HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: CLINTON ACCEPTS DEBATE INVITATION -- AGAIN
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:49:12 GMT

[file date 9/29/92]


            CLINTON ACCEPTS DEBATE INVITATION -- AGAIN

      Little Rock, AR.  On behalf of Governor Bill Clinton,
 Clinton/Gore Campaign Chairman Mickey Kantor today accepted the
 proposal of the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates to
 sponsor two presidential debates on October 4 and October 15, 1992.

      "The American people need and deserve presidential debates,"
 Kantor maintained.  "Governor Clinton was present in East Lansing and
 is present in Louisville ready to debate President Bush."

      Kantor stated, "We accept the Commission's proposal for two
 presidential debates to be held on October 4 and October 15 using the
 Commission's proposed format.  We also accept your invitation to the
 two campaigns to meet under your auspices prior to the debates."
 Kantor noted that the Clinton/Gore campaign has accepted the
 Commission's earlier proposals.

      The letter notes that in addition to rejecting the Commission's
 proposal, the Bush/Quayle campaign has rejected two separate offers
 by the Commission to meet and discuss any differences between the
 campaigns.

      In closing Kantor asserted, "In this election year, the nation
 faces truly watershed issues critical to its future.  The American
 people, who finance the general election campaign, are entitled to an
 open and frank discussion of these issues in a face-to-face setting
 between the candidates for president."

                              --30--



Distribution:
  General >internet:C-General-Distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
  All Volunteers >internet:c-all-volunteers-distr@mail.clinton-gore.org

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9959 alt.politics.bush:8801 alt.politics.elections:16348
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:04:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In <1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.200451.25877@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns) writes:

>> I have an honest question for conservatives that plan to vote for George
>> Bush.  Do you believe that while in  Moscow during 1969 that Bill Clinton
>> met with and was influenced by the KGB or other anti-American forces?  Do
>> you believe that this trip casts any doubt on his ability to be a good
>> President?  If you say yes to either or both could you please explain
>> the bases for the belief.

Oliver Stone told them so.  No, then they'd laugh it off as some kind of
loony conspiracy theory, instead of accepting it for what it is.  A
blatant McCarthyite tactic.

>No to both of the questions. The problem is the same old thing, character,
>or lack of it. Why is Clinton not answering questions about Moscow honestly.

He is.

>I know a lot of you will say that he is, if the answers are honest, why do
>they keep changing??

They don't.

-- 
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
From: yvonne@well.sf.ca.us (Yvonne Lee)
Subject: Re: Red Willie??
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:44:27 GMT

In <1b4e00INNdni@uwm.edu> radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David G Radcliffe) writes:

>xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:
> 
>: I know that being a lawyer and Rhodes scholar, Slick would 
>: not have made as simple a mistake as poorly wording his 
>: sentences, therefore there must be something else.  
>: On the other hand, after the Democaratic Convention where
>: he made the statement:  "Give Al Gore and I a chance to run
>: the country." (or something close to this).  It makes you
>: wonder?

>Hmm, very interesting.  Clinton obviously meant "Give Al Gore
>and me a chance to run the country."  Obviously, a lawyer and
>Rhodes scholar would not make such a simple mistake, so there
>must be a sinister conspiracy behind it.  I wonder what his
>hidden agenda is?

>Oh yeah.  :-)
> 
>: Oh well, das vadanya, Comrade Clintonovitch.
>: 
>: ----------------------

>Oh, you speak Russian?  Isn't it interesting that you never mentioned
>this to us before. Are you trying to hide something?

>--
>David Radcliffe                                
>radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu            
Make him name names.  If he doesn't name names, he's obviously trying
to protect his colleagues.
-- 
*****************************************************************
yvonne_lee@infoworld.com   (preferred email reply address)
yvonne@well.sf.ca.us       (news account) (415) 312-0571 w  (415) 968-3132 h
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:32:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.005048.10487@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

>there are a lot of things i don't agree with the Bush man on, but
>one of them is not the economy. if you take time to actually
>look up the numbers, the economy really -isn't- doing that bad.

	I DON'T HAVE A JOB. My father almost got laid off; his company
is running at 25% capacity, four days a week, one week off every month.
My mother's employer filed for chapter 11 and closed 80% of their stores.
My brother's employer did the same.

>look folks, we're in a world-wide recession. as far as comparative

	THE WORLD ECONOMY IS MOST EFFECTED BY OUR ECONOMY. WE CAUSED THIS
GLOBAL SLOWDOWN.

	Japan and Germany have been doing VERY WELL, and they are the next
largest economies.


	BUSH IS DONE.


-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10288 talk.politics.misc:51595 alt.politics.bush:9062
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:18:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.004937.16785@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>.......
>>>                           CIVIL RIGHTS
>>
>>>
>>> REALITY: Bush vetoed the Civil Rights Acts of 1990, only the second
>>> time a President has vetoed a civil rights act this century.
>>
>
>>He vetoed a quota bill in disguise as a civil rights bill.  I
>>consider this evidence of his wisdom and intelligence.
>
>I agree. And then he passed the scaled-back 1991 Civil Rights
>Bill. It contained the language "this is not a quota bill."
				  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>To say that Bush vetoed a bill without saying that he signed the
>bill after it had been modified (as he requested) is quite dishonest.
>

This language was also in the 1990 Civil Rights Bill.  The two bills
were virtually identical.  The reason Bush vetoed it in 1990 was to
give Southern Republicans a campaign issue.  The reason he signed
it in 1991 was because honorable men like John Danforth convinced
him that using racial division for political gain is not in the 
best interest of the country.


John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 09 Oct 92 21:26:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct5.163408.7134@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
| 
| I maintain that everyone who has AIDS is either someone who engaged 
| in irresponsible activities or the victim of someone who engaged in 
| those activities.  The only innocents are those victims.

This is a very silly train of thought.

The only way that this makes any sense is to define as "irresponsible"
anyone who does not follow the Jehovah's Witness rules of life -- one
sexual partner, no blood transfusions, etc.

Could you explain to me how non-condom-protected anal sex before, say,
1983 or so (whan viral transmission of AIDS was firmed up) is defined
as "irresponsible"?

   Fritz

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10922 talk.politics.misc:52371
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: This "Bush is just like Reagan" thing...
Date: 16 Oct 1992 21:23:47 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Stupendous Man) writes:
|> Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
|> > Bruce Varney) writes:
|> > 
|> >>In 1980, when the highest tax bracket was 70%, the top 10% of income 
|> >>earners in the US payed 46% of federal income taxes. The top bracket
|> >>was later reduced to 50%, and then to 28%. In 1990, the top 10% of
|> >>income earners in the US payed 53% of taxes.
|> > 
|> >>	The point here? Lowering taxes does NOT necc lead to less revenue.
|> >>In fact, in many instances it leads to INCREASED revenue. Why? Those who
|> >>were in the 70% bracket before did more to make money when the tax rates
|> >>were dropped, because they could keep more of it. Sure, the rich made a
|> >>bona fide killing in the 80's, but they also payed more taxes? They also
|> >>hired more people!! The reason that Reagan's two terms had the lowest
|> >>misery index for the last 40 years is because of the tax cuts that he
|> >>initiated. The economy is stifled by taxes. 

The reason Reagan's two terms had the lowest miserey
index was because the economy was fueled and miserey masked
by deficit spending.  If Reaganomics had worked, there would
be no continuing deficit.
|> _______________________________________________________________________________
|> Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
|> Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
|> Disclaimer:								   NOT!

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9186 alt.politics.bush:8268 alt.politics.elections:15722
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Debate panel
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:13:39 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

Four journalists will serve as panel in Sunday's debate.

	public television's Jim Lehrer
	ABC White House correspondent Ann Compton 
	Boston Globe's John Mashek
	former network correspondent Sander Vanocur, a freelance journalist.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:00:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.094212.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> 
|>      He talks about how easy it would be to compromise with
|> Congress -- I really wish that someone would have asked him
|> about his past unsuccessful dealings with the bureaucratic
|> GM establishment.  When he didn't get his way, back then, he 
|> "packed up his marbles and went home."
|> 
|>      C. Perttunen  
|> 

No, this is another misconception.  He was bought out.  Had no choice in
the matter.

He even told them not to buy him out.  That they couldn't afford to do
it.

Yet seven years later GM decides that he was right all along and they do
need to build quality cars.

Can this country wait even four years to decide that Perot is right
again.

It has taken 20 years for the govt to admit that he was right on the MIA
issue.

Doug
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8850 talk.politics.misc:49989 alt.activism:17244
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: MEXICO OPPOSES to [sic] 'Cuban "Democracy" Act'
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:57:50 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In <1992Oct6.212647.8336@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
>     IN A JOINT STATEMENT, MEXICO'S SIX POLITICAL PARTIES 
>represented in Congress unanimously condemned the Torricelli 
>Bill.  The joint statement emphasized the principles of 
>self-determination and non-interference in the affairs of other 
>countries.  The motion said the Torricelli Bill "is a step away 
>from international law" and "affects third countries," among them 
>Mexico by requiring U.S. subsidies abroad to comply with the 
>embargo.   

	Far from being the endorsment of Cuba that certain parties would wish
this to be, this is merley capitalist Mexico working a potential export market. 
When free trade comes, Mexico will need all the markets it can get in order to
increase it's share of the economic pie.

	Just another RunningDogCapitalistPig ExerciseInEconomicImperialism.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:13:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.183156.20911@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <BvvxIw.KM2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:

>>2.  If the unborn are legally considered persons, can expectant parents
>>claim their unborn child as a deduction on their IRS forms?

>I would really like to know the answer to this question, because if 
>this country ever is foolish enough to pass a Human-Life Amendment 
>inclusive of fetal life and marking the start of life as being 
>conception, I will go out and have about 50 eggs removed, get them 
>fertilized by a willing donor, and put our little darlings into 
>cold storage so that me and the donor can live happily ever after, 
>never paying another dime to the IRS.


There is no doubt that the IRS considers the beginning of life to be at
birth. If baby is born one second before mid-night on 12-31 you get a whole
year's worth of deductions. If baby is born one second later then you have to
wait intil next year for the deduction. 


Stan Knight
|Just hope that the IRS don't make all 50 of your eggs come to term!|
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: A First in Presidential Campaigns: Paying for Good Spin
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:43:44 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                        
 October 13, 1992                                    


                       YOU KNOW HE'S HURTING

       A First in Presidential Campaigns: Paying for Good Spin

     [Statement of Bob Boorstin, Deputy Communications Director]

      When it came to fanciful and bizarre campaign television ads, we
 thought we'd seen it all from the Bush campaign.

      But today's contribution adds new dimensions to the word
 desperate. You know you're really in trouble when you have to pay to
 try to convince people that you won a debate.

      Once he finishes paying for his spin, the ad turns back to what
 George Bush knows best: distorting Bill Clinton's plan.

      So at the risk of repeating ourselves -- and in contrast to what
 the citizens on the ad told the Bush cameras -- we repeat ourselves.

      Bill Clinton's plan will cut taxes on working families. The
 Clinton plan includes $60 billion over four years in middle class tax
 cuts and $12 billion in tax cuts for the working poor.

      Commenting on the Bush's campaign last ad to make such claims,
 The Wall Street Journal said, "...Mr. Clinton has proposed to cut
 taxes for the sort of [middle class] workers featured in the ad."
 [WSJ 10/2/92]

      George Bush and his admeisters can continue to talk about
 tax-and-spend. But that doesn't change the facts: the Clinton/Gore
 plan will cut $140 billion in federal spending, cut the deficit in
 half in four years, and give middle class families a tax cut of $300
 per child.

                             -- 30 --
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: ==> Send a Card To Rich Bond?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:46:25 GMT

In article <92288.205853U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
<U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
>is the opinion of UIC.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Postcards are now circulating containing the following text in part:
>
>Chairman Rich Bond
>Republican National Committee
>310 First Street, SE
>Washington, DC  20003
>
>
>Chairman Bond,
>
>I have had enough of the Republican Party's negative, personal
>attacks.  By waging such a campaign, you have shown little regard
>for the truth and little respect for the American people.
>
>As I am sending this message to you, I am also informing you that
>I will vote for Bill Clinton/Al Gore.  The Democratic Party and its
>campaign aimed, not at preying on people's fears, but at building on
>people's hopes.

     Petty personal attacks versus pretty smoke and fantasy images.

     Tough choice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8906 alt.politics.bush:8044 alt.politics.marrou:1469 alt.politics.correct:5628
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:05:02 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct5.201752.9280@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.183622.21613@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.162334.14459@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>Safe sex is only one thing...sex...it is not safe.
>>
>>Lordy.  Sex is still safer than driving a car to a supermarket. If 
>>your sex partners are uninfected, AIDS isn't going to spontaneously 
>>generate just because you're violating someone's subjective standard 
>>of morality.
>
>Ted, unsafe sex is still safer than driving a car to a supermarket.  

Precisely.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11027 alt.politics.bush:9518 alt.politics.perot:2297
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Perot's Method (was Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins!)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:16:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

In article <1992Oct16.134456.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
 
>> Yet seven years later GM decides that he was right all along and they do
>> need to build quality cars.

>     Perot wanted to "Saturnize" all of GM -- an idea which had
>its merits.  But, the problem was that he could not get GM
>management to bite on his ideas.  Similarly, Mr. Perot could
>have the best ideas in the world about how to "fix" the
>country, but he has to get Congress to bite.


Yes. Last night Perot gave a hint about how he might do that.
Namely he plans to invoke the media: if some congressman(-woman)
or group thereof throws a wrench in the workings of compromise
he would let the country know by name names loud and clear. An
interesting proposal.


Gregg



-- 
Gregg Jaeger    (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu)          VOTE PEROT  VOTE PEROT       
If you think the Republicans screwed up the country, can you afford to
see what the Democrats will do?!   ->BEWARE OF SLICK-WILLY CLINTON!!<-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10376 alt.politics.perot:2127 alt.politics.bush:9120
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Perot's Money
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:48:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

I often hear people have the following argument:

Since Perot is already so rich, he won't owe anything to anyone once
in office, except to the people who elected him. This is truly one of
the most fucked up arguement i have ever heard. "Regular" politicians
have something called their constituency. People that support them.
People that give them money to run their campaign. Sometimes these
people happen to big LARGE corporations with LOTS of money. Sometimes
private individuals with LOTS of money (such a Perot for example).
Sometimes Jo Bob (like you and me) who gives 50 bucks to help, or
volunteer for the campaign. Now, the candidates run on platforms,
programs and principles (tax cuts, pro-life, pro education this or
that etc etc...) If they're elected, they are expected to run on these
programs. They are also expected to serve ALL of the American people.

The idea that one has to "be worth" (what a disgusting expression) a
couple billion dollars to be considered honest or efficient or worth
being a presidential candidate is CRAZY.  Only 20 people in the US
could then run for President, and not only that, but i would bet all
their fortune put together that none of them is honest.

The -only- reason Ross Perot has had the exposure he had is because he
has a lot of money. Maybe you think that's justified. Certainly the
media does. A lot of people seem to think that too. When he came out,
he had no plan for the country, except the will to attack the federal
deficit and debt. Eliminating the debt should be one of the top three
priorities in the country, but it takes a lot more than just the will
to reduce the debt to be President. It takes knowledge about
law-making and international politics. It takes respect of the
constitution, and many other things.

Now don't flame me by saying that either Bush or Clinton have any of
the things i quoted above. They have some of them, and lack some of
them. This is not a plebiscite for either one of them. It's just
raising questions of how public life ought to be conducted, and how 
Perot got into the spotlight.

Benjamin
benjamin@ai.mit.edu

The opinions stated above are mine and only mine.

"I would like to welcome President Bush, Mrs Bush, and my fellow
Astronauts..."  J. Danforth Quayle.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot