HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Where is ELECTORAL tally?
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:42:16 GMT
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR

In article <1992Oct6.214138.29669@news.columbia.edu>,
egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|>The ABC morning show (Good Morning America?) showed a nicely
|>color-coded map of the US, to indicate which states were Clinton's,
|>which were Bush's, and which were toss-ups.  They weren't specific
|>about how a state was deemed to be in Candidate X's camp (perhaps a 5%
|>or greater advantage in the local polls?), but they mentioned that
|>Clinton would have around 307 electoral votes.
|>
|>
|>--
|>"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
|>				-- Homer Simpson
                        
Last weekend our local conservative newsletter, the Dallas Morning
News, reported that Bill Clinton had a solid lead in enough states
to collect 283 electoral votes. They did not explain what "solid"
meant for some reason, but they also showed close to a hundred
more electoral votes in states that are "leaning toward" Clinton.
The states that were solid or leaning toward Bush were all small
states. Only one of them had electoral votes in the double digit
area. If there is any interest, I can try to post a summary of the
chart.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10983 talk.politics.misc:52446
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:06:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:


>	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
>debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of change
>saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.

>	So much for that "did not" denial :).

>Brett                                                      

10 years ago, I was pro-life.  I was a hard-nosed, fundamentalist,
born-again, christian.  However, people grow, they learn, and they
change.  I am now none of those things.  I realized that these ways
were wrong, and in direct conflict with the philosophies of a free
and democratic society.

Sometimes the changes are positive, other times they
are not.  I have no problem with either candidate changing their
stance on the issue as long as I believe the change is sincere and is
reflected in their voting record.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9178 talk.politics.misc:50405
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:03:53 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.164106.4115@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
> In article <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron 
> Buckmire) writes:
>> I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the 
> Cable
>> Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
>> cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
>> progressive result.
>> 
> 
> Yep, I just heard this morning that some of the cable interests were suing 
> on the basis that the law is unconstitutional...and local stations are 
> congratulating themselves now that cable companies will have to pay them a 
> fee for their programming....which I am sure will be passed on to the 
> consumer.   That's progress...NOT.   I wonder who lined the pockets of 
> Congress.

	ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX.

	The broadcast networks are the only ones who are failing to make huge
loads of money off of cable.  But now, Congress has handed them the golden
goose.  They can simply charge each cable company for "rebroadcast" rights. 
It's like if congress had simply passed a tax on every TV set sold, to be paid
to the broadcast networks, for the "privilige" of being able to receive their
signal.  And a tax on every video tape.  For the "privilage" of being able to
record those signals.  And taxes on VCRs, wires, cables, antennas, etc.

	Blech.  Hopefully the law will be ruled unconstitutional.      

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:52:04 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.181032.2742@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mister rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> if you think your cable company is charging too much for the service you
> receive, there is a better alternative to regulation.
> 
> call them and cancel. tell them why you cancelled.
> your payment for TV service will be lower this way.
> 
	Yep!  And I'm saving that $40/month to buy a satellite system. :)

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:00:05 GMT
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct13.012718.17235@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes...
>In article <1992Oct12.010800.4709@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <29153@life.ai.mit.edu>, Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com> writes:
>>
>>	Actually, George finished second, behind Perot.  Although the media
>>(and you) would like us to believe otherwise.  The commentary by the media (and
>>you) after the debate was pathetic.
> 

You can believe anything you like, but keep this in mind:

Even John Sununu on CNN's Crossfire basically admitted Bush stunk out the joint.

>I second this view ... the "media elite" view, and the "people's" view,
>as evidenced by the C-SPAN call-in, was like night and day.
> 
>To the media elite, it was "Clinton won, because he didn't lose."
>These guys base their analysis on yesterday's polls and their
>own prejudices instead of what happened.
> 
>While to the people calling, Perot was honest and funny, Clinton
>was a dishonest bozo. Of the people who said they changed their minds,
>almost all went for Perot, one or two went to Bush.
>The only "Clinton" mover I recall was the guy who said he was picking
>up his Clinton/Gore sign out front and trashing it.
> 

  If you listened closely to these people calling into these programs
after the debate, one thing was VERY clear.  People that were undecided,
or leaning towards Bush or Perot were the ones that were all excited
and calling in and saying that now Perot is their savior. In fact the 
host asked every caller who they wanted to vote for before the debate and
if their mind was changed by the debate. I heard of NO ONE that was for Clinton
before the debate now changing their minds.  In fact 2 polls after the
debate showed Perot gaining around 6 points, Bush losing around 3-4 points
and Clinton exactly the same.  Basically people changing their minds
over Perot's Texas sweet talk were undecided and Bush voters.

-Chris
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11030 talk.politics.misc:52498
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VP Debate -- impressions & facts
Date: 16 Oct 1992 20:05:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct14.234720.4818@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Not so much wrong as being inventive.  Gore does indeed propose an
>environmental marshall plan, but doesn't provide any numbers.  The Reps simply
>took what the actual Marshall plan would cost in today's dollars.
>	If Al really wants to refute that charge, he will provide another
>number.

No, GORE provided that number in his book. What you and Quayle have left
out (but the newspapers mentioned) is that Gore said that--unlike the
Marshall plan--the Europeans and Japanese could afford to pay for this
one. DQ confused the global total with the US number (which Gore appears
not to have stated).

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: condic@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Eric H.M.M. Condic)
Subject: Clinton News Group
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:55:07 GMT

Someone told me that there is an internet address for the Clinton
Campaign.  This is a news address where you could send questions and
or comments to the Clinton Campaign Staff.  Is this group it?  Or is there
another address that someone might know about?  Please, if anyone
knows send me a message.

Thanks!!
-- 
Eric H.M.M. Condic                    Internet:  condic@vela.acs.oakland.edu
Kresge Library                          Bitnet:  condic@oakland.bitnet
Oakland University                      Office:  313-370-2467
Rochester MI,  48309-4401                  FAX:  313-370-2458
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10361 alt.politics.perot:2122 alt.politics.bush:9109 alt.politics.marrou:1614 alt.politics.elections:16716
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:45:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio

From article <Bw43JL.Mro@unix.amherst.edu>, by pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN):
> Doug Walker (walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
> : 
> : So what would you do?  Keep ignoring the problem?  By saying that his
> : policies would have been good 4 years ago are you implying that more
> : drastic action is necessarry.  Are Clinton or Bush going to take that
> : action.   Come On.
> : 
> I took us 12 years to crawl into this hole, I think it's unrealistic to
> expect us to crawl out in four or five.  I find both the Bush and Clinton
> approaches more realistic if a lot slower.  Bush, however, has already
> shown that he can't control the deficit, or spending.  And when he raises
> taxes he promptly finds ways to spend it all.  We're left with Clinton by
> default.  His plans are a little optomistic, but more credible than Bush and
> more realistic than Perot.

Bill Clinton's plan is more than a little optimistic.  A CNN special
used Clinton's own numbers last night to show that he's really only 
proposing to reduce the deficit by $10 billion.  Worse still, the 
same show showed that Bush's program will actually increase the deficit.  
And those numbers are based on optimisitc economic forecasts.  In the 
real world I believe that both Bush and Clinton will continue to grow 
the deficit.

"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10234 alt.politics.perot:2097 alt.politics.bush:9027 alt.politics.marrou:1600 alt.politics.elections:16591
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:08:16 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>  
> >jason "doesn't anyone know 'weather the storm' means anymore?" steiner
>  
> I really loved it when Bush used this line, then a few minutes later
> reminded everyone if Jimmy Carter.  Let's see, now...
>  
> Jimmy Carter singlehandedly caused inflation and unemployment.  
> Let's ignore the fact there was a worldwide stagflation going on at 
> the time, largely caused by huge increases in oil prices by OPEC.
>  
> George Bush's policies have had absolutely nothing to do with the
> recession. He is an innocent victim of worldwide events over which 
> he has no control.
>  
> Is Bush trying to play both sides, or what?

yup. part of the reason i won't be voting for him. he does have
-some- influence, and he hasn't used it wisely. it's just ridiculous
to pin all the blame on him. also keep in mind that there is another
branch of government that is just as responsible (if not more) for
the current state of affairs. 

remember all those people you sent to Washington to bring home the 
pork at the future's expense? remember how they gave themselves a pay 
raise in the dead of night? remember how they abuse their priveleges 
and then punish each other with letters that say "bad boy!"?

they're not as easy to pin down 'cause they can all pass the hot
potato to the next guy. and they're doing a damn fine job. very
few people are up in arms about what the -rest- of our government
is doing. good old George and his faithful sidekick are easy
targets. but taking them down won't do a bit of good if we don't
clear out the rest of the shit too.

jason

--
"Nine out of ten men, women & children enjoy a cold beverage." - Letterman
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11066 alt.politics.bush:9553
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: China and Health Care interviews
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:29:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Oct15.040610.15970@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu
(john peter wagner) says:
>
>Both of my roommates are graduate students from mainland China;
>one is in anthropology, the other in economics; they agree that
>Clinton's ideas as expressed in the debate would be very bad and
>that Bush's granting of MFN was wise in that it opened the way
>for peaceful 'westernization' of China(free-market tendencies)
>rather than cause China to close up and crack down(defensiveness).
>        Some orthopaedic surgeons I spoke to agreed that Clinton's
>health care was a crock, saying that "it will never work."

Several physician groups have endorsed Clinton's plan, and several
bipartisan groups have examined the two plans and agree Clinton's
is far superior.  Maybe your orthopaedic surgeon friends are more worried
about their own self-interests than the health care system.



>        Taken from the mouthes of people who know and live it, not
>the people who live off the government's presence thereof.
>
>                        John
>
>
>
>
Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
From: jeff@dsp.sps.mot.com (Jeff Enderwick)
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Organization: Motorola DSP Compilers
	<1992Oct7.165036.1065@wixer.cactus.org> <uZtPr*T41@caleb.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:15:32

>Really?  Remember Jimmy Carter?  Most of the amazing things he and his Dem
>Congress did were bad.

such as?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:35:50 GMT

In article <39456@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>>Right! This interest rate and inflation "through the roof" cliche is
>>getting old. I wish they'd say exactly how Carter's policies caused
>>inflation. It couldn't have been "tax-and-spend," because Reagan/Bush
>>have set all records in those categories. 
>>---
>>Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
>
>Sorry Joe, but Regean cut taxes (although total tax revenue, and
>percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy went up), he did not raise
>taxes. He also continually asked for, (as does Clinton) a line item
>veto to help control congressional spending.

Of course, when the rich possess so much more of the pie, of course they
pay more of the taxes.  That's a testament to the increasing inequality
of the Reagan/Bush era.
>
>As far as Carter's policies go, he forced out the inflation-wary Burns
>as chairman of the Federal Reserve, and replaced him with a more
>pliable appointee, who was willing to loosen the money supply as per
>Carter's wishes. That was the cause of double digit inflation, not the
>opec price increases. Watch Clinton do the same thing to finance his
>'investment' programs (i.e. pork barrel) with cheaper dollars.

I always thought Carter appointed Volker to the Fed, who instituted the
tight-money policy (remember 21% interest rates) brining inflation under
control by 1981 or so.  And I find it hard to believe that the increase
in energy costs from 1976 to 1980 wasn't profoundly inflationary -- gas
was under 60c/gal in 1976, over $1.20 in 1980.

The utter collapse in energy prices and the continued monetary
discipline of the Fed is the only thing that kept Reagan's demand-side
(yes, demand-side) Keynesian boom from becoming inflationary -- gas
prices were back down to 80-85c/gallon by 1989.  If only the Treasury
had the guts to finance the debt with long-term securities in the '80s
before world-wide rates went up, and if only SOMEONE had the sense to
control the deficit (i.e., taxes and sensible spending cuts) back in the
late '80s while our economy could have handled it -- oh, yeah, and a
little more fiscal discipline would have been good, too, so we might
have avoided S&L land...

Gary
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10368 tx.politics:6041 austin.politics:211
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:01:30 GMT
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

In article <PETONIC.92Oct13180358@daisy.hal.com>, petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
> Ahh, funny article in today's NY Times business section about how
> several investment firms created portfolios that contained accounts
> that would do good (in their opinion) under Bush's reign and under
> Clinton's reign (obviously, they're not the same :-).  The Clinton
> portfolio stayed about 7% higher than the S&P, and the Bush one
> was about 2% lower.  Consistently.
> 
> What does this tell us?

That people think Clinton is going to win and are buying shares in
companies that Clinton is going to throw money at.  If Clinton wins
in Novemember, the first thing I plan to do is move my money from
high-tech to environmental.  Other investors will do likewise and
prices will rise in response.

> Oh yea.  The Clinton portfolio included companies that did recycling,
> environmental &c, ...  The Bush portfolia included defense corporations,
> &c.

We've known for months that a Clinton and Gore administration would
do well for environmental issues.  As for Bush favoring defense
issues, nonsense.  We've likewise known for months that defense issues
are going to continue to decline for the foreseeable future.  You
couldn't get me to invest in a defense contractor to save my soul.
The layoffs in California defense contractors are not because of
growing market share and increased revenues ...

As for those picks, environmental stocks are good buys because it is
an emerging growth industry and the US leads in the technology.  The
recycling issues will not perform with the market simply because the
increase in recycling will drive down prices on recycled goods (it
already has - there are warehouses packed to the ceiling with used
paper, etc.).
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:06:10 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct7.215132.18203@news.acns.nwu.edu> lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey) writes:
>In article <BvrH4r.397@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>>[Sorry about this flame, but I got no sleep last night (thanks to a
>> airheaded roomie), and it's getting mighty close to Columbus Day
>> for me not to be in a bad mood.]
>>
>>lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey) writes:
>>
>>: 	The fact that they were the first of the huddled masses
>>: 	to crawl ashore does not give them the right to enforce their
>>: 	cultural biases on the subsequent immigrants. 
>>
>>Never mind the fact that they [white Anglo-Saxon Protestants] were NOT
>>THE FIRST to crawl ashore.  There were hundreds of thousands of people living
>>in what is now the US when the Jamestown colony was started.  They
>>had been here for thousands of years.  People keep forgetting that
>>little tidbit of information....
>>Michael Adams 

	Well, if there was any evil committed against my great-grandmothers'
people, the Sioux, by the 'white man,' then it would be following
the philosophy of Rousseau, who originally pointed out the 'freedom of the Amer
ican Savage' and how it caused the savages to in fact be enslaved by each
other, necessitating third party-government induced order. This is the philos
ophy of your party in justifying your government, ultimately. It was
also the idea of people who said things like 'savages have no laws,
they should be treated like animals.' The Democrat philosophy was guilty
of this.  Not the Republican, a philosophy espousing INDIVIDUAL morality
and responsibility as opposed to FORCED GOVERNMENT NECESSITATED MORALITY.
You will recall that Roe v. Wade, the big cause of debate over which
many liberals would accuse Republicans of wanting to 'force childbirth'
is in fact a judgment PROHIBITING STATES FROM DECIDING FOR THEMSELVES
UPON THE MATTER, NOT A JUDGMENT WHICH ILLEGALIZES THE SLAYING OF AN
UNBORN CHILD.  I have yet to see a piece of Republican sponsored federal
legislation which 'forces' people to do anything not declared expressly
in the constitution or along the lines of the declaration of independence:
"right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"!
	Thus, the sorry treatment of the American Tribes by the White
Man is a direct consequence of the DEMOCRAT PARTY.  Any 'morally' imposed
rules IS IN FACT DEMOCRAT, which does not agree with that expressed
clearly in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

			How.
			John