HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpawson@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Pawson)
Subject: Kids are amazing
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 16:49:14 GMT

Hey folks. . .
   A friend of mine is currently student teaching.  As an activity in her 
class, all the kids wrote letters to Clinton, Bush, or Perot.  Here is the
thing: a few kids asked questions about some peculiar comment Bush apparently
made, and my friend isn't familiar with the comment.  Her question to you
net.folks is:

"In what context did Bush say that Clinton would send U.S. soldiers to war
 with only Super Soaker 200's?"

Several students independently mentioned this comment, and she is trying to
find out the source and context of the original quote.  Anyone know this?

Mail is preferred, but I'll try to check in on these groups.
					Thanks!
						Dave Pawson
						dpawson@oracle.com
						dpawson@leland.stanford.edu

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7445 tx.politics:5703
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Measuring Generousity (was Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:51:44 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep25.143747.22670@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>I can see your point - in absolute terms, the more you give, the more
>generous you are.  But I think it's also useful to look at it from a
>per dollar perspective.

No, this is true only because you have a perspective which says that
the rich man must give an equal percentage (or more) in order to be
as "generous".

What you ignore is that the rich man has other completely unrelated
obligations.  For example, when I started college I applied for
financial aid.  Because my parent's were middle class, all I got was
a BEOG for about 1 semester.  Obviously the state thinks I will be
responsible for my children's education when they are old enough.

So, yes, the rich man has a moral obligation to "share", but the
obligations don't just stop at "sharing".  They extend to providing
for the security of his own family, and so on.

>Suppose you and I are in a room when Joe Blow walks in.  I've got $10
>and give him $1.  You've got say, $100, and you give him $2.  I've
>given him 10% of my money while you've given him 2% of yours.  I looked
>up generous in my American Heritage which came w/my desk and its first
>definition is 1) willing to give or share.  From the looks of it,
>giving 10% of my stash seems to make me more willing to give or share.

Again, your perspective is that percentage of total stash is somehow
the determinent.  Did you "willingly" give it away, or what is forced
out of you?  Do you plan on giving any more away, or is that it?  There
are many more questions that quite simply can't be answered in terms of
percentages.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Tax increases
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:44:31 GMT

You people really want to know who supports taxes more?
Why don't you just ask them?
Clinton states flat-out that he will raise taxes on the economy.
Bush is responsible for a whole political party behind him which is
anti-big-government and higher taxation, and has said many times that
he is against it and when he has signed tax increases, it was
a compromise with the congress to do so.  It has the flavor of the
original great compromise, when two separate houses of congress were
created to make happy both big and little states.  Sure, he has never
been overridden.  That does not mean that it cannot happen, or that
it could not have done so.  If I go to a drug-ridden area of town and
protest against drugs, that is one thing, and a very dangerous thing; but if
I become a physical menace to the drug-dealers that borders on the
suicidal.  When Bush signed his pact with the Democrat devils the same
thought must have been going through his mind.  On the other hand, we have 
Clinton, who we KNOW will not oppose the devils AT ALL, for he is
himself ONE OF THEM!  Any signed vetoes by president Bush to stop their
insane drive would be for nought, and I can say but one thing; we will
plunge into chaos and economic doubt unless there is another major world
war, as there have been two in the past, which would cripple our major
economic competitors and give us an economic lead in the world.
	Thus, I pray that if indeed, Clinton is elected, that no major
world powers go to war; for if they do, the disastrous consequences
of Democrats on an economy will go unheeded until we finally collapse
in an era of peace upon the burdensomeness of our own government.
Today the best indication of the true health of an economy is in its small
businesses, not the big monopolistic types, not the market-assured 'businesses'
such as the media or publications or government contractors.  Those
businesses are hurt, are beaten back at every probe of the groping governmental
hand.  So please, Germany, Japan, Russia; please do not invade another
country.

					J. Wagner
.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: WEE WEENIE WILLIE
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:26:38 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:
: A few days ago George Bush issued a challange for 4 debates.
: 
: This morning I read that "Wee Weenie Willie"  will only accept
: 3 debates.  Bring out the chicken suits!  (or is that a conflict
: of interest with the Arkansas poultry industry - or maybe that's
: Hillary bashing).

As I heard it, a compromise was reached between Slick's folks and
Chicken George's folks about how many of what kind of debates there
will be.

The big problems Clinton had with Bushwacker's debate scheme was that
the last debate would be held so close to the election, and that
some of the dates Bushwacker proposed conflicted with big baseball
games.  Of course, Chicken George is so out of touch with the
American people that he wouldn't know about major league baseball....

: Q:  How many Dave C Jarzabek's does it take to change a light bulb?
: Q:  Duh...  What's a light bulb?
: ---------------------------------------
: What are the 2 most commonly heard Dave C Jarzabek expressions?
: -- Honest, mister, I was just helping that sheep back over the fence.
: -- Don't fart in muh face, Clem!  SHIT!
: ----------------------------------------
: Q:  What did Dave C Jarzabek say when he was visiting the Chichen Ranch?
: A:  Honest, Bo, I was just helping that chicken back over the fence.

It doesn't feel all that nice to have your own flames turned on you,
does it?

--
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



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7877 alt.politics.bush:7246
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:51:12 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Tax increases (vs. borrowing *forever*)

In article <1992Sep30.024431.9764@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu
(john peter wagner) says:
>
>Clinton states flat-out that he will raise taxes on the economy.

Wow, "economy" = "rich."

>Bush is responsible for a whole political party behind him which is
>anti-big-government and higher taxation....

Bush has never submitted a balanced budget.  And, as for the "party"
behind him:

"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8148 alt.politics.bush:7484
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 10:14:45 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
 <1992Sep28.214006.7054@odin.corp.sgi.com>
 <1992Sep28.235401.2769@Warren.MENTORG.COM> <1992Sep30.152149.1@acad.drake.edu>

In article <1992Sep30.152149.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu says:
>
>It seems seems very odd that your parents were better off 12 years ago... when
>the whole nation was just recovering from the highest inflation ever, the
>highest unemployment in decades, gas lines and the rest of the liberal
>"successes".

The nation wasn't $4 trillion in the hole.  People had work.  People could
eat.  People had *homes*.

>Perhaps you should do some more research as you so comically declare. Look up
>the economic record of the last Democratic government we had.

This assumes that to have a "Democratic government" Democrats have to be in
power.  'Nuff said.  But the last time the Democrats held Congress and the
Executive, we weren't $4 trillion in the hole.

The last time we had a national surplus, it was (surprise!) under Lyndon
Johnson in the mid-60s.  That was a Democratic Congress and Democratic
Executive.

Hope this helps.

Jeff Luck                  *My opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University         "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU              -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:11:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.035646.2198@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I can't quote your text, but:
>What you're saying is that someone can get AIDS even though they don't
>engage in any of the behavior that would expose someone to it, right.??
>So I don't do those things, but I'll still get it one day is what that sounds
>like.
>
>Simon
>


Let me tell you something.  An accident can happen to anybody, anywhere
and anytime.  Who knows?  You may be one of thousands of victimes.  You
may need blood transfer.  Don't you think it's possible that you may get
aids from that?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7600 tx.politics:5726
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:24:45 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep28.173827.36902@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>That's what I thought at first, but JFH said $5K per *family*, and I'm
>quite sure that the average family is bigger than 1 person.

The article I read said that the Federal government could have the same
effect if it mailed a check for about $5,000 to every house in the
country.  It was not clear what that means =exactly=.  I've taken it to
mean every person, every taxpayer, every house, and every several other
things.

This statistic has been reported on in several other pieces.  The authors
of those pieces have never been clear what =exactly= they are trying to
say.  Some have an obviously anti-rich bent (one author noted that the
rich receive more than the poor, and made quite a big deal about it - and
the difference was about $100 ...), others are clearly anti-government
(like, "why can't the government target aid better").

So ... who knows.  I went looking for the article the other day and
didn't find it.  But that just means I didn't look long enough ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7930 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4770 alt.politics.bush:7292
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:51:01 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep30.141355.13355@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
> From article <1992Sep30.034955.11642@midway.uchicago.edu>, by wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner):
>> 
>> 	I lov it! Once again you Democrats, liberals, basically
>> cowardly scum of the Earth once again make a personal attack on
>> an opposing viewpoint! What is this, Krystalnacht?  Who are the 
>> fascists!  Attack me personally, you damned dogs of scum and cowardice,
>> and I will take you ALL to your graves!
>> 
>> 					John Peter Wagner
>> P.S. Pardon the bellicosity. 
>> 
>> 
> The Four Alt.Fan.Dan-Quayle Disclaimers
> 
> 1. We aren't nice to conservatives.  In our daily lives, for a multitude
>    of reasons, we are nice to conservative people.  Here, we get rid of
>    all the bile that builds up from all that being nice.
> 
> 2. Ad hominem attacks are par for the course.  If you want otherwise,
>    start alt.warm-and-cuddly.neo-conservatives, and stay out of our
>    sandbox.  Ad hominem attacks are the heart and soul of politics
>    anyway -- it's the core of the Republican Presidential campaign
>    strategy.
> 
> 3. If you post a really stupid message, as Mr. Pertunnen did, you should
>    be willing to accept the consequences.
> 
> 4. Spelling errors should be eschewed, as they generate a ridiculous volume
>    of postings pointing them out.
> --
> Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
> "I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me
>
    I hate to bring this up Kent, but you should have followed
your disclaimer #4 -- my last name is spelled "Perttunen."  Thanks!

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Clinton at Ohio State
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:51:19 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:

: If Clinton even had to *see* Republican demonstrators, then his visit wasn't
: like Bush's was here.  Demonstrators were kept so far away that they couldn't
: be seen, and certainly couldn't be heard.

On the six o'clock news, WCIA (a local CBS affiliate) did a story about
a rally in Decatur, IL, preceeding a visit by the Potatoeman himself,
Dan Quayle.

They reported that the "cordoned-off" area was filled with Republican 
supporters (and, judging from the live camera shots, it was), but that
there were a number of Democratic protesters  "behind the camera" (away
from the rally site) who were creating a lot of noise with their chants.
(News reporter's words in the previous sentence, as close as I can remember
them.)

I don't know if this was another Penn State type-thing, but it did
sound like the Democrat-kind at the event were not able to get to
the main event site.  I really doubt that Bush/Quayle supporters
were bussed in for the event, though, since much of "downstate"
Illinois (everything outside Chicago's metro area) is primarily 
Republican.

In fact, the town of Clinton, IL has apparently had a Republican
majority in every Presidential election since 1968.  Dan Quayle
stopped in Clinton today because, "he saw the name of the town
on the map, and couldn't resist holding a Republican rally there."
(Quoted from WCIA's newscast)

On the 10:00 news, there was a camera shot of a homemade sign reading
"Clinton loves Quayle!"


--
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.clinton,tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:38:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1a5mnqINN6vu@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
|> I figured out the $5000. It's the total Federal budget (1+ Tril)
|> divided by the population.

That's what I thought at first, but JFH said $5K per *family*, and I'm
quite sure that the average family is bigger than 1 person.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWD Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:21:15 GMT


I've always believed that those who run around yelling "rascist" at the
slightest provocation are people who actually want there to be some sort of
conflict-I honestly think that there is a small but vocal faction that is
so hung up on the issues of racism that they realize that they would be out
of a job if people got along, so they'll always accuse someone of being a
bigot, which in tern alienates people, and this is how conflicts start.
Sometimes in pursuit of a goal, the goal gets forgotten.  I've experienced
the "alienation" effect firsthand--I like metal music, but the small but vocal
faction swears the rap has a higher priority--and my experience has been that
the loudest advocates of this are other whites.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7412 talk.politics.misc:48120 alt.rush-limbaugh:5971 alt.politics.bush:6859
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:32:04 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Sep26.070856.17952@news2.cis.umn.edu> bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Monthian Buntan) writes:

+>I have one more point about Iraq.
+>The Bush administration failed to tell the whole
+>truth to the American people why they went to war with Iraq.
+>The whole truth that started from 1890 until Sadam invaded
+>what used to be part of Iraq but taken away by greedy western emperialist.

	I really hope your not serious.  Kuwait has never been a part of
"Iraq" because historically there was not an Iraq until the 1920's.  The
most you could claim is that the Ottoman tax collector in Basra managed
to extort money out of the small village that would become Kuwait.
	There was never any Ottoman presense in the town and if your going
to claim Kuwait as part of Iraq, I suppose you could claim chunks of Syria
and Jordan along with Saudi Arabia as well.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Connecting 2 threads (Was Re: Principles, principles, principles)
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:19:15 GMT

In article <g61dk49@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <5642@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>It is now 2:33 AM. My mind has decided to go to sleep.
>
>May explain the rest of your post ;o)
>
>>I don't believe the lines that some of the pro-Clinton people are taking
>>regarding Clinton's stance for peace during the Vietnam War.... why did
>>he say that he would vote in favor of military conflict in the Persian
>>Gulf but that he agreed in principle with the minority (Democrats).
>
>*Now* I remember the old (1960's) definition of the difference between liber-
>als and conservatives!  Thank your sleeping brain for me!  You should let it
>do that more often!
>
>A liberal is capable of acknowleging the merits of more than one side of an
>argument.

Yes. But you can only consider one idea at a time. You would play
with all your crazy ideas on the American public through the goons
with guns government, one idea at a time. You love your goddamn stupid
ideas, and that's why we think you are wrong.


>A conservative is incapable of acknowleging the merits of any side but his
>own.

	Yes, well, when your legislation, governmental action is
going to have the effect of putting a .38 special to >200 million
people's heads you better be damn sure your idea isn't some cockamamy
intellectual party. We take ourselves seriously. You may think we
are stupid, but we would call ourselves 'prudent' and call you
folks 'irresponsible,' 'uncaring,' 'frivolous,' or 'suicidal.'


>
>(That's why conservatives think liberals are wrong, and liberals think
>conservatives are stupid, as someone else posted.)

(Anyone can think whatever they want; at least till the Democrats get
the PC mind-ray.)

			John Wagner




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton