HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: President Bush
Organization: Open Software Foundation
	<Oct.16.14.36.54.1992.7373@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
	<1bn82fINNk6n@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:30:02

skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that maybe GB doesn't want
> to win this election. Just a guess but is it posible that at 68 he really
> might just want to retire and spend time with his family.

I think it was telling when, answering the question about women candidates
he said that Barbara "could probably win this" (to paraphrase).  To me,
it sounded like someone who has already conceded.
--
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Three more months!  Three more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:38:04 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

purp@wixer.cactus.org (Jim Meyer) writes:
: 
: Why? It strikes me that a democratic Congress and a democratic President
: could do amazing things, rather than squabbling as the current
: Legilature and President have.

What worries some people is just what amazing things might occur with
a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President.

As far as change goes, I wouldn't mind "trying" a Democratic President
and a Republican Congress for a few years, and see what things get
past the gridlock.  ;)

Sometimes it's nice having different parties in "control" of different
branches of the government.  Granted, a lot of things might not get
done, but at least neither party can enact its Great Plan to Ruin the
Country.
--
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.clinton:9905 talk.politics.misc:51162
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:35:55 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) said..
>
>	The #4 reason to no elect you two clowns: we are not in a recession. 

Not in a recession?  Oh, you are very mistaken.  

Remember the "OOPS" graph in Perot's slideshow?

Or perhaps you didn't know that we're suffering from:

	- the slowest economic growth since Herbert Hoover
	- the smallest income gains since Herbert Hoover
	- the fewest new jobs created since Herbert Hoover
	- the first decline in new business incorporations since 1945
	- bankruptcies outnumbering new jobs 3-to-1
	- a loss of 1.2 million manufacturing jobs
	- a decline in real weekly earnings by 4% ($1600/year)
	- net loss in private sector jobs since Bush took office
	- a national debt that increases $12000 per second
	- one-out-of-ten people on food stamps
	- education spending that doesn't even keep up with inflation
	  (and inflation is low)
	- 100,000 people per month losing health care
	- 410,000 people filing for unemployment last month ALONE

This list, much like the energizer rabbit, keeps going and going and going..

Allan
[documentation available for each of those facts]
-- 
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.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 06:20:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.161243.18291@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>I see.  Does that mean that I (a heterosexual) can call you queer?  
>Or is it like that black thing where blacks can call other blacks 
>nigger, but whites cannot?

I can't speak for the original poster, but I don't give a damn what
you call me.  Of course, I assume that when you call lesbigay people
queers, you think it's an insult.  Guess what?  We don't care.

>Why are homosexuals so heterophobic?

Sure.  You give me one example when young gay men or lesbian women
hang outside hetero bars and attack hetero couples calling them
"fucking breeders" and I'll be willing to talk about heterophobia.
Until then, you're just blowing hot air.  

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10953 alt.politics.elections:17278 talk.politics.misc:52409
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 16 Oct 1992 15:08:19 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <92289.153145SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu> <SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1bk6bvINN20u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) says:

>>I have passed out over two-thousand copies of the Clinton Plan "FREE".
>>
>
>"FREE"  Bullshit.  I pay taxes.  Therefore I PAID for the damned thing.
>

I got one copy of the plan payed out of MY pocket almost 200.00 in
printing cost, made my own posters and advertisments and deliver them
to people on MY time in MY car. I am not payed one cent by the C/G
campaign. Unless you sent me a check you didn't pay for squat !

I also have videotape copies of all of Bill Clintons speeches all
bought and payed for by "guess who" me, I have distributed them to 
undecided voters all across the Houston area. 

I also have reg. 92 new people to vote.

So what have you done for you Country lately ???


 
-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9949 alt.politics.bush:8794 alt.politics.elections:16335
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 12 Oct 1992 22:56:00 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <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.
>> 
>> 
>> Kelly Burns
>> Burns@ipfwcvax
>> Burns@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu
>> 
>> --
>>    The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>>      North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>>         Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>>            internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
>
>
>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.
>I know a lot of you will say that he is, if the answers are honest, why do
>they keep changing??
>
>Ken

Answers are more likely to seem to change when someone is telling the truth
then when they are lying. When someone is lying, he or she reherses the lie.
Thus the lie can be repeated with great accuracy. When someone is telling
the truth they don't have to reherse. Instead they tend to trust their 
memory. Thus they remember different aspects of an event, particularly
when it was long ago.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer




Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9722 alt.politics.bush:8639 talk.politics.misc:50914 alt.sex:32665 sci.skeptic:17786
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
Subject: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <21098@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>The question is, would you have sex with someone you know has AIDS, and trust
>your life to a condom?  Do you teach your kids "I know you're little more than
>a rabbit, here, have a condom"?  Isn't the big push toward "safe" sex a
>little like saying if you play Russian roulette with only one round in the
>chamber it's safer than playing it with six?  Since the failure rate of
>condoms is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-30%, isn't continuing to
>condone "playing around" about the same as condoning Russian roulette? 

Only if sex were as consistently fatal as being shot in the temple.
It isn't.  You can't get HIV from someone who isn't infected with it.
The chances of transmission if someone is infected with it is
remarkably small.  And, finally, once you start cutting off risk
groups, the percentage of people actually infected with HIV is also
minimal.

Brad, you're posting from North Dakota.  Do you know how many people have
ever gotten AIDS in North Dakota?  I'd be surprised if it were in 
triple digits.  My guess is, over the last ten years, a couple of dozen
at most.

Now, let's look at the 15%-30% number.  The highest number I've seen for
failure rates of condoms is 10%.  And that 10% is the probability of
a pregnancy with the use of condoms over a year.  So, in the context of
this study, we're talking about a 1% failure rate at most.  And it's almost
certainly an overestimate, because the study that came up with the
number of 10% included couples in the "condom" category that only used
condoms sometimes, or in conjunction with the rhythm method.  (And it
includes couples who didn't use condoms properly, may not have stored
them properly, etc.)  A properly used latex condom will fail far less 
often than 1% of the time.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:24:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.065620.27314@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>The Presidency is *not* an on-the-job learning experience.
>
>Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   

Anyone else notice this contradiction?  

If you really mean what you say here, you have no choice but to vote 
for Bush (or Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon).

Or did you mean that Clinton won't learn anything while in office?
(that must be it!)



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10125 alt.politics.bush:8937 alt.politics.elections:16499
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:22:10
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu>
	<MATT.92Oct12130546@physics.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct13.104124.4911@iti.org>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: aws@iti.org's message of Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:41:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.104124.4911@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

> >What questions are there to answer?  Clinton went sightseeing in
> >Europe during his Christmas vacation, and one of the places his tour
> >went to was Moscow.  
> 
> Well there is a bit more to it than that. Several independant and very
> liberal people (hardly Bush supporters) say that Clinton organized anti-
> US protests there.

  (1) Clinton has never organized anti-American protests anywhere.
      Clinton is an intelligent man, and he is able to tell the 
      difference between opposition to the Vietnam War and hating his
      country.  Are you?
  (2) Clinton never participated in anti-war demonstrations in Moscow---
      that charge is not only false, but also absurd.
  (3) Mentioning Clinton's tourism in Moscow at the same time that 
      you mention his anti-war activities is, at best, deceptive.  At best,
      someone who does this has fallen for the Bush deception, intended
      to create the impression that there is a connection.  At worst, it
      means that they are participating in that deception, and trying 
      to spread nasty insinuations of disloyalty without quite coming
      out and lying.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: King George in King's Show...
Date: 8 Oct 1992 14:52:37 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	Mr Bush was in  Larry King Shaw yesterday (well, all of us know
that).  There were few questions from Larry and couple of "people".  In
his part Larry asked whether Mr Bush would  go on a bus trip around the
country, if he is elected. Mr Bush said "NO". The reason he pointed out
was too funny for me.  "I am the President. I wouldn't go on a bus trip",
(paraphased) he replied.  The Bush supporters cheered for the answer of
Mr Bush.  In his earlier  show with Larry King on  Sunday the reason he 
forwarded for not taking questions from the White House was 'the dignity 
of the White House'.  I have a question here.  Place in the White House 
democartic process.  President is not King, right?  

	To another  question about  his "tax evasion", Mr Bush  angrily
responded.  He called  names (left wingers at  Maine and more..) in his
reply to refer to the critics.  Someone asked Mr Bush about Iran-Contra.
He referred to that person, part of a Clinton campaign team. Hey, where
can we find the dignity of the President?

V:
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9629 alt.politics.bush:8569 alt.politics.elections:16033
From: Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot Papers and Speeches
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:58:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


I would like to know if anyone knows of an ftp port to get Perot papers
and speeches.  Please reply to the net or privately.

Kelly Burns
Burns@ipfwcvax
Burns@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:30:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.094552.16820@montagar.com>, davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> > |> >|> Not allowing deficit spending for any reasn is a bad idea.
> 
> 	I agree with this.  Companies do this all the time.  But as in
> another post, the Fed deficit spends in good times, as well as the bad :-(  
 
On the contrary, most medium and large companies carry some debt (with the
exception of some high-growth companies like Microsoft).  In fact, it's
almost impossible to grow a large business in this day and age without the
proper use of debt here and there.  Very few companies have such good cash
flow that they can avoid that.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9840 alt.politics.bush:8711 talk.politics.misc:51069 alt.sex:32733 sci.skeptic:17815
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:00:24 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <11OCT199212142038@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.174506.26506@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>>In article <21098@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>Only if sex were as consistently fatal as being shot in the temple.
>>It isn't.  You can't get HIV from someone who isn't infected with it.
>>The chances of transmission if someone is infected with it is
>>remarkably small.  And, finally, once you start cutting off risk
>> 
>
>You are almost exactly right.  The total number of AIDS cases in North Dakota
>reported to the CDC is 25.  It has the lowest AIDS rate of any state in the
>U.S.  There were only 5 new cases from July 1990 to June 1991 and only 1
>new case from July 1991 to June 1992 (0.2 cases per 100,000 population).

Yes, and it seems there's a real, physiological reason for it. According
to the following excerpt from an abstract of a recent paper by Dr. Sabin,
inventor of the oral Polio vaccine, one of the problems in making an
AIDS vaccine involves the way that HIV-infected cells from an infected
partner find a nice place to "nest" in the rectum. This doesn't happen
in vaginal intercourse, which is why the infection rate among 
heterosexuals is much, much lower. (The complete abstract is on
"sci.med.aids").


SABIN AB.

IMPROBABILITY OF EFFECTIVE VACCINATION AGAINST HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY
VIRUS BECAUSE OF ITS INTRACELLULAR TRANSMISSION AND RECTAL PORTAL OF 
ENTRY.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, 1992 SEP 15, V89 N18:8852-8855.     

ABSTRACT: (excerpt)
 Excluding direct introduction of HIV into the 
bloodstream, the most common and efficient form of transmission is by 
receptive anal intercourse, and semen contains large number of infected 
cells per milliliter. Recent reports showing that colorectal cells can 
be persistently infected by HIV and that HIV RNA and cDNA are present in 
the cells of the colon of dead AIDS patients indicated that either 
cell-free or intracellular HIV has the capacity to multiply at the 
portal of entry in the colorectal area without interference from 
neutralizing antibodies. 


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: We will not back down
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:01:08 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
: -vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
: ->"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
: -> a Fools heart to the Left."
: -Bush, being left-handed, must be just as much a fool :-)
: -Are British and Japanese drivers foolish?
: -Dick Schofield is a wiser hitter than Ted Williams?
: Hey, does that mean that ambidextrous people are just plain confused? :)

Now, now.  Let's not get carried away here.  We all know that ambidextrous
people are the only truly balanced folks around.  Also, with the exception
of GHWB, left-handed people are the only ones in their right minds.  :)

--
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
From: hedges@pilot.njin.net (Douglas Hedges)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: C-SPAN POST-DEBATE POLL
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:26:44 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:

 [ deleted ]

>I noticed the same thing, so I began a tally.  As it turns out,
>callers were in favor of Perot by a 2:1 margin over either
>Bush or Clinton.  Roughly 25 calls were for Perot while Clinton
>and Bush got about 10 a piece.  Marou got 2 and 5 or 6 were
>still undecided...interesting...

>Does this say something about C-SPAN watchers or does it say
>something else?

I speculate that it's the former; they're a self-selected group
that populate the call-in portion of their shows.  What struck
me about their comments during the call-in (and many others
I've heard and read) was how Perot was seen as folksy, honest,
a straight-shooter, candid, and natural compared to Clinton and
Bush.  I guess many of these callers are unaware or choose to ignore
the fact that Perot was for years a top IBM salesman.
When he left to form EDS he carried on in that capacity to build
accounts.  In short, he's a compliance professional.  Their
job is to build rapport and trust with clients in order to
close a sale.  Perot has always claimed that it's the people
that want him to run.  Any salesman will tell you that the
first job of selling is to make the customer believe that
it's their idea.  Overall, with respect to how Perot is
perceived, he's no different than Ronald Reagan.  Both
are consummate actors.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10859 alt.politics.bush:9438 alt.politics.elections:17228
From: keithd@versyss.com (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Distribution: usa
Organization: VERSYSS Incorporated, Torrance, California

In article <1992Oct13.143655.28330@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Irrelevant. What he did isn't a big deal. What IS a big deal is the fact
>that he felt he had to lie about it today.
>
>Whenever anything bad comes up be it J. Flowers, the draft, negative
>statements about Perot, activities in Europe or whatever Clinton's first
>instictive reaction is to lie about and then call his accuser names.
>
>This personality trait brought Nixon down, I wonder how Clinton will
>fare?

All Presidents lie.  What I consider is in Clinton's *favor* is that he is
not yet all that good at it.  Bush on the other hand, has worked plausible 
deniability and deniable responsibility into an art form.

Keith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,alt.sex