HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:40:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.101045.26142@dbsun.uucp> harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.060145.3594@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes

...
>In contrast, G. Bush grew up as the priveleged son of millionaire
>senator Prescott Bush, R-CT.  I'm sure George didn't have to flip
>burgers to earn tuition money.  And when it came time for George
>to go out into the real world, P. Bush gave him $300,000 to get
>started in the oil business.  I believe CNN said that would be
>about $2-$3 million in 1992 dollars.
>
>Of course GHWB is carrying on the tradition.  Unfortunately, George
>decided to use _our_ money to get son Neil started in the business.
>The taxpayers were soaked in the amount of $2.5 million on his second
>venture, Apex Energy.  We may never know the real cost of his
>involvement in Silverado S&L.  Now Neil is VP of Finance for a Houston
>cable TV company.  Gee, do you suppose that had anything to do with
>dad's veto of the cable regulation bill? :-)
>
the S&L bailout was hardly the sole work of George Bush. You make it sound
like it was all just one big scheme of his to fund his son.
As far as the cable bill, Maybe he just thinks that cable-
which is a luxury- shouldn't have price controls. price controls are
extreme measures to be used on necessities, not luxuries. 
If you disagree with Bush's policies, you should criticize specific actions
rather than making unsubstantiated claims.
Besides that, I don't see what this ridiculous argument about who had more
money has to do with anything. The fact is that one has to be rich in order
run for president.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Attacked by the Bootstraps
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:27:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.123642.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>The Commie fools of Legislature overrode Bush's veto, and so now the cable
>industry is regulated. Apparently ccable T.V. is the right of every citizen,
>and therefore it is wrong for anyone to charge exorbitant prices sonce its a
>"monoply".

I've known commies.  These are no commies.

>What hogwash. If you complain that the industry is a monopoly and prices should
>be lower, you don't use government as muscle to extort at gunpoint lower prices
>from people who provide you with the service-- if the prices are too high, you
>set up shop yourself and break the goddamn monopoly!!! "But that discrimantes
>against the poor." NO IT DOESN'T. It discriminates against the
>brainless little twits with no motivation! Why should they deserve the same
>rewards as intelligent hardworkers?
>Disclaimers. Disclaimers

A few weeks ago I was discussing my former experience with
libertarianism with a .net.acquaintence.  I told him that
one of points that I got tired of arguing over was the
belief of some ideologically absurd libertarians that
if you don't like <X> then you can start your own <X> company;
such as, if you don't like American cars, start your
own car company.  He didn't believe that there are actually
believe this.

Unfortunately, I don't have his e-mail address; I hope he's
reading this group.  See, I wasn't kidding.

What's next:  if you don't like the way that the HIV
virus is spreading, start your own new species?

>"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
> a Fools heart to the Left."
>                      --Ecclesiastes 10:2

This must be why all the left-handed people in my
Catholic school were forced to write right-handed.

>		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard- ARCH Conservative)


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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush in Fantasy Land
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:52:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.151720.27511@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>
>I couldn't beleive it when I turn on the TV last night and saw Bush seriously
>suggesting that Clinton went to Moscow as a 22 year-old student and organized
>a demonstration aginst US involvement in Indo-China.  The only people who
>could organize demonstrations in the USSR, at that time, were those appointed
>to do so by the Soviet government.  Anyone else trying to organize a
>demonstration would be arrested.  That was made perfectly clear when I visited
>the Soviet Union in the Andropov era.

Ah, that's the clincher!  He is a KGB spy!  Where's Maxwell Smart when
you need him?



--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Re: Rep. Bob Dornan (CA-R)
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:11:32 GMT

In article <BvtFL4.JMG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David 
Bell) writes:
> I hear this guy is running for reelection this time around.
> 
> Who is he running against?  
> What are the latest polls?  
> How do I send money to his opponent?  

He represents one of the most conservative districts in the country.  He 
is a virtual shoe-in.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8784 alt.politics.elections:16311 alt.politics.perot:2011
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:24:15 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> 
>     I supported Ross Perot, and I wanted to vote for him in November.  But that
> does not take away from the fact that Bill Clinton will win what quite possibly
> could be the largest victory over a sitting President in American history.

Let's be serious, the defeat couldn't be as bad as the Carter defeat. A defeat
so bad that Carter was stupid enought to concede before the polls close on
the west coast!!!!

Ken




> 
>     Polls are now showing Clinton with about a 16 point lead going into the
> debates, and really the only way that Bush can win the election is for the
> Republicans to come out with a "smoking bimbo" and destroy Clinton
> instantaneously.
> 
>     This election will end with much turnover, and it will start at the top.  I
> still believe that Ross Perot has the best ideas, but I no longer believe he
> can win.  I believe that the voting, at this point, shall turn into no more
> than a mere formality of what we have been seeing over the course of the last 8
> weeks; Clinton with sizable leads nearly everywhere.
> 
>     When all the votes are counted, Clinton will win, Bush will lose, and Perot
> will have wasted his time.  I'd say it may be in Perot's best interests not to
> bother going on with what the Americans voters now see is a charade.
> 
>     This IS NOT a Clinton endorsement; just a statement of political reality. 
> Bill Clinton, with a Democratic Congress, scares me, but I know now that that
> is probably what we are going to have for the next four years.
> 
>     Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.
> 
> 						Mike Falkner
> 						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8436 alt.politics.clinton:9422 alt.politics.elections:15885
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:18:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa

jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske) writes:

>Me too.  Can you believe that this county elected Uncle Ronny twice, and
>Bush once (never to be twice)?  

Sure, the majority of the country is wrong, misguided, and gullible.
And of course, you are in the right! 

>John Ganske
				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8751 alt.politics.clinton:9894 alt.politics.elections:16265
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:39:41 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct12.050859.10782@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>There will be ice floes on the River Styx if Clinton becomes President.

Nah, that's Cocytus, fourth river of Hell, running through the 9th circle.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8888 alt.politics.clinton:10068
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pandering, both ways, level with American people, etc...
Date: 13 Oct 1992 14:26:35 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu said..
>mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>
>>   Mr. Bush, no matter how you answer, I will not be satisfied. 
>
>     After filtering out all the verbiage, we are left with the
>statement given above.  Doesn't this say it all?

You missed the whole point; I guess you're not one for sarcasm.  This 
(completely ignoring your opponent's _real_ stance, and creating straw-man
arguments instead) is precisely what the Bush crew is doing, especially 
Charles Black and their attack-bitch Mary Matalin.  No matter what is said 
by Clinton, they just keep repeating.. "come clean.. level.. come clean.."

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.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: styrins@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Stephen Styring)
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:17:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.043550.7425@sma2.rain.com> fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks) writes:
>A check of the passport records for Bill Clinton for the 69-70 time period
>has revealed that the pages for that period are missing from the state
>department records. The FBI is looking into this matter now.
>I wonder who has them?


AS if....



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)dir
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:25:13 GMT

In article <2AD4CE77.4531@news.service.uci.edu>, jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.193609.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
> 
>>Could you come down from your pedestal of arrogance,
> 
> Now, if this ain't an example of do as I say not as I do 
> I don't know what is.

I'm only arrogant because I am always right. It only takes people a little
while to understand my genius. This is why liberals have a very hard time
understanding Conservatives.  

Consider this one a gift people. Enjoy flaming this one!

"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
 a Fools heart to the Left."
                      --Ecclesiastes 10:2
--A far better lesson

		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard- ARCH Conservative)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9513 alt.politics.clinton:11015 alt.politics.elections:17339
From: watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:20:24 GMT

shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:

>Something else is interesting about this issue.  Exactly why was
>Clinton opposed to the war then ...

Because it was STOOPID to take on the Vietnamese, as the
Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, and French could have told you
(most people at the Pentagon would probably agree, now).

>-- 
>Roger Shouse
>The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Especially stupid when they were backed by China, 
a safe (America didn't want to nuke China) logistic base.
China is a lot closer to North Vietnam than
the US is to South Vietnam.

-Larry Watanabe

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: That Pesky $4 Trillion Debt!
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:14:24 GMT

In article <92289.141356JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct15.043121.862@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
>weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) says:
>>
>>When that democratic president was then in office, there was also a
>>democratic congress. This is widely quoted as a reason why a democratic
>>congress and a democratic president are a *REALLY* bad idea. When a
>>Republican president took office, things improved.
>
>Funny, I don't remember that the country was $4 trillion in the hole when
>we had a Democratic President and Democratic Congress.  Guess we need a
>Republican President to *really* crank-up the spending!
>

Weren't the first 2 years of the Republican President with a Republic
Congress???  (1980-1982)



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: inde788@Jane.UH.EDU (Ashish Parikh)
Subject: Who is the moderator for the debate finale on Monday?
Reply-To: inde788@Jane.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:38:18 GMT

 I am wondering about the moderator and panel of reporters on
 Monday's debate? On VP debate and 2nd Presidential debate we
 had ABC News reporters as the moderators.  Who selects them?
 are CNN, NBC, CBS People not interested? 

 Just wondering........





Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen)
Subject: Re: cable tv
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:55:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Oct6.173048.16604@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:

>4) lets consumers buy pay-per-view and premium channels
>   with only basic service (i thought this was standard anyway)

My understanding of the bill is that consumers will be allowed to buy
pay-per-view and premium services WITHOUT paying for basic service (a la
carte style).

>5) gives local TV stations the power to charge cable companies
>   for rebroadcasting their signals.

Unless there is consent on the part of local broadcasters to allow cable
companies to retransmit.

>we have no right to good tv service. we have no right to 
>good tv. we have no right to tv. if you don't want the 
>particular cable company that your area provides to service 
>your home, no one makes you pay for it. if you don't like 
>what's on, turn it off.

But the only alternative in most cases for decent reception is
local cable.

--
James B. Hansen                                  {sun,uunet}!convex!jhansen
CONVEX Computer Corporation                              jhansen@convex.com
3000 Waterview Parkway, P. O. Box 833851
Richardson, TX 75083-3851                              Phone: (214)497-4802
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.184104.732@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>On a side note, several pro-choice women on talk.abortion 
>have been viciously attacked by radical pro-choicers for 
>their support or non-opposition to third-trimester abortion 
>restrictions. I wonder why these radical pro-choicers rarely 
>attack men (such as yourself) who express the same opinion? 

Hey Doug, you sexist wimp. I just did call Stan on his opinion.
Or do I, as a non-white woman, not count?
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Right to health care?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:14:03 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov writes:

: >I have a *major* problem with insurance companies "dropping" a person, or
: >not insuring them in the first place because of "pre-existing conditions".
: >This option is getting abused especially with the genetic testing available
: >nowdays..."we can't insure you because you have a genetic pre-disposition
: >for heart problems...". 
: 
: I agree.  Those people had no choice in acquiring those diseases.

You said a key word there -- "choice."  Currently in the US, health care
is not a recognized right.  Health insurance providers offer a service,
but that service comes at a price: the provider wants to make a profit.
That's capitalism in action.

Since health insurance providers are frequently private companies, they
(IMHO) are entitled to pick and choose who they will provide service
to.   A private company has the right to not accept a potential client
if it feels that doing so is likely to lose the company money.  I don't
*like* pre-existing conditions clauses, and they have been abused in 
the past, but a private company IS entitled to protect itself from losses.

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

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9493 alt.politics.perot:2286 alt.politics.clinton:10988
From: mwaa+@andrew.cmu.edu (Matthew S. Weiss)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:08:15 GMT
	<Bw7vMB.1L2.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Doctoral student, History, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Nonsense.  Bush obviously didn't want to touch character and he actually
>steered around it himself with the stuff about his father and duty to 
>country.
 
Good God, you are deluded.  All of the pre and post-debate spin from the
Bush camp was centered on character.  Did you see Nightline?  Bush's
spin-doctor actually tried to claim that Bush scored points with the
character issue!  Meanwhile, the ABC audience resonse focus group showed
that the audience was consistently turned off by Bush's attacks.  

Both ABC and CBS, in post-debate polls, indicated that the viewing
audience found Clinton's performance to be the best by a 25% margin. 
Additionally, Gallup/CNN/USA Today polls indicate that 79% of the
respondents believe that the attacks on Clinton's draft record and his
integrity will not influence them to vote against him.  Further, the
remaining 21% was composed almost entirely of those predisposed to vote
for the President anyway.  

Now, I'm sure you'll tell me that the polls lie, but let me ask you
this--how quick would you be to disavow them if they showed Bush ahead. 
Also, if they're so inaccurate, how come they so correctly predicted
Reagan and Bush landslides.  

But okay, okay.  If you want to insist that Bush won, I guess, in your
mind, he did.  I'm willing to admit I'm ragingly partisan.  Still, it
seems that much of the country agrees with this position.  Spin all you
want, man.  Spin like a top.  It'll be tough to spin a loss into a
victory on Nov. 4.  The unprincipled, opportunistic, elitist,
fear-mongering politics of Reagan/Bush/Quayle are being rejected--it's
happening everywhere--not just with fuzzy-headed liberals like m'self. 
Unless you've got some 80s-style insider information on the election,
I'd have to say that the sooner you start getting used to it, the less
it'll hurt when that loathesome son of a bitch gets his pink slip.
From: storm@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Marilyn Quayle
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:57:55 GMT
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada


You know, after seeing Marilyn Quayle for the first time in my life, only
one thing comes to mind:

She looks like a cross between Mr. Ed and Mary Tyler Moore.



Toodlepip!
Marc 'em
-- 
  storm@cs.mcgill.ca           McGill University         C program run.  Run  
  Marc Wandschneider           Montreal, CANADA          Program run! PLEASE!
    The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
              regarded as a criminal offense.  -- E. W. Dijkstra
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8413 alt.politics.perot:1928
From: kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.pclinton,alt.politics
Subject: VOTE FOR ONE OF THE THREE CANDIDATES PARTICIPATING IN DEBATE B-4 DEBATE!!
Summary: Poll on pres. candidates
Keywords: poll,clinton,perot,bush,vote,debate
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:28:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

Pre-Debate, Pre-Election POLL of USENET READERS!
VOTE for one of the candidates participating in this Sunday's debate.

Overall for President:  _ Bush         Education:          _ Bush
                        _ Clinton                          _ Clinton
                        _ Perot                            _ Perot

Economic:               _ Bush         Job Creation:       _ Bush
                        _ Clinton                          _ Clinton
                        _ Perot                            _ Perot

Leadership:             _ Bush         Patriotic:          _ Bush
                        _ Clinton                          _ Clinton
                        _ Perot                            _ Perot

Trustworthy:            _ Bush
                        _ Clinton
                        _ Perot

Addresses Real Problems:_ Bush
                        _ Clinton
                        _ Perot


------------------------------------------------------------
Please Answer some of these demographic questions:
Age:
Sex:
Could the debate change your mind (y/n)?
Strongly Committed to a candidate:
(Please answer y/n)
Read Perot's Book:
Read Clinton's Strategy:
Read Bushes Lips:

--------------------------------------------------------------
I will post results after Sunday's debate:
-- 
Ken Waletzki Consulting, 2525 Arapahoe #E4-107, Boulder, Colorado  80302
303-494-8953, email kenw@csn.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh