HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:33:20 GMT

In article <amvdpyw@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.013435.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>> ... Did anyone whine when the POW protesters chanted at a dinner
>> when Bush was speaking?
>
>Bush did.
>
I beleive his exact words were "Shut up and sit down!"  Or was that "Sit down
and shut up!"
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   | "Read my lips ... I'll do anything to
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  get reelected ... I knew nothing about
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|  Iran-Contra."  What credibility problem?
From: mechler@cs.ubc.ca (Roland Mechler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Rush is...
Date: 12 Oct 1992 22:05:19 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ironduke.cs.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct12.202557.24775@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
|> 
|> For an example of a nearby party whose policies are more like what
|> the rest of the world regards as "socialist", look at
|> the New Democratic Party in Canada.  And, PLEASE, don't flame
|> me for "defending" socialism, which I am not.

We recently elected a New Democratic Party government in our province of B.C..
During the election campaign, the NDP was costantly refered to as the
"Socialists". Although the new government certainly has its share of problems,
it has been more fiscally responsible than the previous "conservative"
government, has a good working relationship with business, and is not
putting up barriers to free enterprise. Although we have a debt 
problem which will be difficult to overcome (who doesn't), our province
has the strongest economy in Canada (to the best of my knowledge). This
is due largely to our welcoming foreign investment and trade.

This red scare stuff is really starting to wear thin. Policies should
be judged on their own merits, not on what kind of label you can pin 
on them. 

-Roland




Keywords: 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8740 alt.politics.clinton:9875 alt.politics.elections:16255
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:51:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Oct10.074107.1439@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Did you all know that Clinton wears a toupee??
>
>It's to hide the three sixes on his head.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
Fortunately, we can be certain that Dan Quayle
is not the antichrist, because he cannot count
up to 666.

>Simon
>--------------------------------------------------
>November 2008..........
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The date on which Simon Booth will finally get a clue (estimated).
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Re: Did you notice....?
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:12:16 GMT

In article <01GPOBIUBMW2GJKXA2@UMAECS> VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>    Last night Mr Perot was in his 30 minutes campaign commercial (or
> program).  He presented a chart showing  the GNP.  Guess who led the list
> in last 20 years...   The rubber stamp president!  The one who had ruling
> Democratic Congress and "just signed" all the  bills.  Jimmy Carter's era
> was the best.  After Carter, Regan days were not bad. Bush?  Oh! Not even
> close.

Of course two things affect the growth of the GNP...production of goods, 
and inflation.   We had a lot of the latter under Carter.   If inflation 
today were 15%, we'd see a 15% increase in the GNP even if production were 
totally flat.

If you factor inflation into Perot's figures, they would tell a somewhat 
different story.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:16:30 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
: 
: Did you all know that Clinton wears a toupee??
: 
: It's to hide the three sixes on his head.

Funny.  That's the exact same reason I heard for Ronnie Ray-gun and his
wife for wearing wigs.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"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



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Pandering, both ways, level with American people, etc...
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:44:16 GMT

>From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
>Newsgroups: acs.clari.news.hot.bush,acs.clari.news.politics,acs.clari.news.gov.usa
>Subject: Baker asks Cabinet to offer resignations after Election Day
>
>	Bush announced at the first presidential campaign debate Monday that
>Baker, a former Treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan, would
>oversee domestic policy in a second Bush administration.

  It's time for George Bush to come clean with the American people. You 
can't be pandering and wavering on issues. You can't have it both ways, 
Mr. Bush. 
  Mr. Bush, not so long ago you said you had full confidence in Darman,
now you want him gone; we want to know why; just last week you said you
would put Baker back to the state department, then you said you would 
ask him to take care of domestic affairs, Mr. Bush, make up you mind. 
 
  Mr. Bush, no matter how you answer, I will not be satisfied. You see, 
I am not really interested in your answer, I just want to question your
character, your judgement. I just want to ask you to "level with American
people"
 
  Mr. Bush, don't blame me, I just learned a thing or two from you.
 
  Mr. Bush, frankly speaking, you are indeed the pandering and wavering, 
stupid (I don't want use the word slick since you don't really deserve
that, stupid fits better) person who has no character at all,
and worse, you don't have any principle that's worth for you to hold, 
and you don't have any idea or clue. How can we TRUST you, a TAX AND SPEND
republican, a failed president from a large States, the US,for our   
future ?    
 
  Mr. Bush, please stop pandering, you have to level th the American 
people, people like me and my neighbors, not just people like the dead
beat father who can gave you $500,000 but not his child support. 
 
 
  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8303 alt.politics.clinton:9259 alt.politics.elections:15748 alt.rush-limbaugh:6927 talk.politics.misc:50447
From: joem@meaddata.com (Joe Mehrle)
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:21:19 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <BvvF14.FMo@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, styrins@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Stephen Styring) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.043550.7425@sma2.rain.com> fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) writes:
|> >A check of the passport records for Bill Clinton for the 69-70 time period
|> >has revealed that the pages for that period are missing from the state
|> >department records. The FBI is looking into this matter now.
|> >I wonder who has them?
|> 
|> 
|> AS if....
|> 
|> 
|> 

Well much to the chagrin of all the REPUBLICANS the FBI announced late
Friday that there are NO PAGES MISSING from the file it all appeared
to be a mistake, convenient for all the Rush L., Republican, and right
wing fans isn't it.  Apparently the FBI worries Bill will be the next
president and they want to clean up their act before he gets in.  This
was the WORST inference and fabrication yet coming from the President
himself, lets throw this ass out of office.  
-- 
Joe Mehrle                        ----------------------------------
Mead Data Central, Dayton, Ohio   |  **    CLINTON/GORE `92      **  |
Internet: joem@meaddata.com       ----------------------------------
UUCP:     !uunet!meaddata!joem    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9018 alt.politics.clinton:10223 alt.politics.elections:16579
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Debate History (was Re: More deception from [Rush Limbaugh])
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:19:57 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct12.123345.14568@sinkhole.unf.edu> jdough@unf6.unf.edu (Joseph Dougherty) writes:

> ... Here's Clinton ... telling the President of the United States that he
> wants to debate based on a format set up by some unheard-of group of people.

Your ignorance is not shared by the President of the United States.  The
"unheard-of group of people" set up the 1988 debates.  Bush disagreed with
the Debate Commission only because he knew that their proposed format for 
1992 would encourage discussion of issues instead of sound-bite accusations.

> Clinton is the *challenger* and should therefore follow the rules and pro-
> cedures established and adhered to by past challengers. 

That's exactly what he did.  The Debates Commission proposed a schedule and
format, and Clinton immediately accepted.

> Clinton has this annoying thing about *changing* everything as though his
> way is the better way.

You think he'd do better by saying, "I will refuse to work with Congress!  I
will spend all my time overseas or at Camp David, blaming other people for
the work I will refuse to do not getting done!  I will appoint absolute in-
competents!  I will replace Al Gore with a nonentity and nincompoop!  You
will find me indistinguishable from Bush!  Vote for me!"?  Get real.

>	Rush's trademark comments are not pointed at the people on the
>committee. I believe his focus was on the alteration of the traditional
>format and Clinton's demand for the change.

Is Rush responsible for these lies or is he just repeating Bushisms?

The panel of journalists format is not traditional.  It was the format sug-
gested by the Debates Commission in 1988.  The Debates Commission returned to
the traditional format (one moderator, no sound bites) because of the obvious
deficiencies of the 1988 format -- all sound bites, no substance.  The format
that Bush rejected is traditional both for debates in general and for the
Presidential debates.  Clinton did not demand the traditional format, but
simply reiterated his acceptance of the Debates Commission's proposals.  Bush
was the one being childish.

That's another nice thing about Clinton winning:  we'll get back to the tra-
ditional debate format in 1996.  21 more days!


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8269 alt.politics.clinton:9187 alt.politics.elections:15723
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - Important
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:23:25 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct8.041447.7017@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>In article <Oct.7.13.48.35.1992.26105@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>
>>I don't see why Clinton has to waste his time chasing every bone that
>>every jackass throws.  Someone makes up a story about him and he's
>>expected to bend over backwards to proove that it isn't true.
>>What a crock.  I think he has more important things to do with his time.
>
>  His trip (which wasn't made up) was probably totally innocent.  

How right you are!  So why is it a campaign issue.  Perchance,
because it keeps the discussion off less important campaign topics 
like the economy or health care or competing internationally
in the next century or jobs?   But wait, why talk about such 
trivialities when we have tabloid reports of affairs with dancers
or former secretaries, the candidate's wardrobes, and the candidate's 
Christmas vacations to discuss?

>The
>problem is Clinton doesn't trust the public, though he wants the public to
>trust him as President.  For someone who has practically no foreign policy
>experience, isn't it a moronic move of his NOT to list this great
>educational opportunity in his resume?  

Oh yeah, good point.  I've never been CIA chief or ambassador
to China or the UN, but I took this really groovy vacation through 
Europe when I was 22.  

>Unless, of course, he doesn't trust
>the public to judge him based on his full background.  Maybe Bush has one 
>thing right - who are YOU going to trust?
>

Yeah I can't believe we haven't seen him say:
"Hi I'm running for president ... wanna see some slides from
my Christmas vacation in Europe?"

John D.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex
From: junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 08:44:32 GMT

mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:

>I don't remember where I got the info, but I did a speech for a class a
>few years ago on AIDS, and I was looking through some technical medical
>journals, and the numbers given in that journal (and backed up in other
>journals that I read) were something like 1 in 500.  This number is the
>chance that a male will contract HIV from a woman KNOWN to be HIV
>positive, without protection.  While this may seem like kind of a low
>percentage chance, remember that bodily fluids must pass from one person
>into the other, and it isn't that common for a male to break his skin 
>during sexual intercourse.

>It's a very common misconception that this chance is higher, however
>this is brought about because of the scare tactics used in the media.
>This is typically misinformation used to bring about change for the
>better.  While I'm not sure about the ethics of the deliberate
>misconceptions put into the household, I am sure that whatever helps
>even a little bit to slow down the spread of AIDS should be encouraged.
>(Misinformation is not lying.  They don't quote statistics, but mislead
>about the probability.)

Are you trying to tell that we don't have to worry about AIDS?
Are you trying to imply that we don't need to educate people to practise
always safer sex? I'll let you die by your staticts.

The actually probability of HIV infection in an unprotected intercourse
is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT for an individual. Think about the mechanics how
this number is arrived at. It is impossible to scientifically "calculate"
the probability. There are simply too many unknown factors. Instead,
you try to find a sample population, compile the statistics and try to
estimate the actual probability from that.

Here comes the problem for an individual who tries to decide whether it
is reasonable risk to have unsafe sex or not. How does the invidual KNOW
that her and her sex partners cases reflect the "average" situation
in the sample. The factors can vary a lot and the probability of contracting
HIV might be very high for this particular case.

The problem is that you are mixing apples and oranges. The infection rate makes
only sense when we are talking about populations, masses of people, not inviduals.
And when we are talking about 250 million people 1 in 500 is VERY bad, bad news.

You can also look at it this way: have you ever played any of the lottery
games in various states? What were you chances of winning? I bet less than
1 in 500, at least for any of the larger prizes. You still played.
Feel free to play at the HIV lottery with even higher chance of winning..
I wouldn't.


jari
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: The First Battle of October
Keywords: Presidential debate, Clinton, Bush, Perot, St. Louis
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:55:16 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Chad R. Berthelson writes:

>>IV. Clinton was helped by Perot, but he didn't help himself.
>
> don't get the logic here, most people say Perot is helping Clinton,
>because he and Clinton are closer (at least in that they both are
>pushing anti-incumbent type campaigns).  I would think that this
>would come closer to running two democrats against a republican, 
>which has historically split part of the vote.  I noticed before the
>debate that if Clinton+Perot support split, without Bush moving much..
>it would be like a 33-33-33 race.
>
Historically, there's been a bedrock of Democratic support at about
the 43% rate. Dukakis, I believe, [doofus extraordinaire, in
memory at least] polled about 45%. I can't imagine the circumstances
which would cause liberal democrats to bolt for Nixon-friend Ross
Perot. Perot is a crusty, attractive candidate. Very assured. Very
winning. But, what I imagine we'll see is a slight drop in Clinton support
to the 41-42% level and then no further erosion. If Perot's support
turns soft on election day, then that group will determine the 
election. If Bush's support continues below 40%, I don't think
an election day re-think by Perotgis (pronounced like "pirogi" the
mashed potato filled pastry) can help him. If Bush's up around 40% on
election day "Happy Days Are Here Again" may have to wait another
4 years.

As for Clinton not helping himself, his biggest problem is that he's
very much like Gore: a policy wonk. People who criticize Clinton
for not being specific are just parroting stock responses: Clinton
lives for his details. When he went blank for a couple of seconds
preparing his AIDS response, my heart went through the floor: the
ice floe of numbers was about to descend. Thank God he was limited
to 1 minute.  If Perotgis were serious about their candidate they
too would have had a heart-dropping response when Perot said,
anent his tax plan, that he'd be open to anything better. What...
I thought we were supposed to vote for him because he knew what
to do! Like I've said before, Ross is an attractive candidate. Good
copy. But he's looking around [my opinion] for something to do:
running the country, yes, that's the ticket.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:40:34 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford) writes:

> The United States has never participated in an unjust war.

Ohhhh, brother.  Try the war(s) against Native Americans for starters.
Then, let's add the Mexican-American War of 1845.  Add to that the
somewhat dubious reasons we went to war with Spain in 189-something.

And then there's Viet Nam...

> Neither is the selective service system unjust.

Right.  How come so many combat units during Viet Nam were
disproportionately represented by ethnic minorities, then?

> The fundamental principle involved is that the citizens of
> a nation should be required to take action to preserve the
security of that nation.

I'm sure somebody's got the exact quote somewhere, but I'll have a go at
citing from memory:  "A nation that needs a draft to defend itself
is not worth defending."

Although I have no problem with offering higher education incentives. :-)

> We got into Viet Nam because the President decided it was necessary for
> national security.  We entered every other war for the same reason.

Now it's time for the history lesson.  Our involvement in Viet Nam started
after WWII (against Harry Truman's wishes, it must be said) when we started
giving France military aid to help it maintain its colonial domination of
Indochina.  When the French finally took it on the chin in Dien Bien Phu,
the Eisenhower administration created SEATO and, through crafty political
machinations, elevated Ngo Dinh Diem to 'Premier,' with no participation of
the Vietnamese people.  Since Ho Chi Mihn had joined with the communists, and
Joe McCarthy and the HUAC were having their fun and games with alleged
communists, it became an increasing point of honor for Eisenhower, then
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon to 'oppose communism whereever it springs up,'
even though the original purpose of the conflict in Viet Nam was forgotten.

This is getting long.  If you want an eye-opening account of our involvement
in Viet Nam, I suggest reading "The March of Folly" by Barbara Tuchman.

[--deletions--]

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: Debate trivial nonsense 
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:17:21 GMT

In <1992Oct12.171009.9733@engage.pko.dec.com>
bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:

>{you've been warned by the title ...}

>Anyone else have any trivial tidbits from the debate?

1. Bush was so nervous, he had his hand in his pocket (probably trying
   to grasp at straws).

2. That sneer that he thinks passes for a smile at the end of each response
   made one local person here comment "Bush looked like a cat scratching".

3. I didn't know George was such a good pal of Ross that he could deal
   with him on a first-name basis in a national debate for the presidency
   of the United States.  I admire Mr. Perot's restraint, and anybody
   who calls him thin-skinned after that debate ("I'm all ears" was NOT
   a planned remark) has closed their mind.

I haven't decided who won the debate between Perot and Clinton, but Bush
is so far out of here that I've begun using him as my whacko-meter:
Anybody who thinks Bush won the debate, or has a chance in the election,
is so party-line they're not worth talking to.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush