HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Why I can't stand the Democratic party
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:55:59 GMT

In article <2AD230E6.25450@news.service.uci.edu> jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.173200.20409@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>  Over the last few months I've written several posts ragging on Governor
>>Clinton and I'd like take a moment to explain my opinions.  I have lived my
>>entire life in an area which is predominantly Democratic, blue collar, and
>>ethnically diverse.  I have not had much experience with the Republicans
>>locally, since it is rare that one is elected to a local, state, or
>>national office from here.                               
>
>Let's see you're from Cleveland, OH:  home of former Mayor (local
>office) Voinovich (a Republican) and current OH Governor (state office)
>Voinovich (also a Republican).  Apparently, elected Republicans
>are not such a rarity.

  You've named ONE person as a counterexample.  Voinovich is one of the
rare Republicans elected from the area (Cuyahoga County).  The main support
he gets from around here is due to the ethnic vote, not his belief in the
Republican platform.  The Republican party is practically non-existant for
the county.  The current mayor of Cleveland, Cleveland city council, the
Cuyahoga county commisioners, and a large majority of suburban mayors, 
judges, state representatives, and national representatives are Democrats.
And our two Democratic Senators get the majority of their support from the
Northern half of Ohio, while traditionally the southern half supports
Republicans.  That's why in the battle for Ohio, one of the key states, you
don't see Bush campaigning in Cuyahoga county.  Also, it's very common to
see a Democrat running unopposed in a general election. 

-- 
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.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Willie Horton endorses Clinton.
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:30:21 GMT

Willie Horton who is currently serving two life sentences plus 85 years in 
prison has endorsed Bill Clinton stating that it is because of what the 
"Republicans did to me".

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9612 alt.politics.clinton:11151
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Who is the moderator for the debate finale on Monday?
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:45:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

inde788@Jane.UH.EDU writes:
=
= I am wondering about the moderator and panel of reporters on
= Monday's debate? On VP debate and 2nd Presidential debate we
= had ABC News reporters as the moderators.  Who selects them?
= are CNN, NBC, CBS People not interested? 
=
= Just wondering........

I think I heard the answers from a CSPAN host concerning why ABC News
reps were selected. I think it had something to do with the committment
ABC had to running the first debate vs. CBS' showing the baseball
playoffs. I'm not exactly sure why they won't let CNN reps in either,
but that's something to ask them about. I don't think the question was
the interest of CNN, NBC, or CBS, but I think ABC's enthusiasm and quick
response was a factor in the decisions they made. Jim Lehrer is on PBS,
which is a major exception regarding moderators.

I believe the E Lansing moderator will also be Carole Simpson.

Note, I can always be wrong on this.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Right to health care?
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:52:09 GMT

Just a couple of questions regarding the dream of giving everyone in the US
health insurance:

  If it's mandated that everyone receive coverage, what incentive is there
for the person who is living a lifestyle not in the best interest of their
body to clean up their act?  Right now insurance companies have the option
of either dropping or charging higher premiums to the guy who smokes three
packs of cigarettes a day and downs a 12-pack of beer before going to bed.
If it's his "right" to receive coverage, will he change his ways?  And if
he doesn't, will the money that goes for treatment of problems caused by
his lifestyle be well spent?

  With the budget constraints we have now, only a small fraction of those
who seek treatment for drug addiction manage to get into an available slot.
With everyone having a "right" to health insurance, how much will it cost
if hundreds of thousands of addicts demand treatment which they say they
have a "right" to?  And considering that only a tiny fraction (<5%?) are
successful in the treatment programs, will that money be well spent?

  If people have a "right" to health insurance, can't the same argument be
made that people have a "right" to auto insurance, home insurance, and
other forms of financial protection?  Many people lose their life savings
due to auto accidents and catastrophes which destroy their homes.  Do
people have a "right" to be protected financially by the government in
every situation?

  I agree that something should be done so that everyone has access to
basic health care, but have all the ramifications been thought out of the
blanket programs which have been proposed?

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:06:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.184104.732@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.170749.23176@unet.net.com> 
>stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>I have a surprise for you Mr. Knight -- your definition of
>"pro-choice" is NOT accepted by most of the radical pro-choicers  
>on talk.abortion. To them, a person is not really pro-choice
>unless they support abortion rights throughout the term of
>pregnancy. 

>On a side note, several pro-choice women on talk.abortion 
>have been viciously attacked by radical pro-choicers for 
>their support or non-opposition to third-trimester abortion 
>restrictions. I wonder why these radical pro-choicers rarely 
>attack men (such as yourself) who express the same opinion? 

Well Doug, if you look at the opinions polls you'll see that my definition
of pro-choice is widely held. You, yourself, posted results of a poll within 
the last couple of weeks that showed that 70+% of Americans are in favor of 
abortion with restrictions. Everybody seems to agree that at least one of
those restrictions would be to ban late term abortions unless the woman's life
is in danger. Once again for about the 10e100 time let me say that there is no 
doubt that there are those out in the world that are truely pro-abortion. Let 
me also repeat that this is a small radical group that is basically opposed by 
majoities of both the pro-choicers and pro-lifers. I'm not in the least 
suprised that there are those who call themselves pro-choice that don't
agree with my opinions---I've known and said that all along. I don't know
why rad. pro-abortion women haven't attacked me on the net. The only thing
about that I know for sure is that it ain't my good looks.:)

You know Doug, I don't have any problem talking about any subject with a person
who holds very narrowed minded views such as yourself BUT over and over you pull
one line out of one of my post and take it out of context to go on the attack.
Everything I've said in this post I said in the previous post but you choose
to ignore everything but the one line where you thought I was being a jerk.
Get real dude, start reading the whole post before you begin with judgements.

Stan Knight
|"I'll believe it when I believe it."    --Yogi Berra-- |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Why I can't stand the Democratic party
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:18:00 GMT

Richard Mulac (mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
:   Now the Republicans may be just as corrupting, but somehow I find the
: "I'll support you if you protect my interests" stand taken by the
: Republicans to be less distastefull than buying the votes of poor slobs
: with a couple of cheap beers.  

I'm not sure I see any difference.  According to your story, democrats
pay off quicker and don't ask for as much.  What's the difference between
what you see and the $1000 a plate dinners so dear to Republicans (and
some Democrats).  Off course, for $1000 you want more than a couple of
beers, but as soon as the Republicans are in office they pay off big time
with breaks for the wealth, paid for by screwing the rest of us.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,talk.abortion
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Fathers, abortion
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,misc.test,alt.politics.clinton,rec.music.gdead,talk.bizarre,rec.sport.baseball,talk.abortion
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:32:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.014947.5386@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Part of the  genetic coding from an infant comes from the father.
>The federal government would prevent the father from having any say
>in whether or not HIS offspring, equally as much as the woman's is to die,
>instead giving complete say to the woman.  That is, a man can do nothing
>for his child. It is all in the hands of the woman to kill the child.

That's right!  Abortion is murder, and murderers should get the death penalty.
Not only should mothers who have abortions get the death penalty, but the 
fathers should as well.  Of course, the doctors should also get the death
penalty.

We could, however, extrapolate this further.  Possession of burglary tools
and of drug paraphernalia is illegal because they are devices that could be
used in the commission of a crime.  If abortion is made a crime, then posession
of genitalia should be made illegal.  We should just lock up everybody who
is capable of having an aborted child, and this would eliminate all possibility
of wrongdoing.
--scott
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9343 alt.politics.clinton:10704
From: assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:59:27 GMT
Distribution: na


In article <1992Oct15.053300.2474@muddcs.claremont.edu> weverett@jarthur.
claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>In article <14OCT92.21213487@vax.clarku.edu> hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

[stuff deleted]

>>Excuse me, but isn't "voluntary and avoidable behavior" by the man also 
>>involved in this process?  Do you think it is fair to force women to pay for 
>>consenting to sex with their health and possibly their lives without
>>insisting on the same consequences for men who consent to sex?
>>
>>                               .... Heather.
>
>	Men are required to pay child support of they get put in jail. I'd
>call that paying.

My mother spent alot of money on lawyers trying to get our father 
to pay child support the court said he was supposed to pay.  And between
the legal fees and the cost of raising of two children, by the time she got
the child support she was entitled to (which was several years later)
and paid off the legal debts, she just about broke even.  I call
THAT paying :-(


--
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:06:58 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <MARCA.92Oct7115209@wintermute.ncsa.uiuc.edu> marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) writes:
>
>``Let's invade Panama!''

Let's protect the US citizens who are in danger in Panama.  Let's
protect our children from the danger of imported drugs.

>``Let's invade Iraq!''  (Remember, they didn't attack *us*.)

Hitler's Germany didn't directly attack the U.S. either, but
that didn't stop us from entering the war.  Remember, there
are alliances in today's world.  Also, don't you think there 
are other ways to threaten our security besides direct attack?

>Bold?  Stupid?  Your choice.

>Marc Andreessen

David Shackelford
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Date: 10 Oct 92 12:43:28 GMT
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) says:

>I wanted to see what it would be like to vote for Clinton,
>so I went into the bathroom and flushed the toliet.
>
>I had this dream that Clinton was President, the Internationale was
>played at his inaguration.
>
>While walking down the street I saw a house decorated for Haloween
>and I was wondering why they had a likeness of Hillary Clinton riding
>a broom.

       Hey Simon, this is GREAT SATIRE!  Rilly!  I can say without
reservation that this is the kind of biting commentary (yes, it bites, you
betcha) that has earned the GOP its reputation.  

       That part about flushin' the pot was the *BEST*.  You're a genius, a
man among men, a regular wingding!  Don't ever stop.

        How about making fun of Clinton's daughter next time out?  Now
there's a fit subject for your witty barbs if ever there was one.

-- 
     Vern Morrison              |    "It's the damage that we do and
     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |     never know/It's the words that
     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      |     we don't say that scare me so"
     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |        --Elvis Costello
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: VP Debate - fact corrections
Date: 15 Oct 1992 00:27:10 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Oct14.141850.9611@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.005404.13659@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>|> Yup, I think Our Man Dan actually won.  He came out there shooting,
>|> was aggressive with the occassional little fact, and didn't make an
>|> obvious gaffe.
>|> 

Well the word little fact maybe not be a correct analysis.

Here is an analysis of what the Candidates said in regards to facts,
and what the actual fact is:


1)
Clinton/Gore will make taxpayers pay out over 100 Billion dollars
to enforce/cleanup environmental problems in other countries... and
Quayle stated that it was in Gore book on page 304.

Wrong- Gore book talks about $100 billion price tag of the Marshall
Plan in today's dollars.

2)
Clinton/Gore will raise taxes on everyone equaling 150 Billion dollars.

Wrong- they will raise taxes (on upper incomes) for a net gain of 46 
Billion +  104 Billion in CUTS = 150 Billion in tax redistribution.

3) 
Gore voted for Caribbean Base in Congress.

Wrong- record shows Gore voted against this.

4) 
Clinton/Gore will raise taxes on everyone above $36,000 year income.

Wrong- this is not substatiated, but part of the Republican record 
on Democratic taxation.

Dan may have look and sounded cutesy-  but that's about the extent of it.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9249 alt.politics.clinton:10548
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pandering, both ways, level with American people, etc...
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:12:00 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1bemarINNikm@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu said..
>>mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>>
>>>   Mr. Bush, no matter how you answer, I will not be satisfied. 
>>
>>     After filtering out all the verbiage, we are left with the
>>statement given above.  Doesn't this say it all?
>
>You missed the whole point; I guess you're not one for sarcasm....

Oh, dear, I'm afraid cdpert01 caught you instead.  You see, cdpert01 thinks
s/he's a comedian.  If his/her post lacks any substance, or is dumb, or is
gratuitously insulting, or is nonsensical, then it's a good bet that s/he
thinks s/he's being amusing.  It is completely impossible for anyone except
cdpert01 to tell when cdpert01's post is meant seriously; therefore, there's
no point in anyone taking any of cdpert01's posts seriously.

20 more days!


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "I have NOT lost my mind:  it's backed up on tape somewhere."  - Anon.   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:25:30 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

>The original writer is trying to shift attention away from irrelevant
>rumors that waste time.  

Sorry.  That should be "you are trying to shift attention".  My
apologies to the original writer.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Pandering, both ways, level with American people, etc...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:43:20 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1bemarINNikm@fido.asd.sgi.com>, aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu said..
>>mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>>
>>>   Mr. Bush, no matter how you answer, I will not be satisfied. 
>>
>>     After filtering out all the verbiage, we are left with the
>>statement given above.  Doesn't this say it all?
> 
> You missed the whole point; I guess you're not one for sarcasm.
                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     You're right -- *I* would never *waste* valuable bandwidth with
sarcasm and parody.  :-)    :-)    :-)    
     Seriously, did you ever think that maybe I understood the original
point and was trying to make *another* point.  An example of my
point: no matter how much funding Bush supports for AIDS research,
it is never enough for the Democrats.

> This (completely ignoring your opponent's _real_ stance, and creating 
> straw-man arguments instead) is precisely what the Bush crew is doing, 
> especially Charles Black and their attack-bitch Mary Matalin.
                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Have you ever heard of sexual harassment?  Ms. Matalin can be
referred to as an "attack-woman" or "attack-womyn" or "attack-female," 
but should not be referred to as an "attack-bitch" nor "attack-girl" 
nor "attack-gal."  You must not have learned much from the Thomas/Hill 
hearings.   :-)

> No matter what is said by Clinton, they just keep repeating.. 
> "come clean.. level.. come clean.."

     It's not what Clinton says, it's what Clinton does not say
and is later revealed.  (There was a WSJ article from about a
month ago that gave a chronology of Clinton's draft explanations.)
Lately, whenever *anyone* says "come clean... level," Clinton
responds by saying "McCarthyism... McCarthyism."  Clinton has also
used the "I feel sorry for George Bush" line -- just like the
"I feel sorry for Jerry Brown" line in the Democratic
Primary Debate in Chicago -- as a crutch for evading certain
questions.

     C. Perttunen

DISCLAIMER:  Just to reiterate, my intent is not to question Bill 
             Clinton's patriotism.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8996 alt.politics.elections:16554
From: fajack@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:10:57 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct13.182621.20464@midway.uchicago.edu>, shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

> But clearly Larry, a more aggressive military strategy on our part 
> (greater and more effective use of air power on the North) could have
> seriously hurt the  North and their Viet Cong puppets.  China and 
> Vietnam had been long time foes of each other and it was doubtful that
	           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	China and North Vietnam were never long time foes during the 60's and  
70's. It was only after unification of Vietnam that they don't see eyes to eyes.

Jack Teh


> she would have intervened.  
> 


> Roger Shouse
> The University of Chicago
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: cable tv
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:01:50 GMT

In article <jhansen.718469724@convex.convex.com> jhansen@convex.com (James Hansen) writes:
>In <1992Oct6.173048.16604@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>
>>we have no right to good tv service. we have no right to 
>>good tv. we have no right to tv. if you don't want the 
>>particular cable company that your area provides to service 
>>your home, no one makes you pay for it. if you don't like 
>>what's on, turn it off.
>
>But the only alternative in most cases for decent reception is
>local cable.
>
The bottom line for all laws is the government saying "Obey or die".
(Yes, I know that they generally try to avoid killing by using 
intimidation, but if you resist effectively, they'll kill.) Would
you be willing to hold a gun to someone's head (and pull the
trigger, if necessary) for decent television reception? 

                              Nancy Lebovitz
                              nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8433 alt.politics.clinton:9419 alt.politics.elections:15882 alt.rush-limbaugh:6979 talk.politics.misc:50601