HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: 21 Military Leaders Endorse Bill Clinton for President
Date: 17 Oct 1992 02:40:47 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Oct16.191204.12774@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <3891@randvax.rand.org> jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:
>
>>>> Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
>
>>>fired by Bush for incompetance in running NASA. He has a personal axe to
>>>grind with Bush.
>
>>Are you sure of this?  
>
>Yep. Read Avation Leak, Space News, or whatever.
>
>>I thought he was fired because of "personal
>>differences" with the chairman of the National Space Council, the
>
>Part of it. Truly insisted on living beyond what NASA was allocated
>and refused to put together reasonable budgets.
>

Hmmm...funny and all this time I thought it was because Truly
wanted to fund ALL of NASA's programs equitably, but Georgie
and Danny were pushing the Space Station to the at the expense
of all the other programs...

>>Hon. Dan Quayle of Martian respiration fame.
>
>Say what you like about Quayle but he has done an excellent job fixing
>serious problems at NASA. 
>

Oh ??? Can you please be a bit more explicit here? I would like to
know just what Danny "fixed". About the only thing he did right
was to stay out of the way...

John

>  Allen
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
>+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Three uploads -- PLEASE use the LAST ONE
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:19:05 EST
Summary: Pick one of three version of truth....
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <29321@life.ai.mit.edu>, 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
> Volunteers,
> 
> We have sent you three versions of our response to tonight's debate.  The
> last one, the longest one, is the one to use.  Please erase the earlier
> two.
> 
> Many thanks.  I am sorry for the confussion.
> 
> Regards,
> Jock Gill
> Clinton/Gore Email

	Heh.  Don't you hate it when internal memos get published? :)

	Ooops.

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: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: MORE FACTS about the Moscow trip
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:31:30 GMT

In article <1b50hvINNak7@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>
>	Headline: KGB successor says no information on Clinton trip
>
>	MOSCOW (UPI) -- The intelligence agencies that succeeded the 
>	former Soviet KGB have no information on a 1969 student trip 
>	to Moscow by Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, 
>	a Russian official said Friday.
>
>	Vladimir Karpov, a spokesman for what is now called the Russian
>	Intelligence Service, told the independent Interfax news agency 
>	neither his organization nor the larger Security Ministry of which 
>	it is part had any details on Clinton's activities during the trip.
>
>I wonder what Bush, Baker, and Dornan will dream up next.

That's easy.  How can you trust Russian ex-commies?  They've
got ol' Bill in their grasp.  Imagine, a mole in the
White House!  Of course Moscow would deny it!  The fact that
they deny it is evidence that it is true!

You know, sort of like:  if you disagree with my religion,
then you must be possessed by Satan.  Same sort of thing.

Can't wait to see the Republican Sleaze-o-Matic in action,
live on national TV on Sunday night.

>Allan
>-- 
>Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
From: 003316g@ace.acadiau.ca (STEPHEN EDWARD ELLIOTT GREGORY)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Organization: Acadia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:19:50 GMT

In article <roelle.719078059@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
>Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
>Date: 14 Oct 92 15:54:19 GMT
>schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
>>Not telling kids about condoms because they might then go out and
>>have sex, makes as much sense as not telling them about seat belts
>>because they might then go out and drive.
>
>I question this analagy.  Although they do not drive themselves, kids are
>frequently passengers in cars driven by adults.  Thus, it is important for
>them to be aware of the proper use of seatbelts even though they are too 
>young to drive.  Unlike driving, it is usually illegal for an adult to 
>engage in sex in the presence of children, so what's the point in this
>comparison?
>
>Curt Roelle

	I feel this is a valid coparison. The basic idea, I feel, is 
that children are going to learn about sex sonner are later, just as they 
are going to learn how to drive. The point is not telling teenages about 
condoms does not mean they will NOT learn about sex. It's a better safe then 
sorry senario: if I don't wear my seatbelt I *may* not get into an accident, 
then again I could wrap my car around a telephone pole and die. Similarly, 
if a teenager does not know about condoms and has sex nothing bad *may* 
happen, then again sHe may get AIDS and die.
	Most teenagers will eventually have sex...
						  Trust me, I am one!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:28:40 GMT

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>     Because the cable companies are required to carry local channels and
>pay a negotiated fee to the broadcasters for this "service."  The cable
>companies are in a position where the broadcasters now hold all the cards
>in negotiation.

    It's always fun in situations like this to watch the uninformed idiots
come out of the woodwork to spout their views on bills they haven't even
bothered to read, just been spoonfed information on the TV.

    The law gives broadcast affiliates two options: to /require/ the cable
company to carry their signal, in which case they can't charge the cable
company, or to enter into negotiations with the cable company to attempt
to charge them to carry their signal.  At all times, the cable company has
the option to just say no, we won't pay you to carry your signal.

    More importantly, the cable company can agree reluctantly to pay a fee
to the affiliate, but can turn right around and itemize that fee on the
monthly bill they send to subscribers.  Wanna bet what the customer's
reaction will be to that little increase?  Can you say "overloaded affiliate
switchboards"?  Keep in mind that broadcast affiliates LIVE by their
advertising, everything else is just to keep you watching.

    IMHO, this whole issue will turn out to be a red herring in the long run.

--
   Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
      "Who can doubt that pleasure is the only goal of a reasoned life?"
                                                   -- Epicurus
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:30:56 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

N. Richard Caldwell writes:
>
>Ultimately I think that Stockdale and Perot are fortunate that Quayle
>and Gore came off as such idiots.  They looked like the career
>politians that they are, a rabid terrier attacking a Disney animatron.
>I kept expecting Quayle to froth at the mouth and fall over backwards
>and Gore to freeze up and start mumbling "oil can."  In comparison to
>these two brats, Stockdale will probably be forgotten except for the
>few comments that may have touched a chord.
>
Very well put. I have no admiration for Perot and was startlingly
embarrassed by Stockdale's shambling around, but Quayle looked 
decidedly un-Presidential with his frothing attacks and Al Gore
seemed remote and stiff -- a return to his 1988 mind-numbing
stump manner. Had Stockdale been a man of more robust physical
presence, he could have thrust Perot's campaign right back
into the thick of things.

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.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Nobody knows, from sea to shining sea, why we are having all this trouble
with our republic.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Forward an article from another group,
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:53:34 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

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? 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? 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.

5 years ago I took a trip to Mexico.  There are no records, other than
my passport stamps for the trip.  I do still have the credit card receipts
(IRS rules).

But I have no idea who we talked to.  I have no idea which staff members
of any of the hotels I stayed in were Mexican Secret Service agents.  I
can't even remember all of the things we saw without looking at the 
pictures.  I do remember that in 1969 I was against the Vietnam war, and
that while in Mexico I didn't engage in any anti-war protests.

I guess I'll have to vote for clinton.  My memory isn't any better than
his.  But maybe I'd better vote for bush.  He can't remember who was in
white house meetings 5 years ago, so his memory isn't any better either.

Maybe I'll vote for clinton because it took him over 20 years to forget
while george and I did it in just 5 years.

Boy this is confusing stuff.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 10 Oct 1992 01:52:33 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: ==> Clinton/Gore Store Phone

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 general correspondence, please send your mail to:

        Clinton for President
        P.O. Box 615
        Little Rock,   AR   72203

** To call for T-shirts, Bumper Stickers, Buttons,  etc. Please call: **

        Clinton/Gore Store

        (800) 428-8600

To send a FAX, please use this number:

        (501) 372-2292

To call the campaign HQ:

        (800) FOR-BILL

        (501) 372-1992

Online addresses (forums on both services):

        Compuserve      Clinton for President   75300.3115

        America Online  Clinton Pz
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10867 alt.politics.elections:17235 talk.politics.misc:52293
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:08:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <lds18sINNo3i@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>[Perot] has much of his income in tax-free government debt (who do you
>think we owe all that money to).  Thus the government provides him with
>major tax shelters.

Those tax-free bonds, however, have a lower rate of return than taxable
bonds.  So he's paying a "hidden" tax in that he's lending the money to
some government (I think his were municipal bonds) at lower-than-market
bargain-basement rates.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11049 alt.politics.bush:9536 talk.politics.misc:52526 alt.sex:33230 alt.politics.homosexuality:6475
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:10:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

>
>Take a San Francisco -- I've heard stats that it's 30% gay, which would be
                                                    ^^^^^^^
>ten times the national rate.  Those people are coming from *somewhere*.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

where do you get these stats?

not ten times - *three* times.

the national average hovers around _ten%_.

rilly!
:)

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 09:42:44 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct7.144901.26786@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> 
|> [...]
|> I wish that my old (male) roommate and I had the opportunity to be
|> married so that we could get the *entitlements* (key word) associated
|> with marriage such as preferential tax codes.  Then, when one of us
|> wanted to _really_ get married then we could divorce and move on with
|> our lives outside this nifty setup.  If homosexuals get this right then
|> don't be surprised to see what I described happen.
|> 

A couple points of clarification are in order.  If you and your roommate
were both working, the tax code is *not* preferential.  You are better
off filing as a single person.  I wish I had that option.  Second,
if you and your roommate were really married, you would be eligible for
the *entitlements* as you say, but you would also be creating legal
obligations upon each other.  If you got divorced, you may find that
your roommate would be entitled to half of your possessions, for example.
You may find that you would have to pay alimony.  A truely legal 
marriage creates obligations that act as a deterent to simply using
the arrangment as a matter of convenience.  It is my belief that 
as far as the state is concerned, marriage should simply be a common law
contract which places obligations on both parties.  Anyone should
be able to enter into the contract, as long as both parties are
adults.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:25:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.140541.18591@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.165715.10372@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> In <1992Sep28.170215.27441@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> Well, actually they aren't.  Insofar as a lot of the functions of
>> government go (smoothing trade and commerce, police, fire, defense,
>> etc.) the person with more money has more to protect and is hence
>> getting more service.  When you can ensure a $50 vase and a $50k vase
>> for the same amount of money, then perhaps this line of argument will
>> have more merit.
>
>On the other hand, the poor are the (theoretically) sole beneficiaries
>of the various "entitlement" programs that, according to a previous post
>in this group, account for 56% of the federal budget. 

Only if one doesn't look at the theory too closely.  This is the same
argument that says that only people with children are the
beneficiaries of schools.  As only one example, which is cheaper?  To
give someone enough so that they can survive until they get a real
job, or to pay to incarcerate them when they start stealing in order
to eat? 

>
>> 
>> >When each of these guys goes into a store to buy a loaf
>> >of bread, they pay the same for it regardless of income:  it's not five
>> >cents for the poor guy and 89 cents for the rich guy.  Which only makes
>> >sense:  the loaves of bread cost the same to manufacture and distribute
>> >and they provide the same marginal utility to both people.  Basing the
>> >price of the loaf of bread on "ability to pay" is ludicrous -- as is
>> >basing the individual price of government on the same criteria.
>> 
>> Government isn't bread.
>
>No, "government" is largely a collection of services.  So?  The same
>argument applies.

The same argument only applies if you take the most simplistic view
possible.  All 'commodities' are not equal.  Government (and the
services it provides) are not bread.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: vest@novavax.UUCP (Steven Vest)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re^2: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:36:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust) writes:
>>How come your revered National Review (an extermeist Republiclone magazine
>>which spews out propoganda that Herman Goebells himself would have
>>been proud of) doesn't show GWBHs charitable contributions. Or how

>Herman Goebells??  Never heard of him

Oh you know, Lonesome Herman Goebells.  Short guy.  Funny voice.  Was a
popular stand up comedian in the fifties. ;-) ;-) ;-)  Always had a flat
top and occasionally read poetry.  Or was that Herman "Nipsy" Goering???
I always got those guys confused




-- 
========================== vest@novavax.nova.edu =============================
= Steven Vest: Electronic Reference Librarian: Nova University, Ft. Ldl, FL  =
=      Anything you see by me is just MY opinion.  Don't blame Nova.         =
=================Life is strange. Yeah, but compared to what?================= 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Email Addresses!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:17:34 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <aeschwar.719171328@news.ncsu.edu>, aeschwar@ncsu.edu (Adam E. Schwartz) writes:
> 
> Also, here is some more contact information (which I have not
> verified). For general correspondence, please send your mail to:
> 
>         Clinton for President
>         P.O. Box 615
>         Little Rock,   AR   72203
> 
> ** To call for T-shirts, Bumper Stickers, Buttons,  etc. Please call: **
> 
>         (800) 428-8600
> 
     You mean there aren't any "Clinton for President" condoms?  :-)

     C. Perttunen
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Decaturville, TN
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:52:03 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Oct15.171153.2019@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide) writes:
    >I was thrilled to see Al Gore go after Dan Quayle with the
    >issue raised in the 60 Minutes report on the USAID agency's
    >efforts to move American Corporations to Central America.
    >...
    >The amazing thing to me is that Clinton and Gore haven't been
    >hitting them harder on this issue. It seems to me that this
    >evidence puts the lie to everything that GB & Co. have said
    >about their "commitment" to keeping decent jobs in this
    >country. I think their commitment is to get as much as they
    >can while it lasts.

Not so amazing. As the WSJ points out, BOTH sides are equally guilty of
this kind of shit.

For example, todays WSJ has printed 2 letters from Democrats asking
various export offices to help out in exporting billions of dollars
worth of goods to Iraq (pre-Desert Storm).

Don't vote -- it just encorages 'em.

And in any case, as a US corporation pays taxes as well, why should it
NOT get help from the Feds to do what is best for it?

About a decade ago, a lot of American retirees of Polish descent moved
to Poland where their Social Security checks went a LOT farther. So
many started doing this the Feds opened up some offices to help them.

Isn't that what you just now crying about?

And besides, hanging is too time consuming. Make