HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 10:12:36 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct8.140354.4632@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct7.164106.4115@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
|> > In article <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron 
|> > Buckmire) writes:
|> >> I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the 
|> > Cable
|> >> Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
|> >> cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
|> >> progressive result.
|> >> 
|> > 
|> > Yep, I just heard this morning that some of the cable interests were suing 
|> > on the basis that the law is unconstitutional...and local stations are 
|> > congratulating themselves now that cable companies will have to pay them a 
|> > fee for their programming....which I am sure will be passed on to the 
|> > consumer.   That's progress...NOT.   I wonder who lined the pockets of 
|> > Congress.
|> 
|> 	ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX.
|> 
|> 	The broadcast networks are the only ones who are failing to make huge
|> loads of money off of cable.  But now, Congress has handed them the golden
|> goose.  They can simply charge each cable company for "rebroadcast" rights. 
|> It's like if congress had simply passed a tax on every TV set sold, to be paid
|> to the broadcast networks, for the "privilige" of being able to receive their
|> signal.  And a tax on every video tape.  For the "privilage" of being able to
|> record those signals.  And taxes on VCRs, wires, cables, antennas, etc.
|> 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.  The broadcast from a local station
has value, it is property belonging to the local station.  It is improper
for anyone with the ability to receive the transmission to rebroadcast
it for a fee without consent from the property owner.  If the local
affiliates broadcast has no value to the cable customer, then the cable
operator should simply not carry it.  If it chooses to carry it, then
an agreement should be arranged with the property owner for use of
the property.  In reality, local broadcasters should realize than
rebroadcast on cable increases their coverage area and should enhance
ad revenues.  Losing this benefit may be more than the amount they could
receive from the cable company paying for rebroadcast.  As long as
the cable company isn't required to carry the station, I don't have a
problem with retransmission rights.  I do object, however, to other
aspects of the bill.

|> 	Blech.  Hopefully the law will be ruled unconstitutional.      

Me to, but not because of retransmission rights.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9289 alt.politics.libertarian:734 alt.politics.bush:8319
From: kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Karin Brennan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: cable tv
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:58:22 GMT
	<1992Oct7.180014.6572@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

You said,

"Your analogy is meaningless. Imagine that McDonalds is the only 
restaurant in your town. In fact, imagine that it's the only source
of food in your town.  In order to eat other food you have to 
move to another town. Now imagine that McDonalds decides to start
charging $5 for a Big Mac. Next month they up the price to $7. 
Then $10. Then $12.  Are you gonna move or are you gonna ask for
someone to control their prices?  "

RE:  Your analogy...
I think you've missed the point.  McDonalds is NOT the only place in
town to get food, and cable t.v. is not the only place in town to get
entertainment.
Have you forgotten that television is a LUXERY?  You don't need this to live.

Once again history repeats itself.  Government regulation ends up cost
everyone.
Won't all of the slaves to the tube be surprised when their cable bills
go up in the next few months?
From: so690561@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Susan Elizabeth Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Perot plan posted to alt.politics.perot
Date: 16 Oct 1992 03:54:23 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8841 talk.politics.misc:49981
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:41:06 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron 
Buckmire) writes:
> I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the 
Cable
> Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
> cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
> progressive result.
> 

Yep, I just heard this morning that some of the cable interests were suing 
on the basis that the law is unconstitutional...and local stations are 
congratulating themselves now that cable companies will have to pay them a 
fee for their programming....which I am sure will be passed on to the 
consumer.   That's progress...NOT.   I wonder who lined the pockets of 
Congress.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,alt.sex
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:08:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.163408.7134@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>I maintain that everyone who has AIDS is either someone who engaged 
>in irresponsible activities or the victim of someone who engaged in 
>those activities.  The only innocents are those victims.

The same could be said of lung cancer or heart disease or auto accidents...

What's your point?

At any rate you should learn the difference between "All people with
AIDS have engaged in 'irresponsible activities'" and "All people who
engage in 'irresponsible activities' get AIDS."

The first is (trivially) true, the second (and relevant issue) completely
false.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:25:51 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct13112210@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>  (1) Clinton has never organized anti-American protests anywhere.

Several biographies written by major anti-war figures identify Clinton
as an organizer. These biographies where written by people who do not
support Bush and where likely written before this became an issue.

Clinton claims he didn't organize protests but the record indicates
otherwise.

>      Clinton is an intelligent man, and he is able to tell the 
>      difference between opposition to the Vietnam War and hating his
>      country.  Are you?

Sure. I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the actual
marches. The point is and remains that Clinton lied about his participation
AND his role.

This is part of a pattern. On every issue from Jennifer Flowers to the
draft to this Clinton's tactic has been to lie and then accuse his accuser
of some sort of bias.

THAT is the issue.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------194 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: AIDS in Arkansas: Clinton Doing Better than Bush
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:32:46 GMT

From sci.med.aids:

In article <1992Oct13.131557.20203@cs.ucla.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes:
>HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report
>Friday July 24, 1992     
>
>Suggested Citation: 
>Centers for Disease Control. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, July, 1992 
>
>Table 1.   AIDS cases and annual incidence rates per 100,000 population,
>  by state, reported July 1990 through June 1991, July 1991 
>  through June 1992; and cumulative totals, by state and age group, 
>  through June 1992 
>
>                                           July 1990-             July 1991-
>                                           June 1991              June 1992 
>STATE OF RESIDENCE                         No.  Rate              No.  Rate 
>
>Arkansas                                   219   9.3              200   8.5 
>
>U.S. TOTAL                              41,255  16.4           45,610  18.0 
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: The debate debate
X-Xxdate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:11:58 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:15:06 GMT

I just thought I would throw in my 2 cents......

From a purely style point of view, Perot definitely won. He was quick,
funny,
talked in plain language, and talked to the subject of the question.
However, his
answers rarely had any policy substance. He definitely has the "zinger"
down
pat.

From a substance point of view, Clinton won. He was the only candidate to
quote
reports and articles in his responses, he stuck to the questions, and
responded
well to attacks. He did look rather stilted and rehearsed however which
detracted
from his responses somewhat. The response to the "patriotism" charge was
very good and his response to the health care question was excellent.

George Bush did not hurt himself, but he didn't help himself either. He
looked more
relaxed than Clinton, but his responses were often rambling and
incoherent. He also
violated a precept of good debating by straying from the subject of the
question.
He also mentioned Jim Baker and the "new" congress far too often as his
solution
to problems. His response to the "nuclear arms reduction" charge of Perot
was
very good although I personally disagreed with his comment about us being
safer.

From a strategic point of view, Clinton won. Perot concentrated his
ammunition
on Bush and effectively countered Bush on several occasions. Perot will
gain some
ground but it will be at the expense of George Bush.

Personally, I think the one-moderator format will be an improvement since
it
will tend to evoke more impromptu responses. I expect Clinton will do much
better in this forum since he has done well in it in the past. Perot will
do about the
same. Bush needs to get together with a good debate coach.

Norman







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




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Amazing!
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<1992Oct13.104856.4735@desire.wright.edu>
	<1992Oct13.183131.24783@PacBell.COM>
	<1992Oct14.145005.4786@desire.wright.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:46:22 GMT
X-Posted-From: graphics.cs.nyu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
   rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
   > (remember when libraries were open all day, six days a week?),

	   Our still are.  Oops.  Seven days a week.  Sorry.

Well, as long as yours are, I guess everything is fine.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10201 talk.politics.misc:51495
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Time For Clean Sweep -was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:25:39 GMT
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes:

>to pass legislation!!!  I'm so sick and tired of bills being voted on based
>on re-election impacts rather than the good of the country.  I believe that
>the Congress should be totally cleared out, put limits on the length of
>their terms, and get rid of all PAC contributions.  Maybe then something
>constructive would get done.

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*, if not most, of the problem.

And since they're part of the problem, then shouldn't dumping them be
part of the solution also?

Be fair this November.  If you're voting for Mr. Clinton, vote against
Congressional incumbents too, regardless of their party.

-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 -If you vote against Bush, be fair and throw out Congressional incumbents too-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:36:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.122932.6171@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>> > Clinton went sightseeing in Europe during...
                                 ^^^^^^^

>> Well there is a bit more to it than that. Several independant and
>> very liberal people (hardly Bush supporters) say that Clinton
>> organized anti-US protests there.

>(1) "There" = Moscow?  ...

No, Europe (see above). Clinton has claimed, for example, that he met
a priest who is a professor at Georgetown in Denmark by accident but
did not aid the priest in any anti-war activities. That same priest
claimed in his biography that Clinton was in fact one of the orginizers
of the protest in Denmark.

>(2) What "anti-US" protests are Clinton alleged to have organized
>_anywhere_?  (Note: a protest against US policies != an anti-US
>protest.)  Please be specific.

Irrelevant. What he did isn't a big deal. What IS a big deal is the fact
that he felt he had to lie about it today.

Whenever anything bad comes up be it J. Flowers, the draft, negative
statements about Perot, activities in Europe or whatever Clinton's first
instictive reaction is to lie about and then call his accuser names.

This personality trait brought Nixon down, I wonder how Clinton will
fare?

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------194 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10935 alt.politics.bush:9462 alt.politics.perot:2266
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:42:12 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct16.050442.15987@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.235249.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     H-O-L-Y C-O-W!  Shrub wins!  Shrub wins!  (O.K., I'll stop
>>the Harry Caray imitation.)
> 
> Not.
> 
> Shrub's little attempt to steer the discussion into character issues
> was flatly rejected by the audience.  Beyond that, there was nothing
> he had that Clinton didn't have a counter to.  A draw more or less.

     I agree that it was a draw (the "Shrub wins" was for the extra
4 calls that Bush got over Clinton on C-SPAN).  The local paper
here said that Bush became "testy" at times during the debate.
Did anyone else see this?  I didn't....
  
>>     Some comments on the participants:
>>     Bush:    Kept looking at his watch.
> 
> "It's time for them to go."  Sorry, couldn't resist :-)
>
     Yeah, and Bush is running out of time also.
 
>>     Clinton: Kept making funny faces into the camera while Bush spoke.
>>              All of his plans had three points.  (Very amusing!)
> 
> Remember, three is a MAGIC number.  Just like the Dems to tap into
> our collective unconscious.
>
     "Collective" unconscious??  Don't tell me that the Dems want
to socialize/nationalize our thoughts too!!!  :-) 

>>     Perot:   You're out of time, Mr. Perot.  Mr. Perot!  MR. PEROT!!
>>              The chair was elevated too high for him to actually sit.
> 
> Ah, quite.  And he missed the last one, where he didn't hear the
> "Well, what about the women" question and just rambled off on his own.
> Not a hint he knew what he was talking about: his pat response when
> the discussion ventured outside his realm of expertise was to refer to
> the millions of random plans floating around DC without being
> specific.

     He talks about how easy it would be to compromise with
Congress -- I really wish that someone would have asked him
about his past unsuccessful dealings with the bureaucratic
GM establishment.  When he didn't get his way, back then, he 
"packed up his marbles and went home."

     C. Perttunen  

     "It's a matter of trust."
                           -- Billy Joel
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:49:36 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
>debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of change
>saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.

>	So much for that "did not" denial :).

George Bush was indeed pro-choice, then he switched to pro-life. 

So much for that "trustworthyness."

I guess the only one of the candidates who always has had the same view
on this matter is Mr Quayle. Opinions change according to the polls, who
is supporting you and according to who is paying you. Isn't politics easy?

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington)
Subject: Romantic Gossip (was Re: Insane Dornan)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 19:09:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.144116.21484@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
[otherwise sensible pro-Clinton stuff deleted]
>bypassed the law.  I may think George has been a low life character attacker
>and whinny accuser these days when he has nothing better to say about himself
>but his lover Mary Matlin says he's doing the right thing. Many people 

I don't think there has been any credible accusation that Bush is or has
been sleeping with Mary Matalin, one of his campaign officials.  Bush
probably slept with Jennifer Fitzgerald, now a State Department employee,
at some time in the past, though (a) this has not been proven and (b) he
presumably, having more political savvy than Gary Hart, has stopped.
Matalin, curiously, is romantically involved with James Carville, a leading
Clinton campaign official.

Four More Weeks,
Dave MB
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Hey asshole! (was Re: AL GORE-THE STEPFORD CANDIDATE)
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:47:53 EST
Followup-To: alt.fan.john-palmer
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Hey!  Look what oozed out of the slime...it's 
jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)!

In article <1992Oct15.015811.16733JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
> 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?
> "
> 
> I'm getting sick and tired of right-wing assholes making pointless 
> personal attacks on Clinton and Gore. 

	This is just so incredibly...Palmerisk.  Do the words kettle and pot
ring any bells?

> Whats the matter, Ms. Gratrix,
> doesn't your candidate (Perot or Bush) have any issues that you can
> defend for them, or are you just the type of person that the GOP
> likes: and imbecile who can do nothing but carry out irrelevant personal
> attacks. You are doing a good job of mimicking Bush and Quayle.

	Have you sicced your lawyers on her yet?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Where is ELECTORAL tally?
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:34:20 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct7.024235.7006@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.220201.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> 
>>     It sure was nice of that pundit of politics, Homer
>>Simpson, to grace us, the "electorally"-blind, with such an 
>>act of noblesse oblige.  Wow, 307 -- I thought Homer could
>>only count up to eight (he has three fingers and a thumb on
>>each hand).  Even if Homer knows binary, he could only
>>count up to (2^8 - 1) or 255.  How did he account for the
>>remaining 52?
> 
> Well, I've been misquoted by a bad cut on a text editor.
> 
> But, let's take advantage of this merry gift of serendipity, and
> try to figure out how that soon-to-replace-McLaughlin pundit,
> Homer Simpson, may have meant.
>
     Actually, if Homer were about a foot shorter, he would
make a great Jack Germond replacement.
 
> Binary would be too hard to count in, but he can make hash marks on
> the kitchen table.  It'd be base eight, though: in our number system,
> 307 would be 199.  I suppose Homer has astutely observed that the
> election is still up for grabs, and Clinton shouldn't sit on his ass
> and wait for Bush to kick him in the head (Bill, are you listening?)
>
     I hear Clinton is so confident of victory that he has
already scheduled a summit with "Prime Minister" Neil Kinnock
after the inauguration.
 
> Lisa-Maggie '24 !!!!!
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections