HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush is a chinese spy?
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:26:22
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: na
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: westfgj@eng.auburn.edu's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:19:23 GMT

In article <westfgj.921009181922@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> westfgj@eng.auburn.edu (George J. Westfall) writes:

> the point of the clinton-moscow debate is why his 
> memory of the events is so slective.

On the contrary, the point (for Bush) is to make a sleazy innuendo, to
imply that Clinton is unpatriotic, or a communist, or a KGB agent,
without directly saying that---because if Bush said flat out the
things that he is implying, it would be manifestly obvious that they
were so idiotic as to be beneath contempt.

Clinton's memory of his two- or three-day tourist trip to Moscow is
just about what I would expect him to remember about a tour he went on
more than twenty years ago.  (And, I might add, it's just about as
detailed as my memory is of tourist trips that I was on five or ten
years ago.)
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: At this very moment ...
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:35:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) says:

>  I would bet that as you are reading this, around the world dozens of
>people are searching the archives for a picture of Bill Klinton (Russian
>spelling {:^) ) at an anti-war rally in the 60's.  Double bonus if the
>location was Moscow.  Triple bonus if he's carrying a particularly nasty
>anti-american sign.  If they beat the clock it will be appearing soon in a
>Republican ad in your neighborhood.

Yes, and if they can't find a genuine picture they are ready, willing
and able to fabricate one.


>
>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
>              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
>
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 01:02:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.125744.4200@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> Lets not forget that the (democratically-controlled) Congress has to
> approve ALL spending, revenue-raising, taxes. The President has no
> power to spend money unless Congress gives it to him. Only the Congress
> can borrow money and go into debt. Its in the Constitution (Article 1, 
> sections 7,8).
 
Ever hear of the veto?  If Bush had had more than 1 veto overturned he
might have a case.  But it's clear that he agreed to the budget
compromises.  If he didn't veto the spending bills he's just as
responsible as Congress.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:01:14 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <1992Oct12.005725.3468@news.acns.nwu.edu>, ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:
>
> I thought that this was a great time (for Clinton )to just come out and say
>"I made a mistake" (in opposing the Vietnam War.)  Goerge was practically
>daring him to.

But he didn't make a mistake.  His position was right then, and it's right today.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with organizing demonstrations against
immoral policies of the US government anywhere in the world.

Free Speech is free speech; the constitution doesn't specify geographic boundaries
where it applies.  George's "indignation" with the UK protests is basically a
"don't show our dirty laundry" wish.

-- 
Bob Munck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,alt.fan.dave_barry,alt.fan.howard-stern,alt.fan.monty-python,talk.politics.guns
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:31:19 GMT

jbh@anat.UMSMED.EDU (James B. Hutchins) writes:


>In article <60.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>> [stuff deleted]
>>For example, witness this testy exchange
>>between reporters and designated Republican attack-bitch, Mary Matalin:
>
>[more stuff deleted]
>
>Does this remind anyone else of Lee (Willie Horton) Atwater?  Does Matalin
>play blues guitar?
>
For the Willie Horton thing, Lee had a GREAT teacher:

   AL GORE

-Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:28:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.185841.14250@u.washington.edu> machman@stein.u.washington.edu (the machman) writes:

>There's that negative "slick" buzzword again.  What sort of !Real Solutions!
>did you hear from Perot or Bush?

Having read both Clinton and Bush plans I can say that both offer !Real
Solutions!; or at least specific ideas.

The basic difference between them is interesting. Take health care, Clinton's
plan is to develop a standard insurance policy for the whole nation and
require 'pay or play' for that policy.

Bush's plan is to use vouchers and incentives to insure that every American
can afford insurance.

Clinton will make a health box and stuff every American into it wether they
fit or not. If you want to give up something inside the box to get something
outside, tough luck.

Bush wants to make it possible for people to pick the sort of plan that best
fits their needs and give them the means to do so.

On every issue this difference was apparent. Clinton wants to have Washington
dictate THE solution to every problem and make people follow it. Bush wants
to set the rules so people can pick their own way. Clinton wants to empower
government, Bush wants to empower people.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16875 alt.politics.bush:9221 alt.politics.clinton:10516
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:45:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) says:
>
>What magic does George Baker ... oops, I mean BUSH ... have that he can
>salvage a victory with his abysmal popularity?  I'd really like to know.

His chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear, his two, his two chief
weapons, and ruthless efficiency, his THREE chief weapons, fear,
surprise, and ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical ... I'll
start again.
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:55:44 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <3853@eastman.UUCP>, pawlicki@kodak.com writes:
|sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
|>As soon as I am satisfied that
|>no voucher (tax) money goes to religious schools, then
|>I'll pay attention.            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

|Look, the problem is education, not religion. The fact of the matter is
|that a lot of religious schools do a very good job of education. Can't you
|put your hatred of religion aside in the interest of quality education? 
|Preoccupation with these kind of issues are one of the reasons that the US
|educational system is in bad shape.

I don't hate religion, but I also don't want my tax dollars
supporting it.  Fund your church yourself.  I refuse to fund
it for you.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion."
				 George Washington and John Adams
				 Diplomatic message to Malta
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle Should Be President
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:42:09 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1birhuINN8f7@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>
>	that sounds too much like an issue, I want to talk about ...
>	personal liberty is irrelavant
>	free wills will be assimilated
>	resistance is futile
>	exterminate
>	Exterminate!
>	EXTERMINATE!
>
>	E-X-T-E-R-M-I-N-A-T-E-!-!-!

There you go again, mixing the Borg with Daleks....
:-)



--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.

>Bullshit.

Really?  Name two democracies that went to war with one another.  *Real*
democracies, not places where people could vote for the winner like the 
ex-Soviet Union.

>|> They do not sponser international terrorism.

>Well, the USA was a democracy when it imported slaves.  Can anybody think
>of a more modern example?

Actually, the US never imported any slaves at all.  Individual people
did.  And considering that one of the first things the US did as soon as
it was allowed to was to ban the slave trade (the slave states had it
written into the Constitution that the Congress couldn't prohibit the
slave trade till 1808.)

>|>They do not threaten to destry other nations with weapons of mass destruction

>"We will systematically destroy Japan's ability to wage war..."  Harry Truman.

Which isn't really the same thing as destroying Japan, is it?

>And France's nuclear weapons arn't exactly a gesture of good will either.

They didn't use them, did they?

>|> Democracy abroad helps protect economic and security interests at home. 

>Can you say Vietnam?  I thought you could!  For the advanced lesson, try
>saying Nicaragua, Panama, and South America.

>Live in the real world.

I'm a little confused.  What do your examples have to do with the
statement?  Vietnam,Nicaragua and Panama weren't democracies.  The
statement was that "Democracy abroad helps protect interests at home."

When's the last time the US and Canada fought?  Or Britain and France?

-- 
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!!!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16976 alt.politics.bush:9290 alt.politics.clinton:10599 alt.politics.perot:2203
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:31:01 GMT
	<1992Oct14.150845.10882@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov's message of 14 Oct 92 15:08:45 GMT

Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
|I think Quayle scored some big 
|points on the school choice issue by pointing out that allowing vouchers 
|for private schools would enable people who aren't rich to afford to send 
|kids to private schools.

Don't get me started on this.  That's a proof by assertion.  The jury
is still out on whether vouchers would really help in this regard.
More likely, it will still cost money and given the neighborhood
segregtion, poor folx are more likely to live far away from the better
schools, etc.
--
Peace.
                           "If I could find a way to get [Saddam Hussein] out
                            of there, even putting a contract out on him, if
                            the CIA still did that sort of a thing, assuming
                            it ever did, I would be for it."
                                           -- Richard Nixon
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush v. Clinton: "Who do you trust?"
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:27:16 GMT

In article <athos-161092133534@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>> least with Clinton I know I have a chance for improvement.  Bush
>> has done NOTHING during his time in office to convince me that
>> I can believe what he says.
>
>Yeah, you're right: his international performance has been nothing.  How
>quickly the winds change when the danger is gone. Churchill suffered the
>same sort of weirdness.

Yeah, Iraq-gate.  That's something.


	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:25:05 GMT
	<machman.719105672@milton>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: machman@milton.u.washington.edu's message of 14 Oct 92 23:34:32 GMT

machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
|>> I believe that the voting, at this point, shall turn into no more
|>> than a mere formality of what we have been seeing over the course 
|>> of the last 8 weeks; Clinton with sizable leads nearly everywhere.
|>
|>From this post and others like it, the following message is conveyed:
|>Gee, everyone else is voting for Clinton so I may as well do so too - I am  
|>voting for a winner.  This thought pattern is well demonstrated in sports.   
|>Everyone supports the local professional team if it is winning, but only a  
|>handful of people support the local professional team if it is losing.
|>
|>When will people have their own opinions?

|On the other hand, the following message could be conveyed as well:
|"Gee, everyone is voting for Clinton, so I guess my vote doesn't mean
| much.  I'm not going to bother to vote."

|This attitude, held on a large scale, can spell doom for a candidate.
|Witness the Dewey loss to Truman in '48.  Dewey had such a large lead 
|over Truman in the polls that he wasn't an aggressive campaigner, and his 
|supporters took false comfort in that apparent lead.  It became known only
|in the early morning hours the day after the election that Truman had pulled 
|off the nearly impossible and posted an amazing come-from-behind victory 
|over Dewey.

|Draw your own conclusions about how that situation might be repeated today.

There's (apparently) good evidence that this is no more than a popular
myth.  The "polling" according to a few Harvard JFK people I've talked
to was unscientific:  the polled were people in country clubs and the
like (ie already predisposed to vote republican).  Many maintain that
Truman wasn't ever really behind because the effective margin of error
was ridiculously high.  Sort of like polling Mary Matlin on Bush's
prospects. 

I'd love to see some documentation onthis one way or the other.
--
Peace.
                           "If I could find a way to get [Saddam Hussein] out
                            of there, even putting a contract out on him, if
                            the CIA still did that sort of a thing, assuming
                            it ever did, I would be for it."
                                           -- Richard Nixon
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:13:25
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: pawlicki@kodak.com's message of 13 Oct 92 18:01:14 GMT

In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com writes:

> 	One thing is nearly certain. During the next four years the
> president of the United States will have to call on young men and
> women in the military to fight and die. 
...
> It is entirely likely that the cause they are
> asked defend will be a questionable one. 

Me, I'd prefer a President who will not tell people that they have to
die for a questionable cause.

My experience is this: if someone believes that war is "nearly
certain," they will be much more likely to go to war than if they
believe there is a genuine possibility that we can avoid war.

I hope we can elect a President who will not go to war twice in his
first two years, someone who is adept enough to deal with situations
before soldiers start being killed.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: dsl@iscp.bellcore.com (Dan Lo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Math level of media poll
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:15:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bellcore

It bothers me to hear the media blaming on our
education system and stating that the math level is low
among young kids, and yet at the same time to hear
them drawing the conclusion of presidential debate
by saying that Clinton won because 50% of the poll
indicated that.

It seems to me if the initial condition of the debate is
that Clinton holds 50% and Bush holds 35% of the votes
according to the poll.  The debate should be a draw if these
percentages do not change after the debate.

Everyone knows that learning is more than just from the
school.  The influence from the media in the current age
is much greater than that from the school.

_______________

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
_______________

Dan Lo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jeff@don't.want.email
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:44:30 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri's Technological University

In article <1bhup1INNg21@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com writes:

No,

Bill will go to the enemy and ask them what he can do for them and that he  
is so very sorry for causing them any pain and we will accept whatever  
they want.

No Our kids won't stand up to anything, will just have to accept whatever  
anyone tell us because Clinton has no spine, if he does have a spine he  
left over where he was last protesting against America.

Jeff E
From: root@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mary Matalin and James Carville
Date: 14 Oct 1992 21:25:14 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) said..
>The NYT of a few days ago reported that Mary Matalin (chief spokesperon
>of the Bush/Quayle campaign and overall incarnation of evil) and James
>Carville, Clinton's chief campaign strategist, are romantically linked.
>Man, what a great relationship they must have.  They must have great
>sex, because they sure as hell must not be able to talk about much...
>:-)

Yep, I remember hearing Carville talk about this a few months ago on
CNN.  I wonder if any information flows back-n-forth between the two
campaigns that way, or if they both feel that they're public appearances
are just that -- appearances.

Oh, and FYI:  Mary Matalin is properly referred to as 
Republican-attack-bitch Mary Matalin.  

:-)

Allan
From: wchen@oreo.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Presidential debates. What time televised?
Date: 10 Oct 1992 19:31:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

Someone please post the times and dates for the presidential debates,
or reply by email. 


Thanks, 
Bill
From: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Len Olszewski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: NC poll shows Clinton on top
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:49:58 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com


Yesterday, the Raleigh News & Observer had a story about a recent 
statewide poll of 609 "likely" NC voters conducted last week.
Participants were asked who they would vote for if the election were
held today. The results?

Clinton         47.9 %
Bush            34.8 %
Perot            6.7 %
Undecided       10.6 %

Margin of error - 4 percentage points.

I'll bet my old pal (not) Jesse Helms doesn't like this at all.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Len