HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Debate trivial nonsense
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:05:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Oct12.134835.2593@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>{you've been warned by the title ...}
>Bush and Perot wore their watches on their right hand, which is the
>hand that lefties normally wear their watches on.
>Clinton wore his watch on his LEFT hand!  I was quite surprised by this.
>He did make up for it by using his left hand more than the others (the 
>pumping fist he used to punctuate his remarks).


>Anyone else have any trivial tidbits from the debate?

Sure
Did you notice when Bush talked about cocaine abuse he wiped his
nose just after he mentioned cocaine. My roommates thought it was
the funniest thing.

Of all the candidates Perot seemed to look into the wrong camera
during his final remarks. Clinton seemed to be able to play the
cameras pretty well, turning towards Bush for a personal attack then
turning towards us (the camera) and stating "we don't need someone
like Bush". Quite impressive performance, slick ? maybe but
definitely effective. Bush didn't get any of his attacks on Clinton
to stick. My favorite one was about Clinton demostrating on foreign
soil. Clinton used Bush's father as an aexample of someone who stood
up to Mcarthy during his prosecutions of alleged communists. Bush
looked quite flustered when he heard his family name in a different
context. 

Pim>
>
>patricia


-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9018 alt.politics.bush:8132 alt.politics.correct:5632
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:12:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct4.204633.11069@wixer.cactus.org> lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
>
>"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
>                                                             ME!
>
>lazarus@wixer.cactus.org, Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, 
>Austin, TX  78727-4409,  512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)

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?

Ted

I'm here, I'm homo-nauseous, get used to it.

Why are homosexuals so heterophobic?

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10584 talk.politics.misc:51957 alt.politics.bush:9279
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:26:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct13.154325.23807@edsr.eds.com> pete@edsr.eds.com writes:
>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>>Clinton wants to raise the tax rate on the "top 2%" *not over $200,000*

>The 2% number was an estimate of the number of people falling in the 
> 200,000 range.  The Clinton people have repeated time and time again
>that his numbers are based on 200,000, not 2%. 

>Pete Humphrey

Pete, the problem is that Clinton's proposal to raise taxes on
people making over $200,000 is that if he took ALL of the money
these people make he would not collect the $150 BILLION he claims
the tax would raise.

Therefore, he doesn't really mean the limit is $200k.  Republican
estimates indicate he will raise taxes on those making over
$50k.

David Shackelford
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton's BS economic plan
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:43:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.160234.12660@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>I suggest you read the WHOLE plan (which has been posted on several
>occasions)

I have. I also did the math myself and it just doesn't add up. BTW, the
bi-partisan commission on the debt doesn't think they add up either.

>before you spout off. 500 leading economists have endorsed this plan

That and $.25 will get you some coffee.

A few years ago I could have found 500 leading economists who believed
that a planned economy like the USSR was the only way to go.

I'll bet, for example, that Paul Samulson is one of those economists. There
was an interesting article on his introductary economics text written a few
years ago. All editions have a graph in it comparing GNP of the US and USSR.
In the 55 edition, his graph showed USSR GNP exceeding the US by 1960. The
1960 version had the same graph only the USSR GNP then wouldn't exceed
US until 65. Every update showed Soviet GNP exceeding ours 'in about 5
years'.

So what is the track record of these 'great economists'? I'll bet most of
them where predicting a depression in each of the last 12 years.

>because it nurtures LONG-TERM growth ...

By transferring hundreds of billions from the productive part of the
economy to government? Right.

>Did you really believe that fixing a problem as large as the economy was
>going to be easy and painless? Get real.

Clinton says he can.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------192 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10220 alt.politics.bush:9016
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Magic Johnson (Was Re: Debates)
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:38:12 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct12.060812.7647@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>
> ... Magic Johnson ... attended one meeting, 

This is a Bush-invented lie.  Magic Johnson attended twice as many commission
meetings as the 3 people Bush appointed to the commission.  This is found in
the commission meeting minutes and was reported on NPR yesterday.

> then quit without giving details of why.

This is another Bush-invented lie.  Magic Johnson quit with giving details of
why to the commission, to President Bush, and to the press.  If you were in a
country that has newspapers at the time, and had bothered to try to inform
yourself instead of believing that The President Said It So It Must Be True,
you'd know that.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,ba.politics,ca.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Decaturville, TN
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:43:29 GMT

In article <1bktscINNl4t@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
    >Phil, I see that you and Bush are running against Congress
    >not against Clinton. Did Clinton do that? If not the fact
    >that some Democrats did has very little if any bearing on the
    >matter.

Eh? Oh excuse me -- you must be new around here. I don't vote, as it is
immoral. But, it is enjoyable watching America's equivalent of Stalin
and Hitler go at it.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
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: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:21:26 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

: One of the biggest jokes about liberalism is that they promote Orwellian
: doublespeak (PC), then call it free expression!!

'tis better than having a President that tells outright lies.

Proof, you say?

How about, "Read my Lips!"?
--
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: xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek)
Subject: Cable TV Bill
Organization: Oryx Energy, Dallas, Texas.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:11:33 GMT

I have been subscribing to Cable for about 10 years and,
like most people, don't like the idea of having prices increased.

Now that the gov'ment has come to my rescue, I can look forward
to cheep Cable, right?

I'm willing to bet anyone who wants to that my rates will increase
for the same service now that the gov'ment has their fingers in it.

Any takers?

Lets hear it for more government regulations!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:40:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.93056.582@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> 
> The worst moment of the evening for us all -- to my mind -- occurred
> when Stockdale blew off Gore's environmental positions: this from
> a ticket which is so concerned with our children's legacy. It turns
> out all they are talking about is money.

I think it's either this or his question, "Can we talk about something
substantive?" during the abortion discussion.  Perot probably blew a
fuse on that one.  Nice to know that abortion rights aren't important,
or unborn life either -- just money.

Or maybe it was his lack of knowledge about the Clinton defense cuts,
which are very close to Perot's.  Anybody out there think Perot will
vote for Clinton, and Stockdale for Bush?

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Debate trivial nonsense
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:28:05 GMT

In article <39376@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>My favorite one was about Clinton demostrating on foreign
>soil. Clinton used Bush's father as an aexample of someone who stood
>up to Mcarthy during his prosecutions of alleged communists. Bush
>looked quite flustered when he heard his family name in a different
>context. 

I tend to attribute that to his political strategists' skill.
Clinton has been mumb and sounded elusive to questions from
the press on the Moscow thing this whole week. His handlers
must have told him to save the zinger for the debate.

That was a very smart move.

Of course, watch for the Bush camp's retort in the next debate.
It may come out of the Veep's mouth soon enough, actually.

But Clinton's retort, even though it has short term impact, is not
profound enough to last until election day, so that camp better have a
more substantial retort in the works, otherwise they will be vulnerable
to an attack from Bush from a different angle.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
From: U56503@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: ==> Bush Empty Promises On Crime, Statement Concering
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:37:36 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 October 9, 1992

            GEORGE BUSH: MORE EMPTY PROMISES ON CRIME
    [Statement by Bob Boorstin, Deputy Communications Director]

      One week after he helped to defeat crime legislation supported
 by major law enforcement organizations throughout the country, George
 Bush had the nerve to claim he was tough on crime.  More than three
 quarters of the police officers killed in the line of duty last year
 were murdered with handguns, but George Bush won't help pass the
 Brady Bill.

      George Bush says he supports "the brave men and women who wear
 the blue," but he has denied local law enforcement the resources
 needed to fight crime.  In fact, just last week, Dewey Stokes, the
 National Fraternal Order of Police's (FOP) President, said, "You've
 taken away our bread and butter, you took away the crime bill because
 you wouldn't stand up to the NRA.  You're not fooling me."

      George Bush has done more to fight the crime bill in Congress
 than he has to fight crime in the streets.  He's proposed cutting
 funds for local law enforcement, and he's refused to sign crime
 legislation that would more than triple funds for community policing
 and increase resources for victims' programs.

      Bill Clinton has a plan to dramatically expand community
 policing and put 100,000 more police on our streets.  He'll sign the
 Brady Bill to give local law enforcement a chance to run criminal
 background checks, and he'll ban military-style assault weapons so
 that our criminals are not better armed than our police.  And despite
 the President's charges, Bill Clinton has and will continue to carry
 out the death penalty for the murder of a law enforcement official.

      Last week, George Bush had an opportunity to pass a crime bill
 and do something for the American people.  But he didn't.  Even the
 FOP's President, Dewey Stokes, stood up to George Bush and said,
 "Support us. Give us at least the Brady Bill."  But George Bush
 didn't.

      Today, all we got was just another empty promise from the
 photo-op President.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10279 talk.politics.misc:51583 alt.politics.elections:16642
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:07:21 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <39456@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>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.

If I'm reading Statistical Abstract of the US correctly, Federal Funds
receipts (i.e. excluding Soc Sec) went way DOWN in 1983, and in 1984
were still below 82 correcting for inflation.

Spending did not go down to match; this is when the deficit started to
balloon.

As far as percentage paid by the wealthy, as I post over and over, this
is meaningless until compared to income growth by the wealthy.

andy
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:28:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <29165@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:

First, a distortion:
> RHETORIC: George Bush said, "We're the most respected economy in the
> world. We've been caught up in a global slowdown."
>
> REALITY: ...
> Under the Republicans, U.S. productivity has grown at roughly 1
> percent, compared to 2.8 percent for Japan.

Which covers a large timespan in which Japan was growing very
rapidly, and ignores the relative impact of the global recession
on the US, Japan, and other countries.

Second, a deliberate lie.

> DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE U.S.
>
> RHETORIC: "I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own
> country. I just find it impossible to understand how an American can
> demonstrate against his own country"

Bush did not say this.  He said he thought it was wrong to demonstrate
against your own country *IN A FOREIGN* country, and to organize
demonstrations against your country *IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY*.  This is
a bit of prevarication to sucker the people who didn't watch the
debate, and those with memory problems.

There are many valid hits on Bush here.  Unfortunately for Clinton,
almost all of them involve things that Clinton promises to do more
and worse.  Especially "tax & spend" issues.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
From: pete@edsr.eds.com (Pete Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Forward an article from another group,
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:18:14 GMT
Reply-To: pete@edsr.eds.com
Organization: EDS Research

In article <5907@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> If it were politically right for Mr. Clinton to have gone to Moscow, why
> are there three (or however many) pages missing regarding passport
> documents? 

You are assuming some connection between missing pages and "right/wrong".
I don't see any such connection.

>            Why doesn't Clinton himself say what he did while in Moscow,
> and why doesn't there seem to be a definitive record of his activity
> there? 

He has said what he did there.  Why should there be a definitive record
of what a student did 20 years ago?

>        Jane Fonda still is not seen very highly among many Vietnam vets
> for what she did; Bill must clear any suspicion of being "used" by the
> KGB in going to the Soviet Union.

This whole argument reeks of McCarthyism: guilt by association, the use of
innuendo is place of facts, and the assumption that an accusation carries
any weight in itself and that it puts the burden on the individual to 
"clear any suspicion". 

-- 
				
Pete Humphrey
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: blood
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:50:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.152712.6702@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
writes:
>How much blood do I have in my body? Lots?
>
>   [stuff about mosquitoes and blood sucking deleted.]
>
>    Drive a stake through the hearts of the vampires; eliminate
>the leeching Democrat party.
>
So, do you have a point, or did you intend to post this to alt.prose?
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   |
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  "Four More Weeks!"
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|        Sounds good to me!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9173 alt.politics.bush:8261
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:47:59 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct8.122145.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>Make that two Simon. No, we are not alone, but these "free speech" liberals
>will try and beat you down and make you feel as if your ideas and beliefs are
>worthless. Don't back down Simon. _We_ will win in the end. After all,
>Conservatives are in the *Right*! :)
>Disclaimers. Disclaimers
>
>
>"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?


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray 
             <oerhfT200WBOE29XRo@andrew.cmu.edu> 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 11:49:54 -0400
From: Anwar_Mohammed@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU


You say:
>>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.  

Good God, you are a flaming idiot.  In the following four paragraphs
you claim:

1. Bush's performance in the debate on character was dictated by spin.
I say:  Do you believe everything you hear spun on the news?  If so, I 
guess you believe that Bush, Clinton, AND Perot won last night's debate.

2. I think that Bush won.
I say: Thanks for asking, asshole, but actually I think Clinton won
by whatever standards the media subscribes to.  Although, I don't 
believe he changed anyone elses mind.  Still, the status quo is 
good for Clinton.

3. Some crap about my disavowing polls.
I say: (Again) Thanks for asking, asshole.  Next time try predicating
your response on reality not on some assumption of yours.

Fuzzy-headed is right.  Next time spare me your fuzzy-headedness and
*don't* pollute my mailbox with your e-mail.

>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.
>>>>