HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Larry King and the Dead Horse
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:14:37 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Jon Locker writes:
>
>Criminy, hasn't he had enough already??? Who in his or her right mind would
>vote for a guy who *still* doesn't know whether running is worth it?  What
>in the hell would this guy do in office once he reached a stalemate in any
>negotiation? Quit on the spot?  
>
>Or would he try to fire Congress?  (Don't tell Bush I said that)  :)
>
>sorry for the tirade, just had to get my 2c in.
>
Actually, you bring up a very interesting point:

Perot who is running for the White House to end gridlock has 0 votes of
support in Congress. None. No one beholden to him, no organization,
no friends, and hundreds of enemies. 

Admittedly, since I would love to warm up "Happy Days Are Here Again"
for January 20, I don't view Perot's candidacy warmly, but Perot's
vanity campaign -- even if he wins -- will accomplish nothing. Political
movements may culminate with a charismatic leader, but they cannot 
be sustained there. If Perot was serious, along with getting his name
on the ballot, he should have been actively seeking out Perot-nistas
to run for Congress. Perot is NOT a serious man in this regard. He is
a vain pontificator of high sounding hooey. Sure he has a plan. Every whack
ball with a CRT has a plan. Does he have the votes in Congress where it 
counts?

A vote for Perot is a vote for Bush.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Re: 1-800-BEND-OVER
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:09:23 GMT

Dave Sill (de5@ORNL.GOV) writes:
| He only wants to hear the good news.  Where's the number for Perot supporter
| who *don't* want him to run to call?  Unless nobody bothers to call the
| support hotline, Perot will have a mandate to enter the race, and no real
| measure of what the majority of his supporters want.

  Knock it off.

  That post is a good example of how the campaign has been going so far.
  The Democrats and Republicans talk about everything but the real 
  problems of the country.  

  What do you care of how Perot runs his campaign?  If you want to talk
  about silly issues like this, stick to your own party.  The Democrats
  and Republicans ran $35 million pep rallies that excluded dissent.
  The Republicans brought in hundreds of young Republicans who were not
  delegates to make it look like there was more support and enthusiasm
  than there really was.  The Democrats wouldn't let the governor of
  Pennsylvania present an anti-abortion stance.  Delegates who were 
  supposed to give "spontaneous" interviews were coached and rehearsed
  their lines up to seven times.

| Bend over, folks...

  Wake up and look are around.  It is the Democrats and Republicans, not
  Perot, who have been screwing you for years.  This, and not Perot's 800
  number or his campaign, is the real problem.  

  Perot's candidacy may be the healthiest thing to happen to our political
  process in our lifetimes.  To see this go take a look in any Perot
  headquarters in the next 5 weeks.  Perot's citizens' movement is as
  close to true "democracy in action" as you can get. 

  I have probably done more work for Democratic candidates than 99.9% of
  the people reading this group.  There is no comparison between Perots 
  campaign and those of the establishment parties.  The establishment
  parties value money, not people and have developed a corrupt system of
  institutionalized bribery they call campaign contributions.  They need
  the money to manipulate the media and fool the people.  This is a sick,
  cynical version of democracy that is more into game playing than problem
  solving.

  With Perot about to enter the race, there is has been more talk about
  the deficit in the media in the last few days than in the the all the
  months before that combined.  Maybe we can stop arguing about fictional
  television characters and how another campaign should use its 800
  number and get down business.

  We need Perot to give the system and people like the poster of the
  previous article a good swift kick in the butt.
  ==

  Bob                                       Seattle, Washington

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:35:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.025653.21931@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
> 
> Now for the quick rundown:
> 
> 1) Clinton believed the Vietnam war was wrong and immoral.  A
> President who searches his conscience before going to war?  Far, far
> better than invading Panama, deciding to fight Iraq only a couple of
> weeks after the invasion of Kuwait, before sanctions were even in
> place, etc.
 WHINEWHINEWHINEWHINEWHINE... Aw, poor Slick Willie 'tinks dat da war waz
wrong... WHAT A GUY! There are very few people out there who actually believe
that war IS moral, though I happen to be one who sees nothing wrong with
knocking off a few regimes here and there. An interesting
contradiction: Clinton...Morals? Ask Gennifer on that one.
 
> 2) Jennifer Fitz...  But I won't say anything if you won't.
 True, there is a allegation that President Bush had an affair with Jennifer
Fitz(gerald) the difference is that 1) there is no hard evidence and 2) BOTH
parties deny the whole story. 
> 4) Drugs.  Pot?  In the Sixties?  Hmmm....
 Yes, pot. In the sixties. And we have an entire ticket that could tell all
about that. What role models.
> --
> "Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
> 				-- Homer Simpson
I have complete respect for ANYONE who can "thump" passages from the Simpsons.
Truely you have displayed incredible intellectual prowess... I am humbled by
your incredibly... dare I say masculine... abilities.
.
Disclaimers.Disclaimers.
			--VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH
Conservative)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14652 talk.politics.misc:48609
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:17:24 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

>Am I accusing Perot of running a similar campaign to Pat Buchanan's...i.e.
>Buchanan ran to defuse a potential thorn-in-the-side, in-for-keeps campaign
>by David Duke...I think the answer is "yes." Perot's former supporters
>split almost 4-1 for Clinton when Perot dropped from the race. He is
>in there solely to re-elect George Bush.

But H. Ross Perot hates Bush with a passion. He also dropped out of
the race on the eve of the Democratic Convention, saying that he
"didn't need to run, since the Democratic Party was rejuvinated." This
is as close as you can get to an endorsement without actually saying
it. A month before Perot dropped out, Clinton was running third. 

I think Ross got out for a number of reasons: 1) he saw that he could
not defeat Bush in a three-way race, 2) he had no chance if the
election went to the House, 3) he didn't like the glare of the press
spotlight on his private life, 4) he really believed that he had
raised an important issue (the defecit) which would have to be
addressed by both parties (he was wrong there), 5) he didn't want to
run the kind of campaign (as planned by Rollings and Carter?) needed
to win a presidential campaign in the 90's, 6) he figured that with
him out, and the timming of his quitting, would seal Bush's fate.

>A vote for Perot is a vote for Bush.

Not in California - Bush can't win here.
Not in Texas - Bush needs Texas to have a chance, and Perot might pull
enough votes away to keep him from winning it.

I think that Perot is serious about the defecit problem, and he cares
enough about it to get back in the race. He feels, somewhat correctly,
that the issue will not be seriously addressed unless he does.

Did anyone see the interview with party wags today on the morning CBS
show? I normally don't watch this stuff, but I flipped it on while
ironning my wife's blouse (man of the 90's and all that). Some guy on
Clinton's campaign said (as near as I can quote):

"Did you see that press conference? I think it's disgusting that both
the major parties have to kiss that little guy's butt. He doesn't
derserve it, he's a quitter, and shouldn't be in the race!"

I thought it was quite funny, but I bet his remarks will gain a few
more Perot votes - political elitism is not popular this year.

>Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
				
				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:17:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.084445.23192@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

|> >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.

	But not as safe as the Headquarters unit of the Indiana Army
Reserves, which was not elegible for service in Vietnam (it was an 
administrative unit). Can you guess which unit Dan Quayle was able
to get into (in spite of a substancial waiting list)?

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:50:46 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct6.180205.26881@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>In article <burleigh.718386335@ogre>, burleigh@ogre.cica.indiana.edu (Frank Burleigh) writes:
>> 
>> >Consider the source.  Dornan is perhaps best known for physically
>> >assaulting another member of the House on the House floor by lunging
>> >at him and trying to strangle him, an act for which Dornan was officially
>> >censured by the House.  He's a right-wing nut who spends his nights looking
>> >for communists under his bed -- and everything he says should be taken in
>> >that context.
>
>Dornan would better serve on British Parliamant perhaps? :)

Was it the Japanese Parliament or the Taiwanese one that regularly
engages in, uh, more-than-verbal disagreements?

--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:59:07 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
: 
:>He has never had a parent walk away from the family, he has never had to tell
:>his kids that there won't be any food on the table, he has never had to go to
:>a homeless shelter, he has never had to give his kids up to foster care 
:>because he couldn't support them, he has never had to tell his kids that 
:>he couldn't afford to send them to college, he has never stood in an 
:>unemployment line, he has never had to live in a car, he has never watched 
:>any of his kids gunned down in the street, .... These are things I have 
:>seen in my volunteer work everyday.
: 
: Do you seriously think that he has never heard of these things?  I know 
: Quayle is not too bright, but he's not a vegetable.  

No, he's a potatoe.

:Do you think that
:one must live through all of these things in order to understand them?

As a person who has witnessed a lot of the things above first hand, I
will say that it makes more of an impact in real life than it does
on the evening news.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: It gets bigger (was Re: The Big Lie)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:59:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.091622.21527JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>In article <BvD7un.Hxw.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>"Palmer doesn't seem to want to get caught in a lie.  He claims
>"that he has an Amnesty International report sitting in front of 
>"him which says "the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people".
>"We're still waiting.
>"
>
>Ok, here we go. Page 21:
>
>    Estimate of Deaths in Iraq Caused Directly or Indirectly By
>            Coalition Action During The Persian Gulf War
>                          (table 2.1)
>
>    Iraqi Soldiers                    89,500
>    Civilians                         72,000
>    Indirect Deaths (through 1/15/92  95,000 - 120,000
>    caused by destruction of infrastructure such as sewerage treatment, 
>    and water purification plants.)
> 
>    TOTAL                             256,500 to 281,500 DEATHS
> 
>Satisfied???

 
  Well, now are still waiting for Anwar Al-Saba to provide the references of 
his numbers which his excellency conviniently excused himself as being too lazy
to include. 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: It gets bigger (was Re: The Big Lie)
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:38:38 GMT

John Palmer (jp@tygra.Michigan.COM) wrote:
: In article <BvD7un.Hxw.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
: "Palmer doesn't seem to want to get caught in a lie.  He claims
: "that he has an Amnesty International report sitting in front of 
: "him which says "the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people".
: "We're still waiting.
: "
: 
: Ok, here we go. Page 21:
: 
:     Estimate of Deaths in Iraq Caused Directly or Indirectly By
:             Coalition Action During The Persian Gulf War
:                           (table 2.1)
: 
:     Iraqi Soldiers                    89,500
:     Civilians                         72,000
:     Indirect Deaths (through 1/15/92  95,000 - 120,000
:     caused by destruction of infrastructure such as sewerage treatment, 
:     and water purification plants.)
:  
:     TOTAL                             256,500 to 281,500 DEATHS
:  
: Satisfied???

First subtract 89,500.  Iraqi soldiers were not innocent people.  They 
actively participated in the conquest of an independent country and the
suppression of its people.

I would also be interested in where they got their numbers, since neither
side in the conflict quotes numbers anywhere near those levels.  I haven't 
seen estimates for civilian deaths (direct or otherwise), but the highest
semi-official estimate I know of for Iraqi casualties is around 80,000.  The
British put the number closer to 35,000.  The civilian casualties seem
so high as to be non-credible without some serious support. The quoted rate
is almost 1500 a day.  Unless Iraqis stood in the middle of the street 
during every air raid, that's just not reasonable.  If I remember we only
few a couple of thousand flights a day.  Subtract combat air patrols, air 
refueling missions, rescue flights and strikes against Iraqi units in the
desert, and the remaining missions must have been incredible effective in
hitting civilians.

Note, AI also accepted and published the infamous incubator legend.  I have
a great deal of respect and admiration for what AI does, but it is not the
font of all knowledge
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:22:26 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>At least Bill and Al can both spell Potatto. 

OOPS!!!
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Sadomasochist extraordinaire.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 13:51:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.075113.24657@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Now about how my career plans might be affected: I plan to be a writer, and
>I worry about the chance that I might run afoul of the politically correct
>crowd--they might have alot more power under Clinton--because something I
>wrote was critical ofClinton, if he's the President.

Important grammar tip for aspiring writers: "a lot" is two words.
But it is admirable how you were able to wrestle this sentence to the ground.

Alan
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: College Republiclones
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 13:13:30 GMT

In article <1am3qjINNhg4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu () says:
> 
>>Republiclones suck.
> 
>      You got THAT right.  The other day, the College Republiclones had a
> table set up at the student center of Cleveland State University.  They
> were passing out Bush bumper stickers (I took one, but someone ripped it
> into pieces--I did) and pieces of paper festooned with lies about the
> excellence of Bush and Quayle.  As I was leaving the table, a framed 8"
> by 10" color photograph caught my eye.  It was a picture of Jesse Helms!
> These idiots had a signed photograph of Jesse Helms at their table, as if
> that were something to be PROUD of.  To call these people weasels is to
> defame the carnivorous mammal.

Must you always whine? What a pointless thread.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush & Clinton Acceptance Speeches
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:29:15 GMT

In article <1a0ln0INN1qv@roche.csl.sri.com> pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless) writes:
>After posting the other day regarding the poor quality of Mr. Bush's
>acceptance speech at the Republican national convention, I was asked to
>do a similar analysis of Mr. Clinton's speech before the Democratic
>convention. Fair is fair, so here is my side-by-side analysis of the
>major candidate's reading (and speaking) comprehensibility.

[I've deleted an analysis showing that a grammar nit-picker can find
problems, especially one that assumes that passive voice is
necessarily wrong.  Notably lacking from the analysis was any "did
these errors really matter?" discussion.]

>If anyone from either campaign reads this message, I hope they benefit
>from it. We need more coherent and understandable leadership. People
>are looking for specifics, clarity and action... in both the candidate's
>lives and their words!

Are we electing head speechmaker?  Beyond "good enough", which both
major party candidates are, does speaking ability matter?

-andy thinks that Jackson is a much better speaker, but thinks that
      "would make a better president" depends on other factors, some
      of which also favor Jesse

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Organization: gte
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 18:08:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.212935.12212@midway.uchicago.edu>, sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> In article <1992Sep21.181436.30207@watson.ibm.com> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
> >In article <1992Sep18.203509.17303@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
> >>Half truth!  Arkansas is 4th poorest of the states as measured by personal
> >>income.  
> >
> >What half truth? He said that Arkansas was ranked third on Business Week's
> >list. Which half is false? No one denied that Arkansas (as measured by per
> >capita income) is a poor state.

The half-truth is in stating the Ark. has the 3 fastest rate of personal
income growth while ignoring that it is 4th lowest overall personal
income level AND *most* of the states with the lowest personal income
levels are growing faster that the US average.  (In case you can't follow
the logic, if 1 poor state is doing better, credit the Gov/State Leg, 
but if most poor states are doing better then credit the Pres/Congress.)
Since most all poor states are growing faster than the rich states,
something at a national level has changed (namely businesses, which
is what Bush supports and Clinton et al will rape.)  Clinton has been
Gov of Arkansas for 12(?) years: why is Ark still in the bottom 10 
percent when it comes to personal income?

>   For the record, this ranking is from the September 14, 1992 issue
> of US News & World Report.  Call me a stickler for details. :-)
> 
>   While giving Clinton credit, US News also points out that some of
> Arkansas's success has nothing to do with Clinton.  It has one of the lowest
> incomes and lowest home values in the nation.  This gives it a low cost
> base which attracts manufacturers.
> 
> >Again with the budget crisis. What is it with you? What budget crisis? This
> >must be a application of stealth technology, that Arkansas can have a budget
> >crisis while its governor is running for President and nobody knows about
> >it. What's the scoop, ace? WHAT BUDGET CRISIS?
> 
>   I've been reading about the budget crisis for some time now.  I believe
> it is heavily related to Medicaid.  Clinton is taking some degree of
> heat for not really being around to help handle it.  I believe there is more
> information in the same US News issue I cited.  
> 
The "scoop" is that some of us listen to all news, not just what we
*want* to hear.

Thanks for the reference, Pat. 
-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc