HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot Dies in VP Debate
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:25:34 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:


>Stockdale, a thoroughly likable and respect-worthy individual, would
>not be a credible candidate for county assessor, let alone VP.  He
>was, though, an invaluable contribution to the event, showing how
>plastic one has to become to succeed in national politics.

Since when does a gift for public speaking qualify one for VP?  I can 
think of about a thousand other qualities I'd rather have in a 
candidate.  The guy was in the spotlight before a couple hundred 
million people for the first time in his life.  Give him a break.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ravens@wam.umd.edu (Raven Silverthorn)
Subject: What's the Alliance Party?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:26:42 GMT

I'm not sure if this is the right group for this, but does anyone know anything
about the Alliance party.  The party is on the November ballot for Pres.&V.P.
The nominees for these positions are two women; one is from Texas and the other from Las Vegas.

If anyone knows anything about this party, please e-mail it to me.
That is, unless there is sufficient interest in the group.

-Raven
ravens@wam.umd.edu
From: dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: After Debate Press Coverage
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:02:20 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: dan-mac.csuchico.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A700C0D271014069@dan-mac.csuchico.edu>
X-XXDate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 01:07:14 GMT

Does anyone else get sick of the after debate coverage that the press
gives.  As soon as the debate is over, they tell you who won and who
lost.  Why don't they let the American people figure it out for
themselves instead of giving us their view?  Are we not smart enough to
decide for ourselves what was said and who came out ahead because of it?  
I'm not against press coverage, but I'd like to see them give the
American people a couple hours to work it out for themselves and to be
able to discuss the debate with family and friends before we get their
viewpoint of it.

Just a thought,

Dan
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15852 alt.politics.clinton:9398 talk.politics.misc:50563
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:13:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct9.043352.26843@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

>In article <9512@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>>>|> They do not threaten to destry other nations with weapons of mass destruc>
>>>"We will systematically destroy Japan's ability to wage war..."  Harry Truman

>>If Japan had not attacked, they would not have been bombed.  Do you deny that
>>nations have a right to self defense.

>	Why are you evading the fact that the original statement was incorrect?

I do not believe the original statement is incorrect.  I was pointing out 
why I felt that your response to the original statement was inapplicable.

>>>And France's nuclear weapons arn't exactly a gesture of good will either.
>>True, but has France threatened to use them on anyone?  If anyone attacks
>>France, then they might be bombed.  I guess you could call that a threat.

>If a socialist country possesses nuclear weapons it's ok, right?

If said socialist country merely says that if attacked they will defend 
themselves I do not.

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

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17407 talk.politics.misc:52561 talk.politics.mideast:21198
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: George Bush's New World Order
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:09:59 GMT
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <Bw756H.EDE@access.digex.com> hacker@access.digex.com (Dark Hacker) writes:
>   ...
>   Sending cans of food under the watchful eye of the military is aid?  To
>   a people who are being systematically tortured and exterminated this
>   must seem like a cruel joke.

I don't agree.  I'd rather be shot than starve to death.  Sending
humanitarian food aid to the hungry is not a joke.

>   How can the Western Nations be so totally callous?  When US interests
>   and the supply of oil in the middle east was threatened you can be
>   damned sure George Bush was over there with his troops, B-2 bombers and
>   carrier groups.

In point of fact, no B-2 bombers were sent to the Middle East.

   [Bosnian interventionist opinions deleted]

You haven't convinced me that military intervention in Bosnia would
accomplish anything.  First you have to argue that the present
situation in Bosnia is deplorable (you have done that).  Then you have
to argue that US intervention in Bosnia would necessarily improve the
situation there more than it would hurt the situtation for US troops.
This you have not done.

You have to be careful not to confuse the desirable with the feasible.

--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Re: VP Debate -- impressions & facts
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:32:14 GMT

In article <1bhqg0INNdni@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>Gore:  Wooden -- but solid.  I was disappointed that he didn't come back
> with specifics immediately when Quayle attacked the line out of his book,

Because old crack-smoking DQ, EVERY time he told one of his lies,
absolutely refused to let Gore respond and went on with his hyperactive,
childish, *embarassing* political-operative-programmed speech on the way
to "trust" and "waffling."  Wotta jerk.

I would love if someone who taped that thing could figure out who used
more of the clock.  I would guess that DQ used about 3 to 3:15 of every
discussion period (plus a few seconds of Gore's opening statement --
wotta jerk!)

Gary
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Agnew (was: Bush cowardice? I think not)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:13:57 GMT


In article <1687FA9CE.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, 
MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) said:

> > the charges against Agnew regarded his conduct in his pre-VP days
> > as Governor of Maryland.  There were no charges or allegations of
> > law-breaking by Agnew while he was VP.  [wdstarr]
>
> My memory may be failing me, but I am pretty sure that some of the
> charges involved bribes delivered to Agnew after he became VP, and
> perhaps in the VPs office.  I have no proof or documentation, just
> an interested college undergrad's recollections.

Hmmm, you may be right... probably are, in fact.  I was only a
somewhat-interested high school geek at the time, and, frankly, during
the Fall of 1973 I was a lot more interested in my girlfriend, the
Mets' second run at the World Series, the situation in Vietnam, the
perpetual rumors of Star Trek' being revived as either a new tv series
or as a movie and lots of other things than I was in the exact details
of Spiro's downfall.  (Also, there was this interesting little story
unfolding at the time about a third-rate burglary at some obscure
hotel/office complex near Washington...)

Still, though, I think that even though (some of?) the bribes were
allegedly delivered to VP Agnew, they were supposedly in payment for
services he rendered during his Maryland days.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17337 talk.politics.misc:52485 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5531 alt.rush-limbaugh:7649 alt.fan.dave_barry:719 rec.sport.baseball:30137
From: doug@ramona.com (Double Agent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dave_barry,rec.sport.baseball
Subject: BUSH CAMP ACCUSES CLINTON OF TREASON
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:43:30 GMT
Organization: Ramona Engineering

Richmond, VA (AP) - On his way out of the University of Virginia
auditorium following last night's second Presidential debate, President
George Bush expressed his strong disappointment with the debate format.
"The questions were far too narrowly focused," said the President. "The
American people need to be informed about the character of their cand-
idates. It's not a matter of knocking the other guy just for the sake
of knocking the other guy. The American people understand that. But they
must have all the facts about the candidates level of trust. It's very
important. This foreign sympathizer thing, for instance." When asked to
clarify his comment, the President explained, "I can't cite chapter and
verse--and I'm sure the press will help me on this tomorrow--but I think
it is plain wrong when an American running for President supports the
baseball team of another country in the World Series. Maybe it's a
generational thing--I don't know--I can only tell you I don't like it."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15666 alt.politics.clinton:9114 alt.politics.bush:8217 alt.politics.marrou:1502
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: The choices... (was Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...)
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:43:37 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

In article <1992Oct6.165228.4298@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> 
>   Realisticly, we have to choose [either] Bush or Clinton. 

Well, realistically either Bush or Clinton will win, and if people don't stop
rubberstamping the two-party system, we'll never have a realistic chance to
elect someone from outside the Republican or Democratic parties.  Once you
resign yourself to Min's choice, you in effect perpetuate the limitation of
choice.  Until alternative candidates start drawing 5% or more of the vote,
most people, and especially the press, won't consider them as serious
contenders with broad-based support.

By all means, throw your vote away this election in support of the two-party
system.  When you're *really* ready for change, though, evaluate the
alternatives and see if there's not one you'd rather support.

>   This is how American politics works. (well, this is how everything works,
>   you throw out the known bad one and try the best that is available)

Yes, this is how it works.  Now look at the mess we're in and ask yourself if
it *ought* to work this way, if *you* ought to continue to support "politics
as usual", or if you're ready to put your foot down.

And don't think that not voting expresses your disatisfaction with the
choices--it doesn't.  It's interpreted as apathy, laziness, or that all
candidates were equally acceptable.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: After Debate Press Coverage
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:57:49 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


  Following up my own post...

sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>>Does anyone else get sick of the after debate coverage that the press
>>gives.  As soon as the debate is over, they tell you who won and who
>>lost.  Why don't they let the American people figure it out for
>>themselves instead of giving us their view?  Are we not smart enough to
>>decide for ourselves what was said and who came out ahead because of it?  
>>I'm not against press coverage, but I'd like to see them give the
>>American people a couple hours to work it out for themselves and to be
>>able to discuss the debate with family and friends before we get their
>>viewpoint of it.
>>
>>Just a thought,
>>
>
>  And a very clever thought it is.   I think it was CNN that did a
>bit on the pre and post debate coverage.  Among other degrading things,
>they showed a newspaper editor from the San Francisco Chronicle (?memory?)
>saying that people will forget what they really thought and believe what
>the press writes throughout the next day.  I'm sure he and the politicians
>believe that.  Is he right?

  Actually, shortly after I wrote this I logged back in to see
at least 8 pro-Clinton campaign releases, many of which
were (apparently) meant to shape our opinion on the debate.  I guess
someone is making the assumption that we netters are just as stupid
as they think the American public is.  Is he/she right?   


  Thank goodness for "trn". :-)

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle Should Be President
Summary: Damn Striaght!
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:43:27 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct14.135531.1182@umr.edu>, jeff@don't.want.email                                    writes...
>chance to be president.  If George Bush wins, I think that Dan Quayle will  
>be able to turn his image around and be one of the greatest presidents  
>ever.
> 
Damn Straight! And what a loss it will be when we can no longer hear those
epic lines like, "I don't live in this century" and "What a waste it is 
to lose one's mind. Or to never have one."

>If you look at the beliefs of Dan Quayle and his corresponding actions,  
>you will find that he is a mirror of Abe Lincoln in modern times.
>
I always thought his mirror was in the Hubble Spacecraft.

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.my.head.hurts
From: buffalo@access.digex.com (Andy Bartalone)
Subject: Re: Debate transcripts available via internet
Organization: Express Elevator to Hell, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:13:30 GMT

I dont know where you got your info.....but Perot made virtually *ALL*
of his money ...... raping the government on contracts, then driving the
company into the ground, and in doing so bieng "bought out" to step
down as CEO/Chairman etc....

He sounds wonderful in these debates because he has *nothing* to lose..
he cant piss anybody off, he has no affiliation....

I personally trust him less than I trust Bush....and thats very scary....

andy

Buffalo@access.digex.com                    ".....she had a nightclub walk
                                                 that made grown men feel 
                                                 underage"
-- 
buffalo@digex.com		"...she had a nightclub walk that made grown
				 men feel underage...."
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton - facts only.
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:45:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>This is my impression of the facts in this case.  Anyone with (rational
>unbiased) criticism is encouraged to amend:
>
>1.  By his own admission, Clinton went to the USSR in 1969.

...together with a number of other Rhodes scholars studying at Oxford
at the time.  Rhodes scholars get money to travel, and Moscow wasn't
the only destination on the Clinton trip (so far as I've heard).

>2.  The state department keeps files on peoples' travels (specifics?).

Ceratainly true in the past, especially for travel to Eastern Bloc
countries.  Probably still true today for travel to countries that
annoy our government for one reason or another.  For example: I went
to the then-USSR and Poland (and other places) in the summer of 1984,
which was right around the height of the Cold War.  I would be
absolutely shocked if the State Department didn't have a file on me,
especially given that I had to obtain visas for these places.  [Note:
I was there for pretty boring and pretty much non-political reasons,
so don't get wigged out. :-)]

>3.  News organizations successfully filed Freedom of Information act 
>    suits to obtain Clinton's file.

Probably true, although details may well have been leaked ahead of
their release.  One of these days, I'll probably ask for my file, just
for grins.

>4.  Clinton's file had been tampered with.

Dunno.

>5.  The FBI is currently investigating the tampering.

Dunno.

jking


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:53:03 GMT

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <1992Oct8.042301.22431@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>>I can't think of any two communist nations which warred with each other
>>either....
>
>The USSR and Czechoslovakia.  The USSR and Hungary.

Peoples' Republic of China and VietNam

 -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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:15:54 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1992Oct15.060138.887@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:


>I think you need to look at a couple more meaningful numbers than just
>absolute magnitude of the debt; percentage of GDP and percentage of
>foreign holders.  I don't believe there were any huge rises in debt as
>a percentage of GDP until Bush got in office.  So, it would seem that
>you can blame Bush, certainly, but no matter how ideologically correct
>it may be in certain circles to want to 'smear Reagan', this is
>another one that just doesn't seem to quite stick.

I read somewhere that the debt as % of GDP went from approx 19% to
30% in 1980-88 and from 30% to 36% in 1988-92 (or 91?).   Most of that
came before 1982, if I remember correctly.

The rest of the Industrial Democracies had similar numbers (except maybe
Italy, I'm doing this from memory) and the point was made that if
foreigners are financing our debt, who is financing theirs?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: voting
Organization: None
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:01:49 GMT

In article <92276.120618DMGJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> Dolores Grande <DMGJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>I am getting sick and tired of commercials urging people to vote, no matter
> for whom. My philosophy is "Don't vote, it only encourages them."


  I respectfully disagree with you...if you feel that way, then vote for an
outsider.

  Imagine the reaction in official Washington if Perot or Marrou should
pull in 20% or more; or perhaps even win.

  That would be one POWERFUL message to the entrenched political-critters.

  Voting for Bush is a vote for the status quo, IMHO.

  Voting for Clinton is a vote for him and that party; and also
removes the checks/balances since if Clinton wins and we get a
Democratic Congress, they will work TOGETHER, for better or worse, IMHO.

    The last time we had that here in NJ, the Democrats pushed through the
    largest single state tax increase for any state, since 1776. It was a 
    Democratic congress and a Democratic Governor, working together back 
    in 6/90.

    Needless to say the Democratic Congress in NJ lost BIG TIME when they came
    up for re-election in 11/91. Now the Republicans have a veto-proof majority
    in NJ's Congress and have a Demcratic Governor, at least until next year
    when he will be roundly voted OUT (and good riddance!). We now have a
    form of checks/balances to keep some semblance of order in place.

 A vote for Perot says you are sick of the HUGE PUBLIC DEBT, the
lobbyists scheme, the size of government, etc. Read his bestseller book 
"United We Stand" for details. Its good reading. He will be back on TV
Friday night as well.

 A vote for Marrou says you want the role of Government SEVERLY
scaled back, across the board. Read the Libertarian Platform for their
view of what needs to be done. Its quite thought-provoking!


 You might say sending a message does no good. In my town, two outsiders
to politics were the top vote getters. The incumbents who also won
(8 candidates for 4 spots) learned their lesson and scaled back
our taxes. The incumbents said 'I guess the people want taxes lowered'.

 I say sending a message can do a world of good.

 Please vote according to your opinion of what the issues are and
who is best able to handle them to your liking.  Hold your nose while you
vote (if necessary), but do vote. Otherwise, blame yourself if you don't
like the results.

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Usual Disclaimers....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Len Olszewski)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Originator: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:49:29 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Oct8.202316.4532@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
|>
[deletions]

|> Maybe I should take some small satisfaction in the fact
|> that my (and many others') prediction that the Republican
|> Sleaze-o-Matic (tm) would be working overtime in October.
|> But the sight of the President of the United States
|> sinking to the level of Robert Dornan is just
|> too sad.
|>
|> --
|> | Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
|> | U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
|>

Actually, I find it refreshing that GHWB has finally stepped out from
behind the curtains to personally handle the mud-slinging, rather than
continuing to delegate that responsibility to minions and dupes.
Everyone always knew that GHWB was behind the egregious sewerage that
his surrogates spouted in this campaign, and it shows a sort of perverse
courage that, in the waning weeks of his tenure, GHWB has chosen to
explicitly become his own agent, and finally lie for himself.
<-------------------------------^------------------------------------->
|  Len Olszewski                | "You can observe a lot by watching."|
|  Technical Writer             |                                     |
|  saslpo@unx.sas.com           |                                     |
| "Have cursor, will curse."    |    - Yogi Berra                     |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|
<-------------------------------v------------------------------------->