HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Statement by Governor Bill Clinton
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:43:20 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <29287@life.ai.mit.edu>, 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
> 
>  For Immediate Release:                  
>  October 13, 1992                                  
>                                                
> 
>                 Statement by Governor Bill Clinton
> 
>       Choosing a running mate is the first major decision that a
>  future president makes.  If the American people were to vote on the
>  basis of that decision alone, the Clinton-Gore ticket would win a
>  landslide.  Tonight, Al Gore made it clear that he has the character,
>  judgement and vision to step into the Oval Office should, heaven
>  forbid, something happen to me.

	Willie, here comes the reality hammer: Gore should have stomped all
over Quayle.  He didn't do that.  That is a clear victory for Bush.  What kind
of person can't beat Quayle in a contest of wits???  *BAM*

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9680 talk.politics.misc:50871
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:12:44 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <zN5-HD=@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> In article <Bvu1qM.72A@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
...
> fee for this service, I would have no problem with them providing it.
> 
> |> However, the cable company is not required by FCC regs to
> |> carry local stations.  Whether or not cable companies are required
> |> by their franchises/charters/whatevers with local governments to do so
> |> is a different matter.  :)
> 
> Haven't 'must carry' regulations been ruled unconstitutional in a
> lower court?

	The only ruling I'm aware of is the one that says cable companies can
drop near-city stations if the programming is almost identical to a local
station's (that is carried).  So the cable companies can drop network
duplicates.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: cs106406@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs106406)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: ==> 1-800-FOR-BILL
Summary: Good Omens
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:01:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County

An anagram for you:

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER THIRD ==> MANY VOTED, BUSH RETIRED

Things that make you go hmmmm....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Subject: Interest on the debt
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:34:51 GMT

	I have wondered, like many other people, where has all the
money gone? Well I was looking over the 1990 budget and it became 
obvious where it has gone.
	We spent:

	175.6 Billion on Interest on the Debt in 1990.

	That is equal to all the federal spending on:

	Health
	Education, training, employment
	Transportation
	Natural resources + environment
	Science, space, + Technology
	Community, regional development
	Energy
	Consumer Health + Safety
	Health education + training

	COMBINED! And you would still have 5 Billion left over.

-Garrett

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:29:58 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct11.053225.4470@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
| >
| 
| I didn't say that anal sex was irresponsible.  Read the post.  The source 
| of aids in the us (#1 source of spread) was PROMISCIOUS anal sex.  
| Promiscuity 
| is the irresponsible act.  
| 

Why is promiscuity irresponsible?  Is promiscuous protected sex 
irresponsible?  Do you define anything more than 1 sexual partner per
life "promiscuous"?

Now, back to the original question -- why would promiscuous, unprotected
anal sex, before HIV was identified, be labeled "irresponsible"?

   Fritz

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9304 alt.politics.bush:8333
From: jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Cable TV and the Economy
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:27:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Rift from Here to There

Since we need a new topic for discussion, I'd like to bring this up.

I don't know how everyone else feels, but I find it quite appalling that
our illustrious congresscritters find it absolutely necessary to debate about,
vote on, and make a big fuss over a cable tv regulation bill when they 
could be doing something about the economy.  Then, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore
LAUDE congress for what they did instead of admonishing them for not trying
to do something about the economy.  Where are their priorities?  They think
that most people put cable tv right near the top of their priority lists?
This just goes to show where our current leadership, on the federal and
state levels, sits in regards to doing something for the people who elected
them.  "Give them cheap cable tv and we'll be able to do whatever we want."
Sorry.  That whitewash doesn't work.  We can live without cable tv.  Why do
these old political fixtures think that we can't?  Clinton claims to be the
one to help the economy.  He hasn't shown it yet.  He's only proved to me that
he intends to have government grow bigger than it should be.

Yet another reason for INCUMBENTS OUT OF CONGRESS!

Bush/Quayle in 92... because we really don't have any other choice.

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:02:04 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections

In article <2660@tymix.Tymnet.COM>, filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
>
>    WASHINGTON (AP) _ Time Inc. said Tuesday it was filing suit
> against President Bush's re-election campaign, charging
> infringement of copyright, trademark and other laws because of
> unauthorized use of a Time magazine cover in a television
> commercial.
>    The ad, first aired last Sunday, depicts a Time cover bearing
> the negative image of Democratic nominee Bill Clinton and the
> caption,  "Why Voters Don't Trust Clinton." 
>    In a statement, Time said it decided to sue after lawyers for
> Bush's campaign rejected its demand to cease running the commercial
> because use of the cover gave the impression that the magazine
> endorsed the contents of the ad.

     To me, the cover gives the impression that the magazine
endorses the contents of the *article*.

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10155 tx.politics:6025 austin.politics:204 austin.talk:257 austin.general:3198
From: ables@hal.com (King Ables)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump ... STOP IT -- STOP IT -- STOP IT
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:06:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

Could you folks PLEASE stop leaving (and in some cases ADDING)
austin.general to the distribution of this thread?  It has NO
business being anywhere but *.politics*!!

