HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Yes, Virginia, there IS a William Clinton
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 00:02:30 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>...I don't think many people truly believe that
>Clinton's tax changes would only affect the rich. 

When the income tax was enacted in 1913, it was supposted to be a tax on
the rich, with a maximum marginal rate of 6%.  Thirty years later, it
was being withheld from the paychecks of factory workers, and had a
maximum marginal rate of 90% (the latter was a Temporary Wartime Measure
and was reduced to 70% after the war ended--ELEVEN YEARS after the
war ended).

When Old Read My Lips signed the luxury boat tax, it was supposed to be
a tax on the rich; it wiped out 20,000 jobs in boat yards.

In both cases, the People had *faith*.  They truly believed that Big
Brother could give them something for nothing in welfare and pork
barrel, just by seeing to it that the Rich paid their Fair Share of
taxes.  Why, the very Federal Reserve Note itself is classified by
economists as a "fiat" currency.  Does this mean that the Federal
Reserve Note is redeemable in Italian cars?  No siree!  "Fiat" means
*faith*.

So let's not go around disturbing people's *faith* in the promises of
our institutions.  Otherwise we won't be able to squander and inflate
our way to prosperity.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: USA Today/CNN tracking poll 10/15
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:01:15 GMT
Summary: corrected error in previous post

There was a small problem in the previous tracking polls posted, due to
a misunderstanding I had between the poll in USA Today vs. when CNN reports
it. Anyway, it amounted to an extra data point, which has been corrected.
The date slips back one day from what was posted earlier, so the number
reported today (10/16) on CNN is the number for 10/15.

Note on the poll methodology: the numbers for a given date are based on
1000 respondents polled on that date as well as the two previous days. In
other words, they poll about 333 people every day and report a running
average over three days. This tends to smooth out discontinuous shifts 
in voting. For example, the 10/15 number was taken entirely before the
debate, from 10/13-10/15. Tomorrow, one third of the respondents (being
polled today) will factor in the effect of the debate. If Clinton got
a boost in the debate, it won't show up fully until the 10/17 number.
Likewise, the dip in Perot's number seen on 10/15 MIGHT represent a
negative reaction to Admiral Stockdale's performance on 10/13, and the
10/16 number will come wholly from people who might have seen the VP
debate.

The margin of error is 3%.

USA Today/CNN Tracking Poll:

P = Perot,  B = Bush,  C = Clinton,  x = other or undecided

                          % preference                          % plurality
      5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50   55    5   10   15   20
      |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
 9/30 |xP                           B                C       |           o  
10/01 |x P                          B               C        |          o   
10/02 | xP                           B            C          |       o      
10/03 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/04 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/05 |   xP                         B        C              |   o          
10/06 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/07 | x P                        B               C         |          o   
10/08 | x  P                       B              C          |         o    
10/09 |x   P                       B               C         |          o   
10/10 |x   P                      B                 C        |            o 
10/11 |x    P                     B                C         |           o  
10/12 | x    P                    B              C           |         o    
10/13 | x     P                    B           C             |      o       
10/14 |x        P                B              C            |         o    
10/15 |x      P                    B            C            |       o      

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.my.head.hurts
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Debate transcripts available via internet
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:13:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.131330.3641@access.digex.com>, buffalo@access.digex.com (Andy Bartalone) writes:
|> I dont know where you got your info.....but Perot made virtually *ALL*
|> of his money ...... raping the government on contracts, then driving the
|> company into the ground, and in doing so bieng "bought out" to step
|> down as CEO/Chairman etc....
|> 

I don't know where you get your info.

Perot competed for those contracts along with larger companies than his.
The reason he got the contract was because he saved more money for the
govt.  Or are you saying that it is alright for IBM to rape the govt but
not EDS.

|> He sounds wonderful in these debates because he has *nothing* to lose..
|> he cant piss anybody off, he has no affiliation....
|> 

Sounds like you are whining to me.

Doug
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Clinton/Gore e-mail address
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:35:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]


  In today's Cleveland Plain Dealer there is a 10 paragraph article from
Newhouse News Service which talks about how the Clinton/Gore campaign is
hooked up to Internet, Compuserve, and America Online.  There is direct
e-mail internet address for the campaign headquarters, but the article does
not give it.  It says they have received e-mail from all over the world.
Anyone know what the address is?

-- 
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!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15636 alt.politics.clinton:9082
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re:  Raising taxes on the poor.
Date: 8 Oct 1992 18:51:58 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <Bvr74L.2G4@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>I don't recall exactly how many times (2?) and by what amounts,
>but wasn't Clinton responsible for raising the taxes on GROCERIES
>in Arkansas?

I believe the correct number is ZERO; Arkansas does not tax groceries.
Clinton also repealed the sales tax on prescription medicine.

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15728 alt.politics.clinton:9191 alt.politics.bush:8272
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.033129.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.063814.27711@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>> 
>> here who volunteered, or the 75% of the local Vietneam vets group, who,
>> when surveyed, said there was *no* national security interest that
>> supported our involvement, and that they now believed our government had
>> lied its way into the conflict.  Read some history, for cryin out loud.
>
>Ah. Here is where I did not make myself clear. "And that they *now* believed"
>My point lies in that *at the time* many of the soldiers went with the belief
>that what ever they were doing, it was for the good of the "American way of
>life" what ever that may be. As the war progressed, the disbelief increased. In
>terms of NOW, of course I agree with your arguement, but that was not the issue
>that I raised.

Of course, the election is being held now ... so what we now know and
believe has more bearing on this non-issue, than political opinion
from 1970.

I used to think it was washed-up hippies who couldn't escape the
sixties, but this campaign is proving that it's Young Republicans
who want to reminisce about those good ole days.

John D.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: New Indianapolis Star Poll
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:35:24 GMT

Clinton  42%
Bush     41%
Perot     8%

The story did give particulars of the poll, but I don't remember any of
them.  The important part of this poll to me is that Clinton is ahead,
no matter how small the margin, no matter whether those polled were
likely or registered voters.  I might also point out that lines in
courthouses all over the state were over an hour and a half long for
people to register to vote on the day of the deadline.  Lots of new
voters.  I figure those who waited in lines that long to register will
mostly likely wait in lines to vote.  Those new voters probably won't
vote for Bush; I figure Clinton and Perot will split them up.  Clinton
actually has a chance to carry Indiana--who'd a thunk it?

I saw a 30-second ad for Perot during the Atlanta-Miami game earlier
today.  Very slick, very nicely done.  Now if he'll only come out and
say on camera what he's put in his book.  That he's the Walter Mondale
of this election--we'll have to raise taxes, they won't tell you, I
will.  We'll see tonight.  Of course, I think the kind of gas taxes he's
talking about (in particular) may be needed in small doses and over a
long period of time, but the way he promotes them guarantees a new round
of inflation.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle Should Be Golf Pro
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:26:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.135531.1182@umr.edu> jeff@don't.want.email writes:
>
>The only bad thing about the fact that Bill Clinton will probably win (to  
>my great dissappointment), is that Dan Quayle will not really have a  
>chance to be president.  If George Bush wins, I think that Dan Quayle will  
>be able to turn his image around and be one of the greatest presidents  
>ever.

Geez, I'm glad I haven't had lunch yet.

>If you look at the beliefs of Dan Quayle and his corresponding actions,  
>you will find that he is a mirror of Abe Lincoln in modern times.

A mirror image, maybe:  whereas Lincoln was often right,
Quayl is usually wrong.

>Too bad our society buys into the lies and tales of the democratic party,  
>and their denial of responsibility of our national debt.  We must remember  
>that we have had a democratic congress for a really long time. That is  
>were our problem is.

Our standing request over on alt.fan.dan-quayle is for the
evidence that Dan Quayl is anything more than (at best)
a crafty political manipulator and (at worst) a babbling idiot.

>Jeff

 jeff.don't.have.clue

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:28:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
> How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country?

"The only thing we have to fear is fearlessness."

>How can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends,
>family, a priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his
>wife?

"To err is human."
"Let he who is not guilty cast the first stone."
That's a personal matter, none of our business.  If you insist on harping on
this topic, then I'll insist on an explanation why Bush won't deny ever having
an extramarital affair.

>How can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
>American work place?

Agreed.  Bush must go.

>How can we look up to a President who has experimented with drugs...
>particularly in an age when drugs controls our streets, and murders children?

Most of us have experimented with drugs.  Clinton's admitted experimentation
occured well before the current antidrug hysteria, back when it was socially
accepted.

>Here endith the lesson.

We need a new teacher.

Here's one for you: how can we look up to a president that doesn't respect the
freedom of religion that this country was born of?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16929 talk.politics.misc:51920
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:35:46 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
votes than George Bush.  Namely:

	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush

This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.

Stratocaster


-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:42:21 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle Should Be President

> 
>Too bad our society buys into the lies and tales of the democratic party,  
>and their denial of responsibility of our national debt.  We must remember  
>that we have had a democratic congress for a really long time. That is  
>were our problem is.
> 
Jeff


Yes weve had a democratic congress for about 40 years which is a very
long time. Yet isn't it interesting that the debt has only really taken
off in the last 12 years.


Tom O


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: Monday's PEROT ad
Keywords: perot ad
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:03:42 GMT

In <39128@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

>The thought that kept going through my mind was that people don't want
>to hear bad news, or make tough choices, and they will probably switch
>him off.

People know there's bad news.  They're just looking for someone in a
position to do something about it to admit that there's a big problem.
The only reason they might turn him off is if they don't like big ears,
short people, or twanging folksy sayings.

>"Well, what is he going to do about these problems"?

She's got a point, but I hope she doesn't harp on it like the D and R
campaigns have.  They know, and I hope she does, that only the pork
in their "platform" will actually be implemented during their next
term.

>The other thought that kept going throw my mind was a comment
>made by Simon Ramo (the 'R' in TRW), who said he was not worried about
>the future of the US. He said in effect, that during his 80 year
>lifetime, he has seen the US 'reinvent' itself, when the future seemed
>bleakest.

Oh, it'll be reinvented all right.  My prediction is we lose two states
(Hawaii and California) to Japan and they forgive the debt.  I don't
know what we'll trade to the other major shareholders.

>Clinton will win in California anyway, so just maybe, my vote will be
>one of a large percentage of Americans who will send a message to
>Washington that we need to address the problems of runaway government
>spending, and do it soon.

You put too much faith in the polls.

Just don't forget the message you can send your helpful congress-
people directly by voting against them in the election and sending
them informative letters if they still happen to win.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot for Pres???
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:50:50 GMT
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rice University

In article <92275.220751DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <DMEJJ@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
|> I am amazed that there are people who can still support Perot
|> for president. What assurance do we have that in the middle of
|> a crisis he wont decide to leave office and let an unknown
|> be president? 

Clinton "left office" in Arkansas, after promising not to, to enter
the Presidential race.


!> What assurance do we have that he wont use
|> the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies as sleuths against
|> his "enemies"? 

Exactly who are his enemies?  Any proof, or just more inuendo?

|> What assurance do we have that he wont disregard
|> the provisions of the constitution and the Bill of Rights?

The same as the others' assurance.  Compare the moral character of these
three anytime.  Perot wins hands down, IMHO.

|> What assurance do we have that he can work with anyone cooperatively?

The way Bush did in the '90 tax fiasco that started the current recesion?  
We don't need more politicians, we need a leader, one who will be a voice for
the people, not foreign lobbiests, et al. 

|> Why vote or support anyone who is unwilling to undergo scrutiny?

Like the scrutiny to Clinton's travel records?  Do you think that kind
of thing is constructive?


|> Why waste a precious vote!

Good question!  Why vote for the republi-crats, who are going to keep taking money
from our progeny to pay for their campaign promises!?!? 


|> Arthur



-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Subject: Re: Page 304? (VP Debate, Quayle response)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:59:54 GMT

mwasserm@diana.cair.du.edu (MARC Y. WASSERMAN) writes:

>During the vice-presidential debates last night,
>Quayle said that Gore had indeed made a pledge
>to raise taxes to help one part of the enviromnet
>in the United States.  Gore insisted that wasn't
>true and Quayle said it was, that it was on Page
>304 in Gore's book "Earth in the Balance".
>Not having this book, could somebody please tell
>me what is on page 304?  Is Quayle correct on
>this?

The 100 billion figure is what the Marshall Plan would cost in today's
dollars.  It is used to make the point that other countries will have
to share the environmental cleanup burden, precisely the opposite of
what Quayle was suggesting.  Even Dan couldn't possibly be stupid enough
to extract the interpretation he is giving.  Just another example of 
Republican campaign strategy:  lie like hell while making outrageous
attacks, then scream "liberal media" when the lies are exposed.  What a 
bunch of assholes.


Dave 
belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.usa
From: doug@ramona.com (Double Agent)
Subject: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Organization: Ramona Engineering
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:13:27 GMT

George Bush is a stupid asshole. I don't say that casually. Not all assholes
are stupid. He hammers Clinton all week for the London/Moscow stuff.
Clinton has that whole week to come up with a boffo counterattack. So what
does Bush do? He sticks his chin out for the sucker-punch in the first five
minutes of the debate. This man is stupid.

And it's not like it was a great attack on Clinton, to begin with. It seemed
to be backfiring. Now what Bush should have done is to keep his mouth shut
during the week and pulled a sneak attack on Clinton during the debate. Of
course, that might have backfired, too, but at least Clinton wouldn't have
had so long to come up with a response. Stupid.

George, let's not forget what happened to Nixon after he started listening
to the nuts in his party.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.my.head.hurts
From: mike_p@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael John Petterson)
Subject: Re: Debate transcripts available via internet
Followup-To: alt.test,alt.fan.aspirin
Summary: no new taxes, no really...I mean it this time...
Keywords: smell my dad
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:10:09 GMT


can we please keep this junk out of alt.my.head.hurts??!!  I'm putting you
in my kill file.  My head hurts enough after watching the vp debates.


Michael J. Petterson     | Just say "not" to "Perot" 
mike_p@cheshire.oxy.edu  | (force the rhyme either way you please)
Los Angeles, CA          | (a fool and his money are soon elected)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections