HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Presidential debates #2
Date: 17 Oct 1992 02:31:19 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <ms5477a-161092220843@cyber.hughes.american.edu> ms5477a@auvm.american.edu (Mathew L. Spolin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.211847.13625@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I wouldn't say Perot was "enduring" the debate when he had to be cut off
>> several times for trying to go into greater detail with his answers.  Bill
>> Clinton played to the camera all night.
>> 
>> "Um, what did those handlers say, Uh .. Oh, yeah .. take ten steps into the
>> crowd .. one, two, .. suck up to the questioner .. Whew .. take ten steps
>> back.  OK, now my handlers said that when the red light goes on on the
>> camera in front of Bush which has me in the background I should shake my
>> head no when Bush is speaking.  Let's see .. left . right . left . right.
>> Boy, that one girl in the third row is cute.  I'll see if she wants my
>> autograph afterwards"
>> 
>> -- 
>> Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>> NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>
>It's funny how you automatically assume that all of Clinton's stage
>presence was dictated to him by some sort of evil democratic heart-appeal
>committee.  This shows the cynicism inherent in the American political
>system today.
>
>I prefer to think that he "plays the crowd well" and has a good theatrical
>talent.  Which may explain why he's been a politician for so long.
>
>---Matt Spolin
>   Washington DC

Could also be that Clinton has had a LOT of practice at this type
of public question format...seems he has been doing it for the
past 13 months...hmmm...perhaps he actually felt comfortable
talking to Joe Average...

John



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:55:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.160251.25346@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.153906.6864@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.
>>What science fiction have you been reading???  Or perhaps you smoked something
>>funny and inhaled!!
>>
>
>Oh, god, stop it. You're KILLING me, over here. I bet you knock 'em
>dead in the big rooms.
>Alan
>
Well, a corner of the UTSA computer lab sure was cracked up over the
jokes I posted about Hillary, and the one about the song played at Clinton's
inaguration.
Simon          :)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:04:33 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

: 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? 

Ooooooh!  Maybe I ought to pop over to talk.abortion and start posting
under my other (female) pseudonym.

*sigh* I've got to cure myself of this excessive love of flames and
flaming.....  But it IS so much fun.  :)

--
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.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: At this very moment ...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:47:41 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling) writes:

: Next the repuklicans will announce that Clinton once wore diapers and
           ^^^^^^^^^^^

I thought it was spelled "Republikkklans."  ;-)

--
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.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 08:21:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.232122.13523@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> 
> Please post your documentation showing that the River Styx doesn't have
> ice floes...

Try reading Dante's "Inferno" for one.
Disclaimers. Disclaimers


"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
 a Fools heart to the Left."
                      --Ecclesiastes 10:2
--A far better lesson

		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard- ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ppandit@rekha.esd.sgi.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Let's get real
Keywords: bush clinton
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:24:20 GMT
Reply-To: ppandit@rekha.esd.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.

I am sick and tired of trying to be objective when the opposition is not
objective
in any way. Bush and the republicans are liars. They have no shame, no
values, no
morals, and no conscience. Bill Clinton may not be perfect but I'll take a guy
who has worked hard, overcome many obstacles (personal and financial),
and really
wants to lead this country in the right direction. Bush is a rich guy
who only cares
about rich people and the religious right who he exploits for votes.

Bush wants to ask "who do you trust?". Seeing Bush's past record on
Irangate, Iraqgate,
"Read my lips", "education president", "environmental president", etc.
it is pretty
clear to me that I don't trust him. Clinton at least cares about this
country, not just
helping certain segments of the population. I trust Clinton to work
hard, lead, and
care about the future of this country. Bush plays an endless con game
that will have this
country go bankrupt. I want someone who is active and looks ahead, not
someone who
only reacts when there is a crisis. 

I disliked Reagan and was pleased to see Bush come into office. I
thought he still might
be the moderate I remembered back in 1980. But he has proven to have no
core values.
Reagan was atleast appealed to your "optimism". Bush is so negative he
is a disgrace.
He can't even raise decent children with any values. I am so
disappointed with Bush.
His speech in New Orleans in 1988 actually moved me. I remember his line
"I am a quiet 
man who hears the voices of quiet people". What a bunch of baloney. The
real Bush is
the man who ran the Willie Horton ads. I don't think he knows,
understands, or truely
cares about what life is like for so many Americans. 

People, realize that "You get what you vote for". Don't think short
term. Don't think
about just yourself. This country is in deep trouble. It is better to go
with someone
who realizes it, wants to change it, and actually cares about this
country. Vote for
Clinton!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pandit      ppandit@rekha.esd       3U-924         415-390-5290
From: bush-hq@campaign92.org (Bush/Quayle '92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: testing
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:53:58 GMT

This is a test of the Bush auto-posting network.

If this had been an actual post, it might have said
something interesting.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Comments on Republican Cowardice
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:04:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.072635.24213@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>So I guess everyone except you is a Nazi.
>
>Don't tell me that I'd be first in line at Nuremburg-- if I had been around
>during the 1930s in Germany, I probably would have left the country.
>I wouldn't have lasted long under a Nazi system.  There are two important
>things about me that Nazis wouldn't tolerate.
>So, get off this Republicans are Nazis thing.  I could call you a communist
>for no reason, but that wouldn't be right now, would it, since I can't prove
>it.  Now, how can I be a fascist without knowing it??? I'm dying to find out

	Don't worry about it,man. They're the real Nazis, i.e. national
socialists, not us. It's like the walrus calling the swan 'ugly.'  The
Beatles at least admitted to part of the analogy(late Beatles, that is!)
("I am the Walrus!")

			John
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: I LOVEBUSH
Date: 15 Oct 1992 04:34:58 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, CXC225@psuvm.psu.edu () says:

>I LOVE POLITICIAN THAT FUCK ME UP THE ASS.  REPUBLICANS SUCK MY COCK.  I went t
>o see bush when he spoke herer at Penn State.  He shipped in the first 12000000
>people and the students that go here could not see him.  Also every poster that
> did not say that you would like to lick his old wrinkled ass was taken away.
>Is this a fucking communist country.  Not only do I not want to vote for bush n
>ow but I also don't want to vote for any republicans. FUCK YOU ALL!!!!!!!!

       Interesting . . . I didn't know Admiral Stockdale had a UNIX
account!
-- 
     Vern Morrison              |    
     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |   read my .sig: join the Clinton/Gore
     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      |               email team!  
     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |     write 75300.3115@compuserve.com
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:05:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1992Oct7.210658.12080@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>
>Hitler's Germany didn't directly attack the U.S. either, but
>that didn't stop us from entering the war.  

Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.  Thus, a state
of war formally existed between our country and the Axis powers.  
No such state of war existed during the Vietnamese War.
Please, read a book on US history or at least check on 
your facts to make sure they are meaningful.

John D.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:39:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>
>    Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.
What science fiction have you been reading???  Or perhaps you smoked something
funny and inhaled!!

:)


Simon
_______________________________________________________________________
"Liberals are but cockroaches before us!!" - Doktor S.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8738 alt.politics.elections:16253 talk.politics.misc:51121
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush in Fantasy Land
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:55:53 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <1992Oct10.151720.27511@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
> 
> I couldn't beleive it when I turn on the TV last night and saw Bush seriously
> suggesting that Clinton went to Moscow as a 22 year-old student and organized
> a demonstration aginst US involvement in Indo-China.

It hadn't even occurred to me that that's what Bush and his sleaze-doctors
were trying to imply until I heard various talk-show callers demanding to know
"the whole story" about Clinton's speeches in Red Square.  Listening carefully
to the debate last night, I was convinced that Bush was trying to do exactly
that by juxtaposing "Moscow" and "demonstrations against the US" without
actually saying it.

Has anyone ever heard a Bushnik say that the demonstrations that Clinton
participated in were actually in the UK?  I'd be willing to bet that they have
a explicit plan to create the impression that they were in Moscow.

Oh, well, the strategy was already failing, and Clinton's reference to Bush's
father in the debate finished it off.  The funny thing is, the Bush campaign
seems to be too stupid to realize that they're hurting themselves by
continuing it.  It never did have much influence on those of us who believe
anyone who supported the Vietnam War in those days is not qualified to hold
public office.

-- 
Bob Munck
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8208 alt.politics.clinton:9105
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush- a sleazy scumbag!
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:01:31 GMT
Organization: The College of William and Mary

In article <athos-081092091339@kip2-30.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <92281.231404RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
><RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>
>{lots of screaming deleted}
>
>I agree with Bush: protesting your country from another country is sleezy. 
>Lying about it is worse.
>
Hmmm...I didn't think protesting a war that only a minority of the
country supported had anything to do with "protesting a country".
Seems like he was stating the opinion of a large percentage of the
population...

I guess you also suggest that all the Chinese currently in the US who
protested the events in China are Sleazy...Yeah, thats right, be brave,
protest in China where your voice will be silenced forever...

But then again, you agree with Bush...

>--
>Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
>Apple's)
>athos@apple.com
>
>HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: wlarkin@hounix.org (Ward Larkin)
Subject: Looking for info on Robert Teeter
Organization: Houston UNIX Users Group (HOUNIX), Houston, TX
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 22:38:15 GMT

I'm looking for some detailed information about Robert Teeter,
Bush campaign manager.  Things like personal history, previous
jobs & activities, relationship with George Bush, relationship
with the republican party.

About 10 years ago he was affliated with most of the republican 
campaigns in Cuyahoga County, OH ( Cleveland ).  Going into many
of these associated elections Teeter would say that the republican
candidates had commanding leads ( 15% -> 25% ) in the polls, only
to have these same republican candidates losing by 5% to 10%.

In one case I seem to recall a 40% differential between the
Teeter poll and the real election.

I'm curious to know how this guy who obviously couldn't run an
effective political campaign in Cleveland get to be the Campaign
Manager of a Presidential election?

-- 
-- Ward Larkin
   wlarkin@hounix.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8125 alt.politics.clinton:9010 alt.rush-limbaugh:6828
From: tsv@dbrus.Unify.Com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:12:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct4.040119.2618@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Oct3.202343.15285@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.000155.25694@PacBell.COM>, rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>]> BTW, it was perfectly legal and commonplace for Americans, of
>]> all political persuasions, to travel to the USSR in the 60s.
>]
>]Back in the 60's, I don't recall Americans of any persuasion flocking
>]to Moscow in great numbers. (What the heck *for*, supercold winters,
>]cheap vodka, and maybe perhaps a few snapshots of all those 
>]residents standing in line for a chance to buy just about 
>]anything?).  The only Americans who would have had any incentive
>]to go to the SU then were the appeasement peace-freakie types.
>
>Back in the '60s, you couldn't even get into the Soviet Union except
>by invitation, and invitations were only issued when the Soviets felt
>that the visits would benefit the Soviet Union in their long range war
>against America.
>
>]> And Moscow had and has no monopoly on irresponsible arms-
>]> trafficking.
>]> 
>]Yeah, well at that time they were sure as heck trafficking a 
>]lot of arms to their North Viet compadres to kill and maim
>]American servicemen who were there.  But maybe you'd like to
>]claim Bill and the PeaceFreak Happy-Band Travellers still
>]really "supported the boys", anyway, eh?  
>
>If it is true that Bill Clinton was in Moscow with the peacenicks,
>why aren't we reading this in the newspaper or seeing it in the news?
>Either it isn't true, or the media is being far more biased than
>normal this year. To me, this is an important issue. I wouldn't vote

The Press are a bunch of "Liberals" who say they tell the public everything,
but only report what they want.

>for Jane Fonda for dogcatcher, and if Bill Clinton went to Moscow
>for the peaceniks, he fits right in there with Jane.
>

I agree w/ you.

Tim.
--
Tim Vannaman, Premium Technical Support Engineer   Phone: (916) 928-6433
Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California    Fax: (916) 928-6403
tsv@unify.Com  or  {{ucdavis,csun,lll-crg}!csusac,pyramid,sequent}!unify!tsv
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:50:54 GMT

[Since previous attempts to get the Clinton campaign and it's supporters to
answer this question have failed, this is a repost of the original article]

  My family of four epitomizes the middle class.  Our income is nowhere
near six figures.  My main concern this election is not to have my taxes
raised in the future.  I will pledge my vote to Clinton this November IF
someone can give me evidence that under a Clinton administration all people
making less than $200,000 WILL NOT pay more in taxes.  This is something
Clinton and his advisors have steadfastly refused to do.  Now to save some
bandwidth before the posts come rolling in, here are some quotes I do not
consider as evidence:

"The rich are going to have to pay their fare share"
"People making over $200,000 will have to pay more in taxes"
"We are targeting people making over $200,000 for a tax increase" - These
statements do not exclude people making less than $200,000 from having
their taxes raised.

"We are planning on giving the middle class a tax cut" - An old trick.  
Lower your taxes in 1993, raise them to a higher point in 1994.

ALL I WANT IS A DEFINITIVE

      "NO ONE MAKING < $200,000 WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TAXES"

Give me this and you'll have me and others on the net marching to
the polls for Clinton in November.  If you don't come up with a direct
promise you'll probably lose some of the support you have now.  I'll keep
reposting this until the election or until there is an adequate response.
And if Clinton does make this promise and winds up lieing after he's in
office, well, I guess he'll be bounced out in four years like Bush.
Since the Clinton campaign uses "The rich are going to have to pay their
fare share" as their lead in advertising and stump speeches, I believe they
owe it to the voters to clear up the ambiguity.

-- 
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!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9363 alt.politics.clinton:10743 alt.politics.elections:17094
From: steube@boris.sdsc.edu (Ken Steube)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Right to health care?
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:30:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: boris.sdsc.edu

In article <1992Oct15.215209.18298@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
|> 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?

Are people who smoke, drink, or toke too much really going to storm the
health care system if we start a national health care program?  Doubt
it.  The costs won't rise thru the roof because self-abusers can now
get "free" health care.

Many countries have national health care and spend less than we do in
providing health care only for the (moderately) priveledged.  And they
do a pretty good job of offering health care, too.  I've heard people
argue against national health care by saying we have competition in our
system, and to take it away would make the rates go thru the roof.  But
there's no real competition in our system now.  How often do you
question your doctor's advice?  You might get a second opinion on
something really important, but otherwise our doctors don't get
questioned about their practices.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Subject: Debate trivial nonsense 
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:10:09 GMT


{you've been warned by the title ...}


Bush and Perot wore their watches on their right hand (okay, wrist, but 
you know what I mean), 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?



patricia


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian