HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:31:04 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1bck2rINNe1r@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) said..
>>
>>	The #4 reason to no elect you two clowns: we are not in a recession. 
>
>Not in a recession?  Oh, you are very mistaken.  
>
>Remember the "OOPS" graph in Perot's slideshow?
>
>Or perhaps you didn't know that we're suffering from:
>
>	- the slowest economic growth since Herbert Hoover

By definition, a recession is when you have two consecutive quarters
of *no* growth or *negative* growth. The fact that the economy is
growing presently at 2% a year means WE ARE NOT IN A RECESSION.

Gary
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8880 tx.politics:5900 austin.politics:184 austin.talk:240 austin.general:3131
From: aqn@tivoli.UUCP (Andy Nguyen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:08:02 GMT
Reply-To: aqn@tivoli.UUCP (Andy Nguyen)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tivoli Systems Inc., Austin, TX

(Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) wrote:
>Most people are happy with his foreign policy, (i.e. Iraq/Kuwait,) but
>have the complaint that his domestic policy either hasn't been
>implemented because he failed to get it through Congress, or that it
>was going in the wrong direction anyway.
>
>The Federal Government is gridlocked and "We the People," want to take
>it out on George Bush.
>
>These sentiments are understandable.  But if you're honest you have to
>agree that Congress is at least part of the problem.

And if we're honest, we should also remember that up until very recently,
Bush has had a 100% record on his vetoes of Congress' bills: _none_ of his
thirty-odd vetoes has been overridden by Congress.
[Source:  a recent Austin-American Statesman editorial (within the past month). 
Which issue? Go look it up for yourself, you lazy lima bean!]

In American politics, it takes two to tango.  It's just a matter of who's
gonna lead and who's gonna follow.  In my book, Bush has been leading and
he has been stepping on the country's toes.

This time around,  I'll settle for Bill "No Inhale" Clinton, or maybe even
the goose-stepping little dictator.  America definitely wants a new partner
for this dance.

-- 
Andy Nguyen/Team Paranoid (512) 794-9070  aqn@tivoli.com  ...!uunet!tivoli!aqn
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:35:50 -0600

In article <1992Oct6.175613.24041@cbnews.cb.att.com>  writes:
>vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>True, but I wouldn't even think of voting for the common hippie who survived
>>the sixties. Yes, a lot of people have reformed... where are you addressing the
>>issue that because Clinton used drugs, he is someone to look up to? 
>
>His problem is that he smoked cannabis. We now have evidence that this
>drug can stay in the system for up to 23 years or more!

So? He still has more brain cells in use than Bush and Clinton together!
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: 2 Clinton questions
Summary: No debate please, just 2 questions...
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:24:36 GMT
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens

2 quick questions about Clinton/Gore:

(1) Where do they stand on the question of a line-item veto?

(2) Are there any Clinton/Gore position papers available by FTP?

Please, no long off-topic responses.  All I want are simple,
direct answers to these questions.


"I'm apolitical -- and I vote!"

-- 
:- Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu 
:- Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0359
:- The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349
:- Athens, Georgia 30602 U.S.A.          amateur radio N4TMI
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: An Argument for Establishing "No-Fault Dad-Kid Divorce"
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:20:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.195715.19021@u.washington.edu> zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
>An Argument for Establishing "No-Fault Dad-Kid Divorce"

Oh wow, something we've never heard of before.  Such a novel concept;
did you just think of it?

Jeff, you're exceedingly tiresome.  Since you've already shown that
you're insensitive to polite requests by insisting that Duane
Hentrich "suffer" email from you even though he's requested that
you don't send it, I don't expect you to shut up and go away.

But would you please stop changing accounts?  It makes it difficult
to maintain sufficient kill file entries to blot out your blather.

Charleen

--
I date this girl for two years -- and then the nagging starts:  "I wanna know
your name"
                    -- Mike Binder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 02:35:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.064358.15397@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.140502.2668@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.201752.9280@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>Ted, unsafe sex is still safer than driving a car to a supermarket.  
>>
>>Precisely.
>
>Safe for whom?  Hetero men because they are less likely to be infected
>by women?
>

Thank you for asking this question.  

Any man who would have unprotected sex with a woman when he has not been
celibate for at least 6 months and passed an AIDS test and been completely
monogamous with is not worthy of consideration as a doormat, let alone a
possible life partner.

Too many of the so-called conservatives on this net talk about AIDS as if
it is a risk run only by gays.  Because of male/female anatomy, however,
the next group facing the AIDS peril is heterosexual women.

Any poster on this net who does not face that reality with respect and a
sense of profound responsibility for the lives of the women with whom he
may be a sexual partner deserves to be flamed *big time* and will be.  No
man worthy of respect would ever put a woman's life at risk because his ego
was clear that he 'couldn't possibly be at risk of AIDS.'

USE A CONDOM whether you think you have been exposed to the virus or not,
and whether you think you are unlikely to pick it up from a woman or not.
We are absolutely entitled to have our lives protected from ANY possibility
that this virus could be transmitted to us by a male partner.

eyes
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBAT
Date: 14 Oct 1992 20:23:15 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

In article <Bw2BHD.5CH@unix.amherst.edu> pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>
>Clinton did not demonstrate against his country, here or in a foreign
>country.  He demonstrated against a policy of an administration.  The problem
>is the tendency of people in power to forget the distinction.  If my country
>is being made to do something wrong or stupid by the current administration,
>love of country requires that I try to stop it.
>

I'm sure George Bush would be willing to rail against Congress on
foreign shores if it would get him re-elected.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:50:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.034023.20054@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson) writes:
|> 
|> 
|>    The debate was OK, but it was really evident that the format sucked, no one
|> could follow-up anything, nor good they answer any charges made by anyone.
|> This of course set up the perfect stage for Perot's usual wit but no substance
|> performance.  But of course, this was perfect food for the ignorant voters
|> out there.  Thursday' single moderator debate will show Ross's true colors,
|> he'll get his ass kicked.  I think Clinton did OK, but he seemed a bit stiff
|> especially if people had to compare him with Perot.   This ego trip campaign
|> of Perot's is really a pain in the ass. He originally decided to get out
|> because he couldn't win, he couldn't take the heat, and he was "disruptive
|> to the process".  Those same facts exist today, except this time he's screwing
|> up Clinton's campaign.  Imagine last nights debate without Perot, Clinton
|> would have put the last nail in the coffin of Bush and he would have
|> solidified his voters support.  Thank god, it looks like from the preliminary
|> numbers that Clinton didn't lose anything, but didn't solidify like he
|> could have without Perot in the picture.  The single moderator format
|> on Thursday will be the most favorable to Clinton, he's the only candidate
|> that has an indepth understanding of an economic plan and how government
|> works. In addition he's the best in spontaneous discussions, and he'll
|> come across more relaxed than he did in last night's debate.  Speaking of which,
|> I don't think he should have taken the advice of the people that told him
|> to appear calm and talk slowly without spouting of tons figures, personally 
|> I think he's at his best and most effective, and most natural when he talks 
|> fast and spouts figures left and right...it would have been a perfect antidote
|> to Perot.  I think we'll definatly see that in Thursday's debate, and coupled
|> with the holes the will be blown in Perot's texas talk, he should be
|> the hands down winner on Thursday. At least I hope anyway. 
|> 
|> -Chris
|> 
|> 

I completely disagree.  I think a single moderator format will favor
Perot.  Bush and Clinton will spend the whole evening addressing each
other on non-issues.  Who cares if Clinton solidifies anything?  What
does anyone have to gain by either Bush or Clinton getting elected
except more anti-Robin Hood economics (steal from the poor and give to
the rich).  Until I hear either Clinton take a real stand on anything as
far as I am concerned he is not a viable candidate.  And yes Bush is
"done".

Doug

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9740 alt.politics.bush:8647 alt.politics.elections:16121
From: U56503@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: ==> 3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:26:48 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN


From the Chicago Tribune   Sunday, October 11, 1992
(First published in the Boston Globe)

WASHINGTON--To Sig Rogich, President Bush's top advertising adviser,
his campaign ad charging that Bill Clinton will raise taxes
by more than $1,000 apiece on average Americans is extraordinarily
effective because it shows "real people . . . it stands the test of
integrity."

The five people in the ad are real, but several of them also have
ties to officials in the Bush campaign.

Two of the five, Julie and Gary Schwartz, described as "sales
representatives," are the sister and brother-in-law of Scott Jensen,
a Bush campaign official.  A third, Wyman Winston, is a friend of
Jensen, the executive director of Bush's Wisconsin campaign.
Winston could not be reached for comment.

The fourth person in the ad, John Canes, described as a "steamfitter,"
came by a circuitous route:  He once did plumbing work at the home
of the Republican fundraiser Mark Block, who asked him to appear
in the ad.  Canes, in an interview, said he did not know how the
campaign figured his taxes would go up by $1,088 under Clinton and
said he would like an explanation.

"I can't explain it," Canes said when asked about the conflict
between the Bush campaign's assertion and Clinton's pitch that he
would raise taxes only on those earning more than $150,000.  Canes
earns much less, he said.

Clinton has said the ad is "bogus" and that he would actually
cut taxes on the sort of middle-income people depicted.

"I don't know how they came up with this, I have to be honest with
you," Canes said.  Asked if the campaign had explained it, he said,
"Not thoroughly, like you would expect it to be."  He said a campaign
official had talked to him for "two or three minutes" before
the filming.

The fifth person in the ad, Lori Huntoon, a scientist, said in an
interview that she had confidence in the accuracy of the ad.  She
said she could not explain how the campaign came up with the estimate
that her taxes would go up $2,072 under Clinton but said she
believes Clinton would raise taxes.  She is a volunteer in the
Bush campaign.

When a campaign spokeswoman, Alixe Glenn, was asked if any of the
people were connected to the campaign, she said "No."  Asked about
the two relatives of a Bush campaign official, she said that that does
not qualify as a campaign connection because "they are not on our
payroll."

Privately, however, some officials in the Bush campaign said it was a
mistake to allow people connected in any way to campaign officials
to be in the commercial.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10284 talk.politics.misc:51589 alt.politics.elections:16644
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Over 500 Economists Endorse Clinton (II)
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:54:28 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <Bw11M5.4wL@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  When you consider the track record economists have had in predicting,
>  explaining, or modeling economic behavior, and especially how the
>  current recession has completely stymied them, this is a bit like
>  being endorsed by a cabal of Marin County spirit channelers.  

Not every advice given to elected officials by economists are heeded.
Perhaps that's why the government policies are not working right now.
Economists do not make national policies. Elected officials do.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Why Do Soak the Rich Schemes Always End
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:19:16 CDT

In article 92Oct15144542@ab20.larc.nasa.gov, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
>
>	Think about what you're saying.  People, especially people
>that are going to keep it, don't hold wealth; they spend it in order
>to build on it.  When they spend money to expand their companies, they
>hire more people and buy more products from other companies.  If you
>tax these ``rich'' and take away a big chuck of that money, they are
>not going to spend as much.  Less spending means less expansion and
>less jobs.
>
A trickle-down believer to the last drop.  We have had 12 years of this BS and
it has done exactly what I predicted it would do, brought us to the brink of
another great depression, just like it did in the 1920's.  You people never
seem to learn, that trickle-down doesn't work.

So how did the "wealthy" spend their money?  They did leveraged buyouts of
stable companies using junk bonds so that they could milk the companies for
more money.  The companies folded or are shells of what they used to be.
Millions of people are unemployed as a result.  Tickle-down in reality is
flood-up.

One of things Reagan kept talking about was building up the service sector.  It
took me awhile, but I finally figured this smoke-screen out.  Just whom are
people servicing?  The rich, and at far less pay than they would in a manufacturing
job.  Ever heard of the word serf?  Well service and serf have the same Latin
root word, "servus", which means slave.  I leave the rest as an exercise to
the intellegent reader.

Steve Anderson

>	There isn't a golden mattress sitting on top of some big some
>of money somewhere.  The only thing the government relocating funds
>will do is take the money from where it can best expand the economy.
>--
>Jason C. Austin
>j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
>




Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10077 tx.politics:6015 austin.politics:201 austin.talk:254 austin.general:3188
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:54:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Oct7.165036.1065@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.

Really?  Remember Jimmy Carter?  Most of the amazing things he and his Dem
Congress did were bad.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:27:05 GMT

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>I really loved it when Bush used this line, then a few minutes later
>reminded everyone if Jimmy Carter.  Let's see, now...
> 
>Jimmy Carter singlehandedly caused inflation and unemployment.  Let's
>ignore the fact there was a worldwide stagflation going on at the time,
>largely caused by huge increases in oil prices by OPEC.

Right! This interest rate and inflation "through the roof" cliche is
getting old. I wish they'd say exactly how Carter's policies caused
inflation. It couldn't have been "tax-and-spend," because Reagan/Bush
have set all records in those categories. If Republicans are going to
throw around these charges, they should back it up with theory, rather
asserting it will somehow happen magically if we have a Democratic
president.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10547 alt.politics.perot:2191 alt.politics.bush:9248 alt.politics.marrou:1634 alt.politics.elections:16922
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:00:33 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Bw2B98.2Jw@unix.amherst.edu> pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
>StarOwl (StarOwl@uiuc.edu) wrote:
>> I must admit that I was impressed with Perot. 
>
>I liked Ross, but I wouldn't vote for him.  The biggest problem with Perot
>was summed up with Clinton's "It's not that simple" response.  I've worked for
>both government and industry, the they're two entirely different institutions.
>A corporate CEO doesn't have to worry about a bunch of guy getting together
>and doing something dumb.  Dealing with Congress successfully is the most
>important talent a president needs and industry provides
>no equivalent experience.

That was one single thing I remember about Perot at the first debate.  For
the question "what will you do if you get in?" he was going along about how
he'd get Congress to do this and Congress to do that, and then he said if
they won't, then -- and then Perot paused, and I could swear he just barely
avoided saying, "I'll just fire them all and hire me a Congress who'll do
what I want!", and instead went on about persuasion and all that.

20 more days!


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "I have NOT lost my mind:  it's backed up on tape somewhere."  - Anon.   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Coup de grace:CLINTON Cowardice
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:26:19 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

Our friend at Drake University follows up to his own post....several times
(at least that's how it looks from here).

A couple of questions: Why?  Can't you think of anything new to say?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10633 talk.politics.misc:52018