Not to mention it's one of the more inane discussions I've
seen on the net in a while... and that's saying something.
---------------------------------------------------------------
King Ables                    HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
ables@hal.com                 8920 Business Park Dr., Suite 300
+1 512 794 2855               Austin, TX  78759
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug."
				-- Dire Straits & Mary-Chapin Carpenter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: murthy@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Vasudev Murthy)
Subject: Re: Magic Johnson (Was Re: Debates)
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:51:20 GMT

In article <48672@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.031444.26715@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>|> You believe NPR?? Radio Socialiste National, National Proletariat Radio??
>|> Geez, I'd believe anybody before believing NPR.
>
>Since NPR interviews people who present a very wide variety of opinions
>and broadcasts segments prepared by people of multiple political positions,
>it is definitely not a matter of "believing".  It is a matter of being well
>informed.  I have heard such "socialists" as George Will, William Safire,
>and Linda Chavez on NPR.  I assume you won't "believe" them because
>they were on NPR. 
>
>NPR is, in my opinion, the best radio you can find on your dial today when
>it comes to news and information.  I have a high degree of respect for people 
>who listen to NPR because I know that they are well informed and interested
>in what is going on in this country  and in the world.  You can even listen to 
>the BBC and the CBC on NPR stations.  But you probably would call these
>world renowned stations Radio Communist or something like that.
>
>You probably "believe" Rush Limbaugh instead, right?
>
>    Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       | 

I am not a US citizen but I strongly agree with you.
NPR is the BEST, I would say, in the world. I'm not
sure if people consider it an "American Institution"
but its definitely something Americans should be VERY
proud off. Solid professional Radio journalism,
extremely balanced yet not stiff and dry. No
sensationalism. BBC might compare in some way, but
my vote is for NPR as THE FINEST IN THE WORLD. I wish
Public Radio Stations were more popular.

Just my opinion.

Vasudev

-- 
Vasudev Murthy             Any opinions expressed are strictly  
murthy@asl.dl.nec.com      my own  and have nothing to do with
(214) 518-5031             Advanced Switching Lab, NEC America, Inc.
1525 Walnut Hill Lane Irving TX 75038
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: wdh@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:33:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.122932.6171@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
:
:In article <1992Oct13.104124.4911@iti.org>, 
:> 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?  Please back this statement up -- just _who_
:has alleged that Bill Clinton had anything to do with any protests
:in Moscow?  Please be specific.
:
:(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.
:
:-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
:

What he (W. Starr) said.  My opinion is Bush's slander ("I don't have
the facts, _but_....") has the same slimey feel as the proverbial
"Do you still beat your wife?" question.  No matter what my personal
political leaning might be, I will _not_ support someone professing
to represent the moral high road while engaging in mud slinging.
I wouldn't support Mr. Bush even if he walks barefoot across the Potomac
tomorrow at high noon.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10893 talk.politics.misc:52327 alt.politics.elections:17244
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: ==> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton E-Mail)
Supersedes: <92285.222623U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 16 Oct 1992 03:09:47 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>

Repost for new readers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Clinton Campaign can be reached at 75300.3115@compuserve.com
for non-automated communications.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9699 sci.med:18971
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBAT
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:44:01 GMT

Kim Wallen (kim@unix.cc.emory.edu) wrote:
: In article 3737@netcom.com, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
: >In article <29165@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
: >
: >Second, a deliberate lie.
: >
: >> DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE U.S.
: >>
: >> RHETORIC: "I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own
: >> country. I just find it impossible to understand how an American can
: >> demonstrate against his own country"
: >
: >Bush did not say this.  He said he thought it was wrong to demonstrate
: >against your own country *IN A FOREIGN* country, and to organize
: >demonstrations against your country *IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY*.  This is
: >a bit of prevarication to sucker the people who didn't watch the
: >debate, and those with memory problems.
: >

Clinton did not demonstrate against his country, here or in a foreign
country.  He demonstrated against a policy of an administration.  The problem
is the tendency of people in power to forget the distinction.  If my country
is being made to do something wrong or stupid by the current administration,
love of country requires that I try to stop it.

And who cares if it was in the U.K.  Vietnam was not exactly a secret.  This
was not a matter or airing a private scandel in public.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:07:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.060544.17721@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> The Balanced Budget amendment won't work.  All you have to do is look at
> how it 'works' in states to see the problem.  

  Nonsense. If there wasn't a balanced budget provision in 
the California constitution do you seriously think that the 
legislature and  governor would have effectively shut down government
for  2 months? The balanced budget provision of the constitution
was the *only* thing between fiscal sanity (and not much at that)
and Head In Sand Syndrome.

> Among other things, you
> have the problem with enforcement.  What happens when Congress and the
> President get together and pass a ketchup budget, like they did a few
> times in Reagan's early years?  (It was called a ketchup budget because
> the only way it would have been balanced was if they discovered a way of
> turning ketchup into gold.)  
   
  I suspect that you are confusing the flap over whether ketchup 
should be considered a vegetable for school lunch purposes. I think
this was only obliquely related to budget issues.

> Does the Supreme Court step in and rewrite
> it?  You judicial restraintists would have a fit over that one.

  You could make the same argument about congress passing laws 
disobeying the Bill of Rights as well. Clearly they do, but that
doesn't mean that the Bill of Rights is meaningless. Threat of
the courts coming in is at least some amount of fear rather than
none at all. 
   I think it would be hilarious having the courts going over the
budget with a fine tooth comb. Just think of how many new indictments
they'd produce. In fact this is quite in line with what the courts 
are  supposed to be doing: not "here's what you should do" but 
"you can't do that".

> The *only* good thing about the balanced budget amendment proposals was
> that they would have required an actual official declaration of war in
> order to run a deficit for war purposes.

  So much the better. 

> Bush is utterly ignoring the deficit. 

  Willfully I'd say.

> Perot is attacking it head-on; a good idea, but not during a recession.

  Of course it wouldn't occur to you that the deficit and particularily
government spending is the cause of the recession. Not that Perot
has any real grasp of this either...
 
> Clinton at least acknowledges it's there.  He knows the public doesn't
> want to deal with it, so he's only proposing dealing with it gradually.

  Which is to say, not at all.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:10:26 GMT

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>I'll give you my
>definition, a 'fair' tax system would grant a reasonable exemption
>for basic living, say $15-20,000 (maybe higher), and would tax income 
>above that point at a flat rate.

The problem with this is that it costs less to live in Nowhere, Nebraska,
than it does in LA or SF, CA.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10810 alt.politics.elections:17194 talk.politics.misc:52218
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 15 Oct 1992 23:56:12 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Tim Smith) writes:
|> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
|> >This mornings paper had better data.
|> >
|> >	Clintons	approx $125,000     	Taxes 20%
|> >	Bushes		approx $1,250,00	Taxes 15%
|> >	Perots		approx $200,000,000	Taxes 6.7%
|> >		(I'm sure about the tax %, but I may be low on the income)
|> >
|> >But the rich pay their fair share, right?
|> 
|> So Perot pays about 100 times what Bush pays in taxes?  I doubt that he gets
|> 100 times the police protection or fire protection or other government services.
|> By that measure, he is paying his fair share.
|> 
Of course he gets 100 times the services.  First, he has much of his income
in tax-free government debt (who do you think we owe all that money to).
Thus the government provides him with major tax shelters.

Second, the government has given his company business and business protections
to allow him to amass his fortune. 

Third, he employs more than 100 times as many people as Bush and
owns more than 100 times the property, so his use of services is probably
much more than the 100 times difference you question.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Subject: Debate trivial nonsense 
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:48:35 GMT

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


Bush and Perot wore their watches on their right hand, which is the
hand that lefties normally wear their watches on.

Clinton wore his watch on his LEFT hand!  I was quite surprised by this.
He did make up for it by using his left hand more than the others (the 
pumping fist he used to punctuate his remarks).


Anyone else have any trivial tidbits from the debate?



patricia

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10902 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5502 talk.politics.misc:52345
From: purp@wixer.cactus.org (Jim Meyer)
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 16:50:36 GMT


Why? It strikes me that a democratic Congress and a democratic President
could do amazing things, rather than squabbling as the current
Legilature and President have.

--Jim, ready to see Bush get planted in November.
-- 
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
|  Julien Finaudere' du Main Pourpre         |  Jim Meyer DoD#680      |
|  Collegium Turris Animarum, Bryn Gwylad    |  purp@wixer.cactus.org  |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:33:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.010758.5071@m.cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
>
>I think it's kind of sad that Bush has to promise something like
>
>	"If you reelect me, I'll let Baker fix up the economy"
>
>Surely anyone, including Dan Quayle, could run on THAT platform.
>

	I'm not so sure. Granted, Baker's done some great things
(putting together the Desert Storm coalition, for example), he's
also made some major blunders. He was the Secretary of the Treasury-
Responsible for FDIC and FSLIC, during the time when the S&L mess
was brewing. The Iraq-gate mess that's coming up is under his watch,
too.
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: George Bush should "come clean"
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:23:32 GMT
Distribution: usa


In article <1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu>, 
kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu said:

> The problem is the same old thing, character, or lack of it. Why is
> Clinton not answering questions about Moscow honestly.  I know a lot
> of you will say that he is, if the answers are honest, why do they
> keep changing??

I'm sick and tired of this "come clean" business from Bush and the rest
of the Republican tirade.  "Come clean," seems to mean tell the
voters that the lies the Republicans are spreading are true, or
that the innuendos are something less than BS.  These vacuous falsehoods
and rumors deserve nothing more than to be laughed at or ignored.
And Bush and his blind-followers deserve nothing more than to be
pitied for having to stoop so low.

If anyone needs to "come clean," it's all of the dirty rumor-mongers and
red-baiters.  Someone who resorts to this should not only NOT be
president, he should not have any position of power. What is to stop
him from spreading painful falsehoods about anyone who does something
he doesn't like.

Keep the slander to a dull roar, eh Bush?

------------------------
Clinton/Gore '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush