HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:38:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.163501.4938@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.150845.10882@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>>
>>Gore did vote for the Carribean Basin Initiative according to his own 
>>campaign manager.  To be fair, Quayle voted for it in 1983, but it was a 
>>somewhat different program back then and had wide Democratic support.  So 
>>Gore effectively lied.  (Quayle was never asked if he voted for it.)
>
>CNN reported this morning that Gore voted against final approval of the
>bill, or words to that effect.  So, although he might have at one time
>supported an earlier version of it (they didn't say), in the vote that
>counted he voted against it.  Gore was right.

From what they reported on Nightline, I thought it was the other way
around.  Gore voted twice against CBI in the early eighties, but when it
was included in a large legislative package in 1990, he voted for it.  So
the argument would now have to be - If one part of a large bill is
detremental to the US worker, do you stand up and vote against it, or vote
for the bill in order to get the pork tied in with the rest of the
legislation?

>>I looked at page 304 in Gore's book.  Quayle was right.
>
>CNN also reported this morning that the $100 billion figure on page 304
>refers to the cost of the World War II Marshal Plan, not Gore's
>environmental "Marshal" plan.  Gore was right.

But I thought Gore used "Marshal Plan" in the context that we should
dedicate the same amount of resources today on an environmental "Marshal(l?)
Plan" as we did on the WWII Marshal(l?) Plan.

On this point of Gore's book, what's the facts behind Gore's late mentor's
(name?) criticisms of the scientific objectivity of the book.  I thought
this part of the debate was interesting, with the audience booing and
hissing at Gore's explanation that the family retracted the criticism.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:01:46 GMT

vsg001@acad.drake.edu wrote:
: In article <1992Oct2.033931.24538@u.washington.edu>, olshen@biostat.washington.edu (Adam Olshen) writes:
: > In article <1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
: >> How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country? 
: > 
: > Were we attacked?  If so, I missed it.
: > 
	<much deleted>
: 
: Hmm... Adam, buddy, I think you completely missed the point. You see, the
: United States hasn't been invaded since the Spanish American war... what I was
: talking about OBVIOUSLY is Clinton's DODGING OF THE DRAFT! In your 24 years, do
: you remember Vietnam? That's right, we had a WAR in the sixties, that Mr.
: Clinton seemed to have convienlently missed. That is what I was referring to.

Hmm..  Vince, buddy, I think you completely missed the point.  You implied
Clinton was afraid to defend his country.  We cannot infer anything of the
kind from his unwillingness to fight in Vietnam.  Our country was in no
way threatened with invasion by North Vietnam, so I don't know how you
could call what we did in Vietnam defense of our country.  And I don't 
think it was even legally a war.. I was under the impression we never did
declare war on North Vietnam, it was another of our famous police actions.

: Here endith the lesson.
: 		--VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
:  
HERE endeth the lesson.

Dave S.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: Debates Before Live Studio Audiences
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:49:53 GMT

I agree.  I think a live audience turns the debates into
a pep rally instead of making the candidates stand their 
own rhetorical ground and back up their statements. 
The audience allowed Quayle and Gore to drop back into
their 'own herd' mentatility that made them unable to 
stick with the topic(s) proposed by the moderator.

I think Quayle dodged the questions more often
than answering them by bringing up the typical 
assaults on Clinton.  More often than not he changed
the subject and didn't even try and have a real debate.
Gore was debate ready and did his job but he dropped 
the ball a couple of times.

I would prefer this format for the Presidential debates
with a couple of changes.

1) no audience
2) longer discussion periods
3) stronger moderator presence
   (could be the best application for those super-soakers)
    I could imagine it now, the first time Bush wouldn't 
    shut up and allow Perot or Clinton to finish their point,
     the moderator would begin hosing him down only to be
    strangled and dragged from the room with his tongue by
    the Secret Service to be feed to Bush's dog in the White House.

--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: McPoll 10/8
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:31:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T


Latest daily tracking poll from USA Today/CNN:

	Clinton 47,  Bush 35,   Perot 10

The numbers have been more or less constant over the past week.

The interesting part was how weak Perot's support is:

                                   Clinton      Bush         Perot
would definitely vote for:            33          22            2
would definitely not vote for:        26          48           70

So while 10% say they support Perot now, only 2% are sure that they will
Nov. 3.

Another way of looking at these numbers:

                                   Clinton      Bush         Perot
% of support definite:               70          63           20
% of non-support definite:           49          84           85

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:27:01 EDT
From: Windsor A. Morgan <NHT@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: electoral college question
 <1992Oct13.115534.4314@athena.mit.edu>

In article <1992Oct13.115534.4314@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu
(William December Starr) says:

>In article <1bd2d7INNn0q@eagle.natinst.com>,
>chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) said:

>> What is required for a presidential candidate to win a state.  Do

>Texas and just about every other state run on a winner-take-all
>system, wherein the person who gets the most votes -- whether it's a
>majority or not -- gets all of the state's electors.

>I say "just about every state" because I have a vague memory -- and
>I'm ashamed that I don't know this one's true-or-false value for
>certain -- that there's one renegade state, one of the smaller ones
>(Maine?), that tries to awards its electors on a basis that's
>proportional to the popular vote within the state.

Both Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes in this fashion:  Whoever
wins a congressional district wins that district's electoral vote.
Whoever wins the entire state over all wins the two remaining electoral
votes.  This is a sensible way to go, in my opinion.
'Verily, there be no leader as wise as the Vision!'
                         Windsor Morgan (wmorgan@stsci.edu OR NHT@PSUVM.BITNET)
                         Space Telescope Science Institute
                         Baltimore, MD   21218
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: AL GORE - The man with too many faces
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:40:18 GMT
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

>Did you know that Al Gore use to be PRO-LIFE....
>Now all of a sudden he is in the race for the VP slot.
>Gee, I think that there is something fishy going on here....
>Corrupt Politicians will pay someday!
>
>Jeff E

All BLATANT LIARS, like you Jeff and your hero GHHB,
  will pay someday.
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: drug wars (was re: VP debates)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 10:06:23 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Oct15.113548.59731@cc.usu.edu> fajack@cc.usu.edu writes:
> (Dave Sill) writes:
>

>But there is a very major difference between drugs and alcohol.  You
>will get addicted to drugs very quickly.  Occasionally, I'll have a
>beer or two, and never touch it again for maybe over a month.  But I
>don't think I could say the same for drugs.  From what I heard, after
>you have it the first time, you just crave for more.  You just cannot
>compare the two.

People get addicted to alcohol, some very quickly, some it takes longer,
some people will never get addicted.  But there are lots of people
addicted to alcohol.

I know people who smoke marijuana occasionally and never touch it
again for maybe over a month.  I know people who would use cocain
once in a while (like when they had a little extra money).  The idea
that you get addicted the first time you try a drug is rediculous
for most drugs - including alcohol.
-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16461 talk.politics.misc:51374
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Where you protest" -- a cultural chasm
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:33:35 GMT
	<1992Oct8.202316.4532@u.washington.edu>
	<1992Oct12.150446.14325@anasazi.com>
	<1992Oct12.211211.25056@athena.mit.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 21:12:11 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|> Nor were you in a foreign country. THAT is the issue (as Bush has
|> clearly stated). If you want to protest US policy in the US, fine,
|> go to it and there's nothing wrong with it. When you take it
|> overseas, during the middle of a war, it is wrong and goes against
|> 200 years of American tradition.  It's the same principle as a
|> family dispute... you don't do it in the shopping mall.

|What I'm seeing here is a cultural or ideological chasm of mind-
|boggling proportions, with Bush and others, including John Moore, on
|one side and (I assume) Clinton and others, including me, on the
|other.  Our outlooks on this subject are so different that it's almost
|as if we have no common reference points for communication.

Personally, I'm not sure Bush really believes this.

In fact--and this is more important than my cynical opinion--I'm not
sure many folx think he believes it.

Further, that is Bush's problem (in terms of perception):  no one
tbelieves that he believes anything.

*That* is one reason why this stuff backfires.  The other is:

|To Bush and Moore, it's a matter of faith that you don't protest
|against your country's policies outside your country -- something so
|obvious that it virtually goers without saying.  But Clinton and I
|have no such tenet, no such axiom in our philosophies, and we can't
|even see where it comes from.  First of all, I, at least, was never
|even aware of this particular "American tradition," despite nearly
|thirty-five years of living here and a pretty good education.
|Secondly, even if this is a tradition, is there any rational reason
|for it?  (To me, it looks like a "But we've always done it this way!"
|type of thing.)  

Tradition is the *worst* reason for doing anything.

|And thirdly, even if it is a tradition and one that
|made sense throughout American history up to the 1960s, did it still
|make sense in a time when America's "family disputes" were hardly
|secrets overseas, when riots and protests in major American cities
|were being shown on the evening news around the world the same day
|that they happened?

Good point.
--
Peace.
         "It's rural America.  It's where I came from.  
          We always refer to ourselves as real America.  
          Rural America, real America, real, real, America."
                      -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: Clinton-HQ@campaign92.org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: CLINTON: C/G MAYORS OF FIVE MAJOR CITIES SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:33:20 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                          
 OCTOBER 16, 1992                                      

        MAYORS OF FIVE MAJOR CITIES SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON
   PRESIDENT BUSH'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NATION'S MAYORS AND CITIES

 Mayors of five major cities called on George Bush today to make good
 on his rhetoric and meet to discuss economic problems with the mayors
 of the nations's big cities.

 The mayors took exception to George Bush's remark during the first
 presidential debate that "the mayors of the big cities...came to me,
 and they unanimously said the decline in urban American stems from
 the decline in the American family."

 The five mayors  --  Raymond Flynn of Boston,  Richard Daley of
 Chicago, Michael White of Cleveland,  Jerry Abramson of Louisville,
 and Norm Rice of Seattle  -- noted that since George Bush has been in
 office, the U.S. Conference of Mayors invited President Bush on six
 occasions to address the mayors of the nation's largest cities.  On
 only one occasion, in January 1990 did President Bush agree to
 address the mayors.  He has declined all invitations since 1990.  If
 substantive meetings were held, the mayors said they would want to
 discuss hard economic problems, not family values.

 "The White House has shut the door in the face of America's mayors in
 its refusal to meet with the mayors to discuss the recession," Flynn
 said.  "The fact that we have double-digit unemployment rates in
 major cities like New York and Los Angeles proves that this
 Administration has totally failed to address the most basic problems
 of the American economy," he added.

 In an August 4, 1991 letter to the President, Mayor Flynn, then
 President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors offered a briefing by
 Democratic and Republican mayors on "the need for a renewed national
 urban agenda."  Later that month, 32 leading mayors requested a
 bipartisan meeting with the President "to work for balanced and
 affordable, but real solutions to the terrible problems affecting so
 many millions of our citizens, particularly working families and
 needy individuals."

 "It is time to set the Bush-Quayle team straight: It is their lack of
 leadership, their lack of concern for what is happening to American
 families that has led to the crisis," said Mayor Abramson.

 "Even after the crisis in Los Angeles," Abramson added, "Bush and
 Quayle failed to act.  While they endorsed enterprise zones,
 President Bush is threatening to veto the legislation setting up such
 zones."

                             ---30---
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: EMAIL ADDRESS FOR BUSH AND PEROT needed
Date: 17 Oct 1992 01:09:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hbr@iccdev.indcomp.com (Howard Richter) says:

>Does anybody know the email address for Perot or Bush.
>-- 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Wed Sep  9 11:19:03 EDT 1992
>If I could get my membership fee back,
>I'd resign from the human race.
>
Suggested email addresses for Bush:

ghwb@veto.whitehouse.com
gbush@covert-ops.cia.gov
george@bahrain.zapata.com
bush@nsc.the-enterprise.com

Some of these may work better with uucp addressing. There are probably
some antiquated systems in the path. For the last one try:

ollie!uncle-bill!mossad!ayatollah!credit-suisse!tegucigalpa!pineapple-face
!the-enterprise!nsc!bush
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: New California Poll 52-32-9
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:45:03 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

rl24@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Lamoureux) writes:
: In article <BvtKqG.MGB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
: 
: >Clinton and Bush.  The results were 30-30-29, +/- 3%.

: According to a Times/CBS poll that appeared in today's NY Times,
: Bush's lead is currently 41-37-7, which they describe as "well 
: within the prescribed margin for error."  (if I recall correctly,
: that is; don't have the paper with me, I read it on the train 
: this a.m., but the 41-37 part is definite).

Well, I did say that those figures were old, and they do date back from
before the Big Tease by Benito Perot.  The results were just interesting
enough that I happened to remember them.  :)

--
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.elections
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: DEBATE: OPINION FROM AN UNDECIDED
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:59:47 GMT


I was flabbergasted to read the amazingly one-sided opinions of the
debate Monday morning--I just skimmed through the articles related to
the debates and all I seemed to hear was that Clinton won hands down.

Didn't anybody else want to puke when they saw how polished and
refined he was?  When they saw his practiced little winks and nods and
flashes of the eyebrows and totally cheap, cheasy, artificial, "I'm one
of you" charisma?  When you get right down to it, Perot avoided the 
_substance_ of every question they asked him about what he actually planned
to do; he often gave interesting answers but those answers didn't
address the question.  Clinton did the same, but less often.  Bush did it
the least often. Bush seemed the most down-to-earth, although he may have
dwelled a bit too much on "look at all the good things that have happened
in my Presidency."  

Was no one else nauseated by Clinton's antics?  It made me sick
to my stomach.  I've never seen him speak before, but he was laying it
on soooooo thick.   Did you hear his "closing statement"?  What a crock!!
He thanked the academy, his family, every one he's ever seen in his life,
etc.  No beef at all.  The whole thing just made me sick to see how popular
he is and that people fall for his crap.  Slick Willie is the understatement
of the year.

I went into the debates expecting George Bush to be utterly humiliated, but
he dusted Billy Boy by just by being himself, and telling us what he feels.

Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Page 304? (VP Debate, Quayle response)
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:43:26 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

mwasserm@diana.cair.du.edu (MARC Y. WASSERMAN) writes:

>Not having this book, could somebody please tell
>me what is on page 304?  Is Quayle correct on
>this?

Quayle said that Gore proposed that America spend $100 annually on
environmental projects in foreign countries.  He went on to say that
this proposal was on page 304.

Gore does mention a $100 billion figure, but he is not suggesting that
our government spend this much as Quayle implied.  In fact, right
after the debate on CNN, Brooks Jackson said:

	"Nowhere in the book does Gore propose $100 billion of foreign
aid for environmental projects."

In short, this was one of many lies from the Republican Sleaze
Factory.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
From: Gordon O. Perkins <gperkins@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:51 PDT
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE
Nf-ID: #R:1992Oct2.133512.1@acad.drake.edu:-136852790:cdp:1728300006:000:255
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!gperkins    Oct 12 17:51:00 1992


Oh, and don;t forget the many men of peace, like Rev Billy Graham, who 
counseled Nixon to drop atomic weapons, and Agnew, a true patriot
who left office "nolo contendre" (no contest) for taking bribes while
sitting on his patriotic ass in the VP office!

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17225 talk.politics.misc:52270 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5492 alt.rush-limbaugh:7593 talk.politics.drugs:6826 alt.fan.dave_barry:707 alt.fan.howard-stern:2143 alt.fan.monty-python:7760 talk.politics.guns:22212
From: Bill_Steinmetz@NeXT.COM (Bill Steinmetz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:58:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu  
writes:
 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.

From this post and others like it, the following message is conveyed:
Gee, everyone else is voting for Clinton so I may as well do so too - I am  
voting for a winner.  This thought pattern is well demonstrated in sports.   
Everyone supports the local professional team if it is winning, but only a  
handful of people support the local professional team if it is losing.

When will people have their own opinions?

Bill
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16982 talk.politics.misc:51976
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Oh yeah? (VP debate)
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:06:39 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Did anybody else think that Dan was given some kind of Pavlovian
training to respond, "But can you trust Bill Clinton?" any time he
could not find something to say in his notes?

It kind of reminded me of when Dick Smothers would get Tom all riled,
and, no matter what the dialog was about, Tom would say, "Oh yeah?
Well, mom always liked you best!"

--f2

----------------
  Bush-Quayl '92
  It's a mistake
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15886 alt.politics.bush:8437 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6571