible
>to oppose a war the U.S. is involved in without being vilified as an
>"anti-American demonstrator?"
>
>If you're really such a closed-minded pinhead that in your view no citizen
>can disapprove of his government's actions without hating his country, you
>really should find somewhere nice and oppressive to live.  Your unthinking
>mind would probably be fuelled nicely by a steady supply of lowbrow 
>pro-State propaganda.
>
>
>-- 
> Jerry Kuch (jerry@cs.mcgill.ca) ----- SOMETHING NEAT SHOULD GO HERE.
> "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
>  Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
>                  --- M. Burns  "Treehouse of Horror II"

This Jerry Kuch character is a trip, no?  The man can't seem to read or 
think.  I suggested that the anti-Vietnam war demonstions that took place
overseas were essentially anti-American.  I did not say that anyone who
participated in one "hated" America.  I remember those demonstrations.  I 
was actually alive then (unlike many of those who post here!).  I saw the
flag burning, I heard the pro-Viet Cong chanting (this, of course could be
heard on the home front as well).  To millions of people, it was clear that
these demonstrations were not just anti-war, but also anti-American, in the
sense that America was condemned as an aggressive state, seeking to stomp
on the "legitimate interests" of poor Vietnamese.  

I'd like to know about the principles that guided Clinton's thinking then,
and about how he feels about those principles today.  It matters, because
if he actually become president, he may have to face similar situations --
he may have to confront world tyrants similar to those represented by the 
by the North Vietnamese army.  Apparently, however, Jerry Kuch doesn't want
to know about such things, or doesn't care, or doesn't understand.  That's
fine.  I'm sure he's a towering intelectual and not at all a neanderthal
name caller.

Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>    I supported Ross Perot, and I wanted to vote for him in November.  But that
>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.

..........

>
>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.


It is not over until the elections on Nov. 3. If "everyone" thinks that Clinton
is going to get elected why bother. Everyone should vote for the candidate that
he or she thinks is the best for the job no matter how they stand in the polls.
This is like a team who is the under dog deciding not to play the game just
because  all the bookies in Vegas give them 10 to 1 odds.

No vote is wasted in the long run and no election should be decided by polls.
So far, none of the polls asked my opinion. Hence, they don't give a complete
picture of the electorate :-(

Vote on Nov. 3 to who you think is the best for the job and not to who the 
pollsters tell you.

John



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Bush Lexicon (was: Re: The Clinton Lexicon)
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:31:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa,na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>What he says.                          What he means.
>
>The rich must pay their fair share.    I'm going to raise taxes.
>We must invest in America.             I'm going to raise taxes a lot.
>I have a plan to revitalize America.   I'm going to raise taxes so high it'll 
>					  make your ears bleed.
>The Republicans are raising that       I haven't figured out a good story
>   issue because they're desperate.       to tell yet.


What Bush says.                        What Bush means.

Clinton is going to raise taxes.       *Please* forget about the economy, Iraq-
                                       gate, Iran-contra, "read my lips," Dan
                                       Quayle, "the environmental president,"
                                       "the education president," the deficit,
Clinton is a "tax and spend" liberal.  *Please* forget about the economy, Iraq-
                                       gate, Iran-contra, "read my lips," Dan
                                       Quayle, "the environmental president,"
                                       "the education president," the deficit,
Clinton raised taxes 128 times.        *Please* forget about the economy, Iraq-
                                       gate, Iran-contra, "read my lips," Dan
                                       Quayle, "the environmental president,"
                                       "the education president," the deficit,

etc.


David
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9385 alt.politics.clinton:10776 alt.rush-limbaugh:7549
From: wdh@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:56:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

In article <Bw2958.LyF@unix.amherst.edu> pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>ktitus@uoft02.utoledo.edu wrote:
>: 
>: It was the people of his own state of Arkansas who came up with the nickname
>: of Slick Bill originally. Scary.
>: 
>Was this before or after they re-elected him?

Actually, I believe the "Slick Willy" tag was courtesy of
a columnist for a Little Rock paper.  I'm not sure exactly
when, but the name has existed for several years.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: pa56680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (P. Ialamanna)
Subject: Clinton's tax increase- Bullshit?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:54:25 GMT

I'm getting really irritated at these Clinton supporters who claim that
his tax increase won't affect the middle class. If I understand it corectly,
Clinton wants to raise tax on the top 2% of wage earners and not to the
middle class. Okay fine, but what gets me is that middle class people beleive
that this won't affect them. HOW CAN IT NOT AFFECT THE MIDDLE CLASS? Let's
face it, the top 2% of wage earners are usually providing some goods or service
to the general public(i.e. middle class). If their taxes are increased(cutting
into their profits) what do you think will happen?
The price of those goods and services will go up. Who ends up paying for it?
Not the top 2% but the middle class, again. Who benefits? The government who
will get the increased tax revenue paid for on paper by the upper class but
in reality is subsidized by the middle class in the form of higher costs 
of living. Don't fall for it folks. Let the money stay in your pocket; 
Let you be the one to decide what governmental expenditures (or personal
expenses) be paid for with YOUR money.

We need less government spending, not more!


-- 
*********************************************************************************   - P. Ialamanna -    " I think you hear me knocking, and I think I'm coming *
			  in, and I'm bringing my big, bad opinions with me"  * 
 I represent the Univ. of Illinois. (Along with 50,000 others)===DISCLAIMER== * 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - Important
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:14:47 GMT

In article <Oct.7.13.48.35.1992.26105@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>
>
>>     Your can either ask for Rep. Dornan's office or staff, or attempt
>>to reach your own.  This information must be presented to the American
>>public, and the events which occurred there must be researched and
>>addressed by Bill Clinton.
>
>By now you must know that Bill Clinton addressed this on Larry King
>on Monday night.  When asked about both items, he cracked up laughing.

   That was the worst attempt at a sincere laugh that I've ever seen.  He
was more nervous about this subject than the Flowers affair.

>He said that he doesn't know where those ideas came from an he doesn't
>know anything about it.  He said he took a 40 day trip into
>Eastern Europe and if he did meet any of the KGB, he wasn't aware of
>it.  Clinton and King were joking that it is possible to meet KGB
>and not be aware that that is who they are.  He said he never attempted
>to change his citizenship or even thought about it. 
>
>I don't see why Clinton has to waste his time chasing every bone that
>every jackass throws.  Someone makes up a story about him and he's
>expected to bend over backwards to proove that it isn't true.
>What a crock.  I think he has more important things to do with his time.

  His trip (which wasn't made up) was probably totally innocent.  The
problem is Clinton doesn't trust the public, though he wants the public to
trust him as President.  For someone who has practically no foreign policy
experience, isn't it a moronic move of his NOT to list this great
educational opportunity in his resume?  Unless, of course, he doesn't trust
the public to judge him based on his full background.  Maybe Bush has one 
thing right - who are YOU going to trust?

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The question is - who do you trust to make change work | These pontifications
for you?" - President George Bush                       |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Willie Horton endorses Clinton.
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:59:30 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:02:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.145949.4789@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.193021.6178@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov 
>(Mark T. Evert) writes:
>> Willie Horton who is currently serving two life sentences plus 85
years in 
>> prison has endorsed Bill Clinton stating that it is because of what
the 
>> "Republicans did to me".
>
>	This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, and so common.
>
>	"Society made me do it.  Society made me what I am."
>
>	How dare anyone react with revulsion at his torture and rape!!!
>
>Brett                                                      
>______________________________________________________________________
________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                       
CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!

Come on....you guys don't really think this means anything substantive do
you?
I expect this from the stupendo dude, but from you Mark?

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9384 alt.politics.clinton:10769
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:13:56 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: That Pesky $4 Trillion Debt!
Distribution: na
 <1992Oct15.022254.26901@muddcs.claremont.edu>
 <1992Oct15.031044.24585@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
 <1992Oct15.043121.862@muddcs.claremont.edu>


In article <1992Oct15.043121.862@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) says:
>
>When that democratic president was then in office, there was also a
>democratic congress. This is widely quoted as a reason why a democratic
>congress and a democratic president are a *REALLY* bad idea. When a
>Republican president took office, things improved.

Funny, I don't remember that the country was $4 trillion in the hole when
we had a Democratic President and Democratic Congress.  Guess we need a
Republican President to *really* crank-up the spending!

Hope this helps!

Jeff Luck               *The opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University     "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU           -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ms5477a@auvm.american.edu (Mathew L. Spolin)
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Organization: Cybervision Productions
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:08:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.211847.13625@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) wrote:
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say Perot was "enduring" the debate when he had to be cut off
> several times for trying to go into greater detail with his answers.  Bill
> Clinton played to the camera all night.
> 
> "Um, what did those handlers say, Uh .. Oh, yeah .. take ten steps into the
> crowd .. one, two, .. suck up to the questioner .. Whew .. take ten steps
> back.  OK, now my handlers said that when the red light goes on on the
> camera in front of Bush which has me in the background I should shake my
> head no when Bush is speaking.  Let's see .. left . right . left . right.
> Boy, that one girl in the third row is cute.  I'll see if she wants my
> autograph afterwards"
> 
> -- 
> Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
> NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135

It's funny how you automatically assume that all of Clinton's stage
presence was dictated to him by some sort of evil democratic heart-appeal
committee.  This shows the cynicism inherent in the American political
system today.

I prefer to think that he "plays the crowd well" and has a good theatrical
talent.  Which may explain why he's been a politician for so long.

---Matt Spolin
   Washington DC
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: AL GORE-THE STEPFORD CANDIDATE
Keywords: plastic man
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:31:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.141334.13270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> gratrix@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jackie Gratrix) writes:
>During the 1970's the movie "The Stepford Wives" was released
>in which the women of the Stepford community were one by one
>replaced with perfect, yet spiritless clones.  After watching
>last night's debate, I submit that Al Gore is the Stepford 
>candidate.  Can someone tell me if there is a real person 
>somewhere inside his polished, well-groomed shell?
>

The "polish" you noticed on Al Gore is the sort of
aura a person has when he is in command of his facts.
After 12 years of Reagan/Bush/Quayl, it is understandable
why this "polish" is so shocking.

The contrast to the "real" "spirited" Dan Quayl was
unmistakeable.  If you prefer four more years of
listening to a boob who sounds like he skipped
his lithium, vote for Dan.

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

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9444 alt.politics.clinton:10874
From: jhoward@cstp.umkc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: 666
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:15:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

In article <BvwszJ.E9D@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> : 
> : Did you all know that Clinton wears a toupee??
> : 
> : It's to hide the three sixes on his head.
> 
> Funny.  That's the exact same reason I heard for Ronnie Ray-gun and his
> wife for wearing wigs. 
> --
> Michael Adams (aka StarOwl) ... 

For the record, the three sixes means mankind (created on the 6th day by God)
representing itself as God (the Holy Trinity=3).  So the marks are in their
foreheads (their minds) or on their right hands (the work that they do).
Prophecy is what guides people to God and exposes worthless beliefs.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8966 alt.politics.elections:16528