HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:16:23 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                      
 OCTOBER 11, 1992




                   Statement of SEN. AL GORE
        On the first debate among the presidential candidates

 George Bush finished fourth -- behind Bill Clinton, who was the clear
 winner, in expressing a plan for economic recovery, behind Ross Perot
 in an understanding of why the economy is in trouble, and even behind
 Jim Lehrer, the debate's moderator, in an ability to present a plan
 for America's future.

 If anyone doubted it before, they can't any longer: it's time for
 change and it's time for George Bush and Dan Quayle to go. America
 needs the leadership, ideas, energy, and courage Bill Clinton offered
 during tonight's debate and offers America in this election.

 With the attention of the nation focused on him, George Bush failed
 to provide the American people with a single reason to re- elect him
 or a single idea to get our economy moving again and create jobs.
 George Bush offered more of the same: the same stale, tired policies
 that have brought us recession and cost us jobs.

 George Bush kept the American people waiting for nothing. Anyone who
 hoped this debate would give them a reason to vote for Bush and
 Quayle is going to sleep tonight planning to vote for Bill Clinton
 and Al Gore. And, for good reason. Bill Clinton reached out to the
 American people with a plan for change and economic recovery, with a
 reason for hope and a genuine commitment to putting people first.


                                ###


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Gore: did not. Or did he?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:38:25 GMT

In article <9631@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <15OCT199208493270@utkvx1.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx1.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:

>D,S:This kind of finger-pointing is the thing that ticks me off the most
>D,S:about Congressional politics.  YES, he DID vote for it.  But you and
>D,S:Quayle neglect to mention that it was part of a larger trade package
>D,S:whose benefits ourweighed the downside of the Car. Init.

>D,S:A congressional bill is rarely one-sided and is never single-issued.
>D,S:It has riders, subsections, etc.  And when it comes time for a vote,
>D,S:each Congressman has to outweigh the good vs. bad.  It's called 
>D,S:comprimising, something the Bush has not clue of how to do.  If Bush
>D,S:could have learned to comprimise, he could have had a successful
>D,S:presidency and might keep his job.  But by vetoing 35 bills and
>D,S:crying his eyes out for a line-item veto, he put us all in this
>D,S:terrible situation.

>Sounds like another good reason to reform congress, or at least give the
>president the line item veto.

>Congress critters routinely hide all kinds of crap in an other wise good
>or at least neutral bill.  Those who oppose the garbage are faced with
>a through the baby out with the bath water situation.

Yes, it's called *compromise.*  That's part of politics, whether George
Herbert Hoover Bush likes it or not.

I notice you don't criticize GHHB, though he's doing the exact same
thing with NAFTA.  He forced Congress to give him "fast track" authority
on it -- so that Congress would have to vote just yes or no, rather than
look at the individual provisions of it.

>It is because of hypocritical stunts like this that congress is held in
>such low repute.

No, it's because of Republican lies.

>
>-- 
>Mark
>My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
>


-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:46:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.144901.26786@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> You're gonna get hell for that one, I loved it!  This really is a fine
> point and it is exactly about what truly is the definition of marriage.
> I wish that my old (male) roommate and I had the opportunity to be
> married so that we could get the *entitlements* (key word) associated
> with marriage such as preferential tax codes.  Then, when one of us
> wanted to _really_ get married then we could divorce and move on with
> our lives outside this nifty setup.  If homosexuals get this right then
> don't be surprised to see what I described happen.

  When you can show me that any significant number of heterosexuals
are doing the equivalent, I might be impressed. Otherwise I'm not.
In any case, the only thing that would point out is the absurdity 
of entitlement programs...
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Don't Vote For Change For the Sake of Change!!!
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:34:59 GMT

First, I agree with the thrust of larry's post that you should not vote
for change merely for the sake of change. But...

In article <LARRY.92Oct9135944@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
>
>People blame the economic mess on Bush and/or Congress, including both
>candidates.  This blaming is pointless.  This economic slump was
>predicted years ago based on economic cycles.

The expertes to which you refer had been predicting an economic slump
every year for at least four years (that I personally remember) prior
to the actual Bush recession. Of course, if you consistently predict a
recession, sooner or later you will get it right. The Reagan expansion
had consistently confounded the experts from the very beginning, that
is until George Bush broke his pledge and raised taxes.

The fact is, that the recession occured as a consequence of Bush's (yes, and
Congress') policies. And blaming is not pointless because Bush not only
implemented bad policy, undoing everything that Reagan had accomplished,
he broke, in the process,  the very promise that got him elected: no new taxes.

During Bush's administration:
  Bush and Congress gave the US its second biggest (or biggest depending on
  how you count it) tax increase in history.

  Bush and Congress engaged in the biggest spending spree since FDR.

  Federal regulation increased by 50%.

  Bush helped kill major tax cuts for the middle class.

>  Maybe Bush's policies
>have enhanced it, maybe they have helped.  We do not know.  

We do know. Bush's policies caused the recession or, at the very least,
exacerbated it.

If Bush is going to be elected, he must repudiate his policies of the
first term and convince Americans he won't make the same mistakes again.
Unfortunately, he has very litle credibility to work with so that is going
to be very difficult.

That Clinton probably would be worse is no excuse.

>In November, vote for the person you feel would be the best president
>based on the facts.

That sounds like an endorsement of Marrou.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re:  Debates
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 02:48:49 GMT

Well, the first debate is history, and it seems to me that Bush made a big
mistake in agreeing that Perot be on the dias.  The Perot/Clinton
combination makes a potent case for the failure of the Bush program.

Bush's response to the AIDS question was typically weak for this issue.
His comments on the behavioral issue was a veiled plea to homophobia and
illustrate the problem the Republican party has on this issue:  the need to
cater to the right wing on this subject.

Otherwise, Bush's entire program was "there'll be a new Congress, and I'll
be able to do something (finally)."  I don't think that is going to sell to
the public.  Congress does a lot already.  Bush vetos it.  We have too
much diversity in the vision for the country's future.  Unless, and this
seems unlikely, the Congress goes to Bush's views, that will continue.
It's time to put a halt to divided government, give one party
responsibility, and hold them accountable.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Debate thoughs
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:19:56 GMT

Cornell Kinderknecht (cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com) wrote:
: Since this first debate is going to be a panel of reporters, is
: George going to come up with some excuse to avoid the remaining
: debates?

I don't think he can afford it.  The problem with the panel approach is
that it's too controlled.  The result is nothing dramatic can happen.  We
saw that on Sunday.  Bush badly needs something dramatic.  If this was a
boxing match, the ref would be asking him how many finger he was holding
up
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gore: did not. Or did he?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:12:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.063825.1058@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <9631@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>In <15OCT199208493270@utkvx1.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx1.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>
>>D,S:This kind of finger-pointing is the thing that ticks me off the most
>>D,S:about Congressional politics.  YES, he DID vote for it.  But you and
>>D,S:Quayle neglect to mention that it was part of a larger trade package
>>D,S:whose benefits ourweighed the downside of the Car. Init.
>
>>D,S:A congressional bill is rarely one-sided and is never single-issued.
>>D,S:It has riders, subsections, etc.  And when it comes time for a vote,
>>D,S:each Congressman has to outweigh the good vs. bad.  It's called 
>>D,S:comprimising, something the Bush has not clue of how to do.  If Bush
>>D,S:could have learned to comprimise, he could have had a successful
>>D,S:presidency and might keep his job.  But by vetoing 35 bills and
>>D,S:crying his eyes out for a line-item veto, he put us all in this
>>D,S:terrible situation.
>
>>Sounds like another good reason to reform congress, or at least give the
>>president the line item veto.
>
>>Congress critters routinely hide all kinds of crap in an other wise good
>>or at least neutral bill.  Those who oppose the garbage are faced with
>>a through the baby out with the bath water situation.
>
>Yes, it's called *compromise.*  That's part of politics, whether George
>Herbert Hoover Bush likes it or not.

     And yet, this sort of things is exactly what you're saying George Bush
did that shouldn't get him re-elected.  All his veto record says is he 
*too often* signed what Congress sent him.
     So should he have compromised or not?

>>It is because of hypocritical stunts like this that congress is held in
>>such low repute.
>
>No, it's because of Republican lies.

     Are you seriously suggesting that it is solely Republican lies which 
have produced such an (apparenlty) "percieved" problem in Congress?
 
     Was it Republican lies which passed 1.5 Trillion dollar budget?  Yes 
Bush submitted it, but doesn't Congress have as much responsibility to stand 
up to the President as the President has to stand up to Congress?

     Are Republican lies to blame for Congress exempting themselves from the 
same petty laws the rest of us have to wade through?

     Are Republican lies to blame for the monster bills which have a 
necessary law followed by a thousand pieces of pork for Congressional 
districts.

     The Republicans are bad, but not that bad.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10652 talk.politics.misc:52044 alt.politics.bush:9313
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:36:04 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Bruce Varney) writes:
|> Alex Goykhman) writes:
|> >    That point I am trying to make is this: the official Republican
|> >    party line has always been that raising taxes takes away incentives
|> >    to work, and does not raise revenues.  This is patently false, and 
|> >    they know it: it all depends on what we tax (i.e. they'd rather tax 
|> >    our paychecks).
|> 
|> >    I'd rather see goverment spending go down, and my taxes along
|> >    with it, but if we can't cut spending, the next best thing is to make
|> >    the rich pay their fair share of taxes, by taxing their assets.
|> 
|> 	The rich do pay their fair share. The top 10% of income earners
|> (thats $80000+/yr) pay 53% of the taxes. What more do you want? When you
|> raise taxes on the rich, you stiffle the economy. When the tax rate was 70%,
|> it got to a point where it was no longer worth the effort to make more money,
|> because you only got to keep 30 cents on the dollar. But when the top
|> bracket was dropped to 28%, the "rich" worked harder, made more, paid more 
|> (total) in taxes, and created jobs and economic prosperity.
|> 
Is there any data to suggest that the rich didn't work to accumulate wealth
when the tax rates were higher?  I have not seen any.  In fact, if one
wanted to make a philosophical statement, one could say they worked even
harder because it took more work to make the next $10 million.

I keep hearing this argument, but have seen no data showing the rich
coming out of retirement when the tax rate dropped.  Now it is true that
more people got rich because the new tax structure made it easier to get
rich, but it didn't make it easier to work or easier to help the economy.

Bruce, please back up your philosophy with any evidence.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Forward an article from another group,
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:20:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

=Article: 1734 of talk.politics.china
=From: poppy@ac.dal.ca
=Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
=Subject: A Moral Issue
=Message-ID: <1992Oct8.084904.8015@ac.dal.ca>
=Date: 8 Oct 92 08:49:04 -0300
=Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
=Lines: 19
=
=President Bush indicated in the last night show that it was wrong for Clinton
=to demonstrate against his own country (against U. S. policy in Viet-Nam War)
=in a foreign territory though Bush did seem to more tolerate the demonstration
=before the White House during Gulf War.
=
=Cliton was against U. S. invasion when he was in England in 70's.
=Those Chinese students are against the "CCP dictatorship" in U. S today.
=What is the difference?
=
=It seems to me that dirty politicians sometimes consider issues "morally" rather
=than politcially.
=
=I think it was politically right for Mr. Clinton to demonstrate against U. S.
=wherever since he believed the war was wrong for americans and world peace.
=
=If it is morally wrong, can it be politically right?
=
=Dose Mr. Bush think it is morally wrong for Chinese students to demonstrate
=against their own country (represented by the CCP goverment) ? 

"We must
stand for what is right, stand up to those who have the might. We do so
grounded in the faith, that what is morally wrong will never be politically
right. But if it is morally sound, it will eventually be politically right."
	-[From whose speech am I quoting?]

If it were politically right for Mr. Clinton to have gone to Moscow, why
are there three (or however many) pages missing regarding passport
documents? Why doesn't Clinton himself say what he did while in Moscow,
and why doesn't there seem to be a definitive record of his activity
there? Jane Fonda still is not seen very highly among many Vietnam vets
for what she did; Bill must clear any suspicion of being "used" by the
KGB in going to the Soviet Union.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9820 talk.politics.misc:51036
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 13 Oct 1992 21:29:08 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: ==> Admiral Crowe Statement

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 OCTOBER 13, 1992

                STATEMENT BY ADMIRAL WILLIAM CROWE


   Given the latest news that the Bush Administration is going to get
 rid of their top economic advisors, I can understand that Marlin
 Fitzwater has become an expert on White House firings.

   However, his suggestion that my endorsement of Governor Clinton
 stems from my being "fired" from my position as Chairman of the Joint
 Chiefs of Staff is dead wrong.

   The facts are that, as my second two-year term was coming to a
 close in 1989, President Bush personally asked me to stay on as
 Chairman.  I was deeply honored to have this vote of confidence from
 the President.  However, I decided that 47 years in uniform was quite
 enough for any man, and I declined the President's offer.

   Marlin Fitzwater was the President's spokesman when all this was
 happening.  The President's efforts to have me stay on were widely
 reported in the press.  I can only conclude that Mr. Fitzwater's
 misstatement of the truth of this situation was deliberate.

   It is precisely this pattern of campaign deception that convinces
 me that my support for Governor Clinton is the right decision for me
 and for the country.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: antab@is.morgan.com (Anthony Abenante)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:36:46 GMT


Just to get the record straight, Perot did not pay taxes on $30,000
last year, but the same marginal rate as someone making a little
over $30,000. 

This happened to amount to some $15.8 million in taxes paid on reported income 
of $250 million.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:59:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.072505.1166@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	Cable rates will go up.  The broadcast networks will be able to charge
>>cable companies for redistribution, basic cable rates will skyrocket.
>
>Why would broadcasters charge for redistribution?

     Because the cable companies are required to carry local channels and
pay a negotiated fee to the broadcasters for this "service."  The cable
companies are in a position where the broadcasters now hold all the cards
in negotiation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
From: djp002@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Debate results
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:03:38 GMT

	I tend to agree with Mr. Stephen. The winner(s) were Clinton and Perot
with Bush a distant third. Perot was very personable. Clinton was very
disciplined and gave his answers in a straightforward manner. Bush spent the
whole time defending his record(which is pretty paltry).

					David J. Puderbaugh
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10594 talk.politics.misc:51962
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:19:19 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Just so everyone gets the timeline correct:

	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can point
to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that was
only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did not" vote
for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10582 alt.politics.bush:9277 alt.politics.marrou:1644 alt.politics.correct:5692 talk.politics.misc:51956
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:16:47 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> >thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >>jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >>>how is this fallacious?
> >>>    1. irrisponsible behavior is the primary factor in the 
> >>>    spread of AIDS 
> >>>    2. eliminating such behavior will slow the spread of AIDS 
> >>>    dramatically.
> 
> So when will you start to work against all of the other life 
> threating situations? Cancer/Heart Disease are the big dangers, many 
> scientific findings point towards many conditions related to " 
> irrisponsible behavior as the primary factor" of these problems, 
> smoking, alcohol, poor diet, chemically treated foods, etc.

yes, when? i hate this idea that just because they aren't involved
with sex we shouldn't pay attention to them. (oh, but chemically
treated foods aren't that big a problem. the natural pesticides
found in all plants and the carcinogens caused by cooking the food
-- especially if charred -- make man-made chemicals pale by comparison.)

> Don't take aim at just one thing and call it the "Great Cause of 
> All our Misery" you must look at everything, this society does many 
> things which can be classified as " irrisponsible behavior".

couldn't agree more. so when do we start an ACT UP against smoking,
alcohol, poor diet & for protein farms?

jason

--
me
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc