HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: JENNY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Jennifer F. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: bush, katie and the today show
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:30:14 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

Katie Couric was touring the White House with Barbara when they
happened to bump into the President.  (Fancy that)

She asked him several questions including something on the Iran/Contra
debacle.  However, everytime NBC reran the piece my children would
pick that paticular moment to screem or something.  There was an
implication that Mr. President said something to the effect that he
admitted knowing something about the affair at the time it was going on.
Marlin Fitwalter quickly issued a statement saying that Bush misunderstood
the question.

My question is:  Does anyone know what the question was and what the
actual response was?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8700 alt.politics.elections:16192 alt.politics.perot:1982
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:34:53 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire


    I supported Ross Perot, and I wanted to vote for him in November.  But that
does not take away from the fact that Bill Clinton will win what quite possibly
could be the largest victory over a sitting President in American history.

    Polls are now showing Clinton with about a 16 point lead going into the
debates, and really the only way that Bush can win the election is for the
Republicans to come out with a "smoking bimbo" and destroy Clinton
instantaneously.

    This election will end with much turnover, and it will start at the top.  I
still believe that Ross Perot has the best ideas, but I no longer believe he
can win.  I believe that the voting, at this point, shall turn into no more
than a mere formality of what we have been seeing over the course of the last 8
weeks; Clinton with sizable leads nearly everywhere.

    When all the votes are counted, Clinton will win, Bush will lose, and Perot
will have wasted his time.  I'd say it may be in Perot's best interests not to
bother going on with what the Americans voters now see is a charade.

    This IS NOT a Clinton endorsement; just a statement of political reality. 
Bill Clinton, with a Democratic Congress, scares me, but I know now that that
is probably what we are going to have for the next four years.

    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.

						Mike Falkner
						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8109 alt.politics.clinton:8990 alt.politics.elections:15554
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
From: jhoward@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:57:15 GMT
 <1992Oct6.140222.15705@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> <1992Oct6.091757.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> <1992Oct6.185953.16490@genome.wi.edu>
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

In article <1992Oct6.185953.16490@genome.wi.edu>, Bert Smith <bowler@mit.edu> writes:
> I think that the Bush/Quayle current mudslinging in regards to Bill
> Clinton's trip to Moscow is reprehensible.  This is a total non-issue.  I
> am really ashamed that any mass media gives any weight to these charges
> by reporting them.  We should stick to the real issues. 
> -------included article-------
> 
> By John Aloysius Farrell
> GLOBE STAFF  10/6/92
> 
>      WASHINGTON - President Bush's reelection campaign is escalating its
> "Red Willie" tactics, painting Bill Clinton as a Communist dupe who
> conducted anti-American activities during the Vietnam era

I think a fundamental issue is WHEN the files were tampered with.  This reminds
me of the Republican Watergate scandal all over again.  George Bush was the
Director of the CIA and also connected with the Nixon administration.  Who is
the candidate best able to pull some strings inside a Republican
administration, Bill Clinton or George Bush?  Since the L-word (Liberal) could
not stick on Bill Clinton maybe King George is trying a bit of McCarthyism
RedBaiting.  No doubt George's new word will be the D-word (Democracy) this
time around.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Re: Where will Bush want to have his library ? Maine or Texas
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:53:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.150035.26288@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>    Next year, the Bush Presidential Library will need to be built. My 
> question is, where will Bush want the library be built ?  Texas or Maine 
 

Actually, Bush has already chosen Texas A&M University as the site of his 
library.  When it will be built is still in question.

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: At this very moment ...
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:03:33 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
: >  I would bet that as you are reading this, around the world dozens of
: >people are searching the archives for a picture of Bill Klinton (Russian
: >spelling {:^) ) at an anti-war rally in the 60's.  Double bonus if the
: >location was Moscow.  Triple bonus if he's carrying a particularly nasty
: >anti-american sign. 
: Quadruple bonus points if he's burning an American flag.
: You know, with current image processing technology...
: Of course, timing is important.  November 1 sounds about right.
: "What B.D. Cooper is doing RIGHT THIS MINUTE..."

Shhhh!  You'll give the CIA ideas.  Heaven knows they monitor all comm%#@(*^$q

NO CARRIER

--
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
From: bush-hq@campaign92.org (Bush/Quayle '92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: testing
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:11:37 GMT


This is a test of the Bush auto-posting network.

If this had been an actual post, it might have said
something interesting.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8438 alt.politics.clinton:9423 alt.politics.elections:15888
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:27:59 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

vsg001@acad.drake.edu said..
>The Commie fools of Legislature overrode Bush's veto, and so now the cable
>industry is regulated. Apparently ccable T.V. is the right of every citizen,
>and therefore it is wrong for anyone to charge exorbitant prices sonce its a
>"monoply".

Cable TV is not the right of every citizen.  The cable industry is being
regulated.

>What hogwash. If you complain that the industry is a monopoly and prices 
>should be lower, you don't use government as muscle to extort at gunpoint 
>lower prices from people who provide you with the service-- if the prices 
>are too high, you set up shop yourself and break the goddamn monopoly!!! 

The facts state a different story.  Since the cable industry was de-regulated
during the Reagan Administration, consumer prices have gone through the roof,
even though there has been no commensurate increase in costs.  With
regards to "set up shop yourself", what do you suggest -- that each cable
company run cables into your home, so you can choose which one to use?
Ludicrous.

In your town, there is one "water company", and one set of pipes come into
your home.  That monopoly is regulated.

In your town, there is one "power company", and one set of electrical wires
come into your home.  That monopoly is regulated.

In your town, there is one local "phone company", and one set of telephone 
wires come into your home.  Your local phone company owns the wires.  AT&T 
owns the long-distance-wires, and other services (the "baby bells") lease 
rights to use them.  Both are regulated.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: The Federal Debt
Organization: None
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:42:32 GMT



I like Ross Perot's issues, having read his book UNITED WE STAND.

The main one that gets my attention is the enormous size of our
public debt:

It is about $4,100,000,000,000 in size and grows at the rate of
$9,000 EVERY SECOND ($1 billion/day).

That is just like someone taking $4 from you every day and burning it.

Consider this- the average household has a debt load equal to 60%
               of its average household income.
 
But the political critters have our public debt at 400% of the 
federal governments annual intake (from us). Thats CRAZY.

Perhaps Ross Perot is not the best candidate for the job but he
has hit the nail on the head. Read his book before you vote and
decide for yourself.

By the time you get to here reading this, the public debt increased 
by about another $315,000. THAT IS HOW FAST IT GROWS.

I'd vote for Ross, if the election was held today.

Joe
joec@morgan.com
Usual disclaimers apply...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<1992Oct12.194703.8821@muddcs.claremont.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:14:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.194703.8821@muddcs.claremont.edu> weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:

   In article <1992Oct12.135033.2756@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
   >William M. Everett writes:
   >>>
   >>the S&L bailout was hardly the sole work of George Bush. You make it sound
   >>like it was all just one big scheme of his to fund his son.
   >
   >Well, considering that his family sells equipment to help put out oil
   >field fires, there are some who feel that helped stiffen Bush's 
   >resolve to blow off Saddam and his threat to torch the Kuwaiti fields.
   >
   >And there's his family's hotel interest in Peking....
   >
   >And his son's ability to manage a sizeable loan from the Small Business
   >Administration...
   >
   >Some people think that conflict of interest is a kind word to describe
   >GB's dealings in his office. Some don't.  Makes elections so interesting.

   You're right. George Bush's presidency is just a scheme to make money for
   himself and his family.

If you understood trickle-down economics you'd see why this
is a good thing!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:20:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.165332.11213@unislc.uucp> jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske) writes:
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>
>>  Boy, those Democrats sure know how to counter Bush's appearance on Larry
>>King on Sunday.  They had Clinton and Gore dressed up in their blue jeans
>>and rolled up shirt sleeves on Monday.  I guess these guys are common folk
>>just like us!  Too bad they forgot to remove the price tags and iron out
>>the creases from the store shelves which the clothes were sitting on that
>>afternoon.  I'll bet they even had them eat supper at McDonalds before the
>>show!
>
>Oh my, have you just noticed how politicians operate?  But seriously, I would
>submit that Clinton is by far more common folk than George "spymaster" Bush,
>and Dan "patatoe head" Quayle.  One of the main reasons that I would feel much
>more comfortable with Clinton in the White House is his common  family
>background. 

  What exactly are the facts regarding Clinton's family background?  I've
heard some stories on how his father died when he was young and his mother
had to raise the family, which would lead you to believe that they didn't
have much money.  But when the Vietnam stories popped up there was talk of
a rich uncle who was one of the biggest Democratic contributors in
the state.  Bush's family history is also ambiguous, with his father being
rich yet there's the stories of him and Barbara living in a "shotgun shack"
when they first moved to Texas.  Personally I don't count family history
for much.  By the time one reaches the rank of Governor or President they
are out of touch with the common man (and woman).

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Bush's Veto
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:36:42 GMT

The Commie fools of Legislature overrode Bush's veto, and so now the cable
industry is regulated. Apparently ccable T.V. is the right of every citizen,
and therefore it is wrong for anyone to charge exorbitant prices sonce its a
"monoply".
What hogwash. If you complain that the industry is a monopoly and prices should
be lower, you don't use government as muscle to extort at gunpoint lower prices
from people who provide you with the service-- if the prices are too high, you
set up shop yourself and break the goddamn monopoly!!! "But that discrimantes
against the poor." NO IT DOESN'T. It discriminates against the
brainless little twits with no motivation! Why should they deserve the same
rewards as intelligent hardworkers?
Disclaimers. Disclaimers


"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
 a Fools heart to the Left."
                      --Ecclesiastes 10:2
--A far better lesson

		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard- ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:23:41 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

: I had this dream that Clinton was President, the Internationale was
: played at his inaguration.

I hear tell that Bush wants 'Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles' 
played at his inauguration should he be re-elected.

--
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.bush:9113 alt.politics.clinton:10366 alt.politics.elections:16724 alt.rush-limbaugh:7396
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ... [REPOST]
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:45:06 GMT

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:


>ALL I WANT IS A DEFINITIVE

>      "NO ONE MAKING < $200,000 WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TAXES"

>Give me this and you'll have me and others on the net marching to
>the polls for Clinton in November.  If you don't come up with a direct
>promise you'll probably lose some of the support you have now.  I'll keep
>reposting this until the election or until there is an adequate response.
>And if Clinton does make this promise and winds up lieing after he's in
>office, well, I guess he'll be bounced out in four years like Bush.
>Since the Clinton campaign uses "The rich are going to have to pay their
>fare share" as their lead in advertising and stump speeches, I believe they
>owe it to the voters to clear up the ambiguity.

Since I doubt Clinton reads this group, it seems very unlikely you'll get 
such a promise.  There IS a modest middle-income tax cut in the Democratic
platform, however.  

You have three choices:

	A) Democrat    - raise taxes a little, reduce deficit slowly
	B) Perot       - raise taxes a lot, reduce deficit fast
	C) Republican  - lower taxes, reduce deficit fast

If you want to know about plans A) or B), you can pick up a detailed 
quantitative description at your local bookstore.

C), of course, hasn't been described at all.  If you look at all the 
very unpopular measures Perot needs, both in spending cuts and tax
increases, to get the budget balanced in 4 years, you'll see that Bush
is either ignorant or lying.  Probably a good deal of both.

Unlike Bush, Perot and Clinton both seem to have a grasp on reality.  I'm
voting for Clinton since I think his plan is not only better, but actually
has some chance of being implemented.

Dave
belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Quotable Quayle
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:58:27 GMT

In reviewing Tuesday night's debate, I'd thought I'd transcribe a bit 
of poetry that Dan Quayle spouted in a moment of fluster. I like to 
call it the "let's talk" haiku.  I had to play this part over and over 
to make sure I got an accurate-to-the- syllable transcription.

This occurred right after Gore pointed out that Bush had claimed 
he had a "done" deal with Yeltsin on the SS18's, which turned out 
not to be true after Baker left the foreign scene to shore up 
Bush's campaign.

------------
[Quayle]  The President does have a commitment from Boris Yeltsin
          to eliminate the SS18's -- that is a commitment.

[Gore]    Is it an agreement?

[Quayle]  It is a commitment and uh...

[Gore]    Oh-oooh, so...

[Quayle]  Well, let's - let's talk --

          Let's - let's - let's talk --

          Let's - let's talk about --

[Gore-at     Well, he said it's "done".  [last word unclear - may be "a deal"]
same time]

[Quayle]  Let's - let's talk about --

          Let's talk --                   [short pause]

          Lighten up here, Al.            [audience laughter]

          Let's - let's ta --

          Let's talk about getting agreements.
-----------

Settle down, Dan.  

Th-th-th-th-that's all, folks!

-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.sex
From: mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:18:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.155605.22672@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> fharding@nyx.cs.du.edu (Frank Harding) writes:
>thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep24.011838.10115@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>>>do you know what probability is? let's assume for the moment, that
>>>the chances of getting HIV from an unprotected encounter is 10%.
>
>>Doubtful.  That might be the chance of getting HIV from an HIV+ partner
>>in the late stages of AIDS where both partners have open genital sores,
>>but it most certainly isn't the chance of contracting HIV from any
>>unprotected encounter.
>
>>Keep in mind that over a three year period, only twenty percent of
>>female partners contract HIV from their HIV+ monogamous heterosexual
>>partners.  The female to male transmission rate is about 1.5% (and even
>>that may be overstating the probability -- it was one male out of seventy
>>or so in the study, and it was possible that he was infected by another
>>man's semen).
>
>Do you really mean that only 1 male out of 70 contracted HIV from HIV+
>female partners over 3 years?!
>
>I think this study has been mentioned before but I didn't realize that it was
>over THREE YEARS.  Rather astounding statistics.  Any clues as to where I could
>look this up?
>
>-- 
>Frank Harding

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.)

Mark A. Morrell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:43:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.182621.20464@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>But clearly Larry, a more aggressive military strategy on our part 
>(greater and more effective use of air power on the North) could have
>seriously hurt the  North and their Viet Cong puppets.  China and 
>Vietnam had been long time foes of each other and it was doubtful that
>she would have intervened.  

The US dropped a greater tonnage of bombs (with greater
power) on SE Asia than the Allies did on Germany during WWII,
and it didn't work.

>In any event, has Clinton come out and stated that this was his reason
>for opposing the war?  Having lived through that period, I recall that
>most of the opposition to the war centered on the belief that we should
>not be involved in a "civil war" and that we were fighting for the wrong
>side!

Wrong again.

>Roger Shouse
>The University of Chicago

I don't understand:  when I attended the University of Chicago,
it had an excellent history department.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle