HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jda3@quads.uchicago.edu (Jeff Adler)
Subject: Re: Bush NTI speech
Reply-To: jda3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 10:23:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.012821.6723@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>My understanding is that the NTI was a pseudo-event that wasn't even going
>to be held if Bush wasn't going to speak here.  Nothing to back that up
>other than that's the rumor I heard.

My brother would have attended had his company been able to send him.
Since he hadn't been aware that Bush was going to speak, there was
probably something else going on as well.

By the way, in the *letterhead* of the invitation to the NTI,
the word "Initiative" was misspelled.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Adler				jeff@zaphod.uchicago.edu
Math Department				jeff%zaphod@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago			jda3@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jason@hal.eel.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Where to read bills?
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Florida
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:37:26 GMT

I was wondering if there are any newsgroups that post bills going 
though congress.  Eventhough these bills are scarry to think of reading
(Cable bill was 100+ pages) I still would like to peruse through the
bill.  

please e-mail me because these groups get too many postings for me
to read!  

jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu

thanks
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
            <1992Oct5.220240.8299@dbsun.uucp>
            <1992Oct6.084445.23192@netcom.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:20:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.084445.23192@netcom.com>
   mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.220240.8299@dbsun.uucp>
    hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>Four students came home from Kent State in bodybags, and not all of them
>>were even protestors.
>>
>>Yeah, I guess those cowardly anti-war protestors didn't have a *thing* to
>>worry about.
>
>Let's see, that's four (OK, make it five or six; I recall a couple
>of students were killed in riots at other campuses) out of, oh,
>umpteen million college students wildly indignant about nearly
>everything.  That makes protesting safer than your average frat
>party, statistically speaking.

At the time of the protests, did they know that those four+ would be the
only ones killed?  The government could have been planning another
Tiannimen (sp?) Square, for all the protestors knew.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Tension Breaker (Joke)
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:54:02 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

pereira_f@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>Joke:
>
> alt.politics.bush  has 1195 postings
> alt.politics.clinton has 1337 postings
>
>is this and indication that clinton has the lead!!!
>over bush....

I appreciate the humor although I don't know where you're getting those
numbers. Do you mean cumulative or for September? (I have 8300+ posts
here on the bush-group.)

One thing's for sure. I've probably "voted" for both groups during the
last two days. ;)

>I know it isn't very funny but it's not as stupid as Ross Perot 
>getting back into the race...

Well, how about those people who decided to disband alt.politics.perot?

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:53:54 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <2AD22B42.25070@news.service.uci.edu> jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.075113.24657@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>You have asked me to elaborate.  So here goes:
>>
>>I am concerned about Clinton's tax policies.  I hope to be successful
>>finacially, 
>>I plan to be a writer
>
>If you plan to be successful financially, may I suggest you examine
>your career goals?

Depends on what he's writing.  And he did say, "aspiring" I believe.

Re: a previous poster noting that "a lot" is two words.
	That's what editors are for.



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7472 talk.politics.misc:49066 misc.legal:17956
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:14:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct1.233557.10444@ems.psu.edu> tracy@hekla.pnge.psu.edu (Tracy Freeling) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> Is it our intent to look at the matter objectively here, or is it to
>> try to score some political points?  If the former, then the question
>> arises: is there an agreement as to how to define "lawyer"?  If the
>> latter, then this question becomes spurious.

> I am looking at the point a lot more objectively than you are, Mr.
> Kaldis.

I don't think so.

> I was the one who pointed out that Quayle was comparing things that
> were not necessarily comparable...apples and oranges if you will.

Thereby skirting the most salient point about the debate (one which
you are likely to lose on).

> As for trying to score points, well you can't exactly point the finger
> there...now can you?

I am not pointing the finger -- I am pointing out an important factor
in the argument which often goes unstated.  Moreover, I found your
post in .politics groups, where virtually all the messages are trying
to score political points of one sort or another.  You've been found
out, quit complaining.

> [...]  I do talk about the fact that Quayle only used litigators in
> other countries and ALL lawyers in the US.  That was the whole point
> of August & Kitawaki's research.

Then I would submit that the study was beside the real point of the
argument -- though it is certainly useful to one side in the debate.
The reason that this issue stirs so much controversy -- and why
Quayle's comment makes such an impact -- is that many perceive more
than just a little bit of truth in it.  The fact is that many feel we
have become a far too litigious society (though, unsurprisingly, the
lawyers among us are bound to disagree).  A more useful study would
compare the number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. vs. other countries.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:09:11 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:

: > So what's your point?  Clinton's made no secret of his
: > involvement in the Peace Movement -- in fact, like most
: > Americans opposed to the War, he's proud of it.  The country
: > was split down the middle on the Vietnam War, and to many,
: > the draft evaders and deserters were heros who helped shorten
: > the war, 
: 
: Shorten the war??  Draft-dodgers???? HOW??  The primary American
: involvement was already almost eight years long.  And how did  
: they "shorten the war" from a safe-haven perch in Canada or Sweden---
: strum Peter, Paul, and Mary sweetpeace songs on a flowered guitar??

If enough people turn against the war, eventually Congress (or whatever
the appropriate tyrannical body is) will have to listen to the people
and quit the war, if only so that the Congressfolks can preserve their
chances to get reelected.

: > And Moscow had and has no monopoly on irresponsible arms-
: > trafficking.
: > 
: Yeah, well at that time they were sure as heck trafficking a 
: lot of arms to their North Viet compadres to kill and maim
: American servicemen who were there.  

And I'm really sure that the Evil Empire just *loved* our supplying
weapons to "the other side" (from their perspective) in most of
the little squabbles they fought in.  So what's your point?

: > It serves no useful purpose to reopen the divisions of the
: > Vietnam era for cheap political purposes in 1992.  Americans
: > on both sides acted in good faith -- and bad faith.  It was a
: > great disaster and we *all* lost.  
: 
: It serves a hell of a purpose to keep it in mind for the future.
: Especially since Clinton's the one so hep on starting in (the
: former) Yugoslavia with air power.  Is that a disaster anyone
: proposes we can *win* ??

Honest question, here: is Slick Willie planning to actually have our
planes *involved* in the Balkan conflict, or does he just approve
of using US military jets to escort US cargo planes flying in relief
supplies?

Not that any of that will cause me to vote for him....

--
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:6722 talk.politics.misc:47959
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: TO GEORGE:  COME CLEAN ABOUT IRAN-CONTRA
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:30:37 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <lc6dhuINNgf@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> |>       QUESTION: HOW CAN BUSH CONTINUE TO CLAIM HE DIDN'T KNOW SCHULTZ
> |>  AND WEINBERGER WERE STRENUOUSLY AGAINST THE ARMS DEAL?  IS HE SAYING
> |>  THEY ARE BOTH LYING?
> |> 
> |>       QUESTION: WHY DID BUSH SAY HE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS AN
> |>  ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES DEAL, WHEN HE WAS AT SEVERAL DOZEN MEETINGS WHERE
> |>  THE SCHEME WAS DISCUSSED?
> |> 
> |>       QUESTION: DID BUSH PARTICIPATE IN PLANNING A COVER UP OF MISSILE
> |>  SALES, AS REPORTED IN TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST?
> |> 
> Maybe George was sleeping through these meetings.  It would seem to be
> the only explanation that works.  After all, he had to be sleeping through
> the recession we have been in.  How else could he have missed it?

  George Bush should be impeached for his involvement in Iran-Contra, except
everybody is too damn scared because they know who would be the President in
that event.

  George Bush is a liar, a fraud, and a thief.

  If you think Clinton is bad too, consider voting for Perot.

						Mike Falkner
						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Draft constitutionality
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 06:28:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.034810.16106@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>In article <1advl6INNlj2@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aphrael@cats.ucsc.edu (Robert Dan writes...
>> 
>>Interesting proposal, that Selective Service be abolished.
>>Of course, it doesn't need to be abolished.
>>It's illegal to begin with and, as a result, is not binding. 
>> 
>>"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude," the 13th amendment says,
>>and a draft certainly qualifies as involuntary service.
>
>Amen! How can I sign up for this? 

*SIGH*

When I was a lass, my mother told me that, if I waited about 25 years,
everything would come back into fashion.

I thought she meant the bell-bottom pants!  Turns out it's "Draft
Constitutionality Debates"!  You will forgive me if I do not join the fun:
I have seen this film before!  ;->

eyes

>-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:50:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <5596@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> %jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|> %>Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
|> %>for doing what he thought was right.  Danny Boy, on the other hand, 
|> %>just got his daddy to get him into the national guard.  Quayle was 
|> %>the coward here, not Clinton.  
|> 
|> Question is, did Danny think entering the National Guard was the right
|> thing to do?

Sure.  He had no chance of going to Vietnam or jail in
the national guard.  Coward's choice, made by a coward.
Bush should be ashamed to have Danny on the ticket.

(PS- Aces of the Pacific(WWII PC game) has a GWHB mission)  

Jared "Vote Clinton-Bush can't play Jazz" Dahl
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7856 alt.politics.clinton:8654 alt.politics.elections:15310
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Clinton / Quayle's anti-Vietnam efforts
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:15:50 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep25.124828.7581@eskimo.celestial.com> mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann) writes:
]In article <1992Sep22.054848.15859@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]> he [Bush] was president, he left the running of his wars to the professionals,
]> and it showed. 
]
]Did he now? I respect Bush for the coalition he helped maintain but I'm 
]terribly skeptical about the above statement. Seems to me that Gen. 
]Schwartzkopf (sp?) had some pretty critical words about 'hawks in the
]white house' running the war.

I haven't read his book. However, I did watch his full interview last night
with Barbara Walters, and Schwartzkopf seemed VERY pleased with the way
Washington treated him throughout the war. He could not have been
more positive if he were wearing a Bush in '92 hat!


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams)
Subject: Anybody seen George
Reply-To: ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:30:47 GMT

By looking at my return address, you can see I reside in Utah.  Yes, Utah, the most
conservative state in the nation by many estimates.  This is the same state that had
the highest percentage of the popular vote go to Reagan in '84 than any other state.
I'm not sure what the percentage was in '88 for Bush, but I'm confident it was about
the same.  This is the state where nearly every major office is held by a republican
The state legislature (an arm of the Mormon Church, more-or-less) is around 90% 
Republican.  Even now, the polls show Bush/Quayle ahead in Utah.  It is just an 
accepted fact that Utah will vote for Bush/Quayle (not that it makes much difference 
anyway with Utah's five electorial votes).

With all that in mind, I'm amazed that I've yet to see a single Bush/Quayle bumper
sticker or yard sign and even more amazing, I've yet to talk to a single person 
who admits he/she will vote for Bush/Quayle.  Now somebody out there is lying.  The 
polls show Bush/Quayle ahead, but nobody will admit in public that they plan to vote
for the idiots.  Is there more to this than meets the eye?  Bush and Quayle are loved 
here!!  They are god's gift to mom, apple pie, white/male superiority, the rich, big 
business, mining companies, and Mormons.  And yet, nobody here will admit that 
he/she will vote for Bush/Quayle.

The point here, I think, is that the few people who plan to vote for Mr. Death-bed
and the little boy are too embarrassed to admit it.  That ought to build Bush's 
and Quayle's confidence level.  People are voting for them only because they are 
too dumb to vote for anybody else.

Come on all you conservative flunkies.  Either stand up or shut up!  If you really
want the dynamic duds in office for another four years, just admit it!
-- 
Ron Williams
ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com
Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Salt Lake City, UT

	Just say noe to Bush/Quayle.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Where is Bush?
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:08:52 -0600

In article <1992Sep29.175427.252@javelin.sim.es.com>  writes:
>By looking at my return address, you can see I reside in Utah.  Yes, Utah, the most
>conservative state in the nation by many estimates.  This is the same state that had
>the highest percentage of the popular vote go to Reagan in '84 than any other state.
>I'm not sure what the percentage was in '88 for Bush, but I'm confident it was about
>the same.  This is the state where nearly every major office is held by a republican
>(a Mormon repulican no less, but that is another story).  The state legislature 
>(an arm of the Mormon Church, more-or-less) is around 90% Republican.  Even now, 
>the polls show Bush/Quayle ahead in Utah.  It is just an accepted fact that Utah will
>vote for Bush/Quayle (not that it makes much difference anyway with Utah's five 
>electorial votes).
>
>With all that in mind, I'm amazed that I've yet to see a single Bush/Quayle bumper
>sticker or yard sign and even more amazing, I've yet to talk to a single person 
>who admits he/she will vote for Bush/Quayle.  Now somebody out there is lying.  The 
>polls show Bush/Quayle ahead, but nobody will admit in public that they plan to vote
>for them.  Is there more to this than meets the eye?  Bush and Quayle are loved here!!
>They are god's gift to mom, apple pie, white/male superiority, the rich, big business,
>and Mormons.  And yet, nobody here will admit that he/she will vote for Bush/Quayle.
>
>The point here, I think, is that the few people who plan to vote for Mr. Sickly 
>looking (Bush) and the little boy (Quayle) are too embarrassed to admit it.  That
>ought to build Bush's and Quayle's confidence level.  People are voting for them
>only because they are too dumb to vote for anybody else.
>
>Come on all you conservative flunkies.  Either stand up or shut up!  If you really
>want the dynamic duds in office for another four years, just admit it!
>-- 
>Ron Williams
>ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com
>Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
>Salt Lake City, UT
>
>	Just say noe to Bush/Quayle.

My guess is that B/Q are slanting the surveys. There is a lot one can do with numbers
to get the desired results. What if they don't randomly dial all of their numbers??
Do they say that they do? Do they tell us anything about the survey rules?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:23:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Sep28.044250.23798@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|> Keywords: 
|> 
|> In article <1992Sep27.174415.23122@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|> ]Clinton was braver than Quayle.  Clinton could have been arrested
|> ]for doing what he thought was right.  
|> 
|> In England? You've gotta be kidding. He wouldn't even have been
|> arrested in the US for demonstrating against the war.
|> -- 

Sorry, not so clear as I wanted it to be.  Both were draft dodgers.
But I sympathize with them.  Very few of the boys who were in Vietnam
wanted to be there, and many tried to get out of it.  There was a lot
of anxiety on campus during the Gulf War (lots of kids who got ROTC and
Army Reserve to pay for college).

I just think JDQ's way out of Vietnam was especially disgusting and 
is another good example of the "rights of the rich"!   Reminds of the
bill passed during the Civil War that let any man out of the draft if
he had $300(a small fortune).  

Quite simply, JDQ would be nothing without his father's money!
no law school, no cushy government job, no political ties!

Jared "Bart S. and JDQ are quite alkie-both under-achievers" Dahl
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:19:14 GMT


Garret- you throw the word "fascist" around when talking about Republicans,
and yet you don't like it when someone calls Democrats "socialists".

I don't think I'm a fascist, I mean, I don't see a brown shirt in my closet,
nor do I wear a hooked cross or a double lightning bolt on my coat.

So, therefore, I am not a fascist.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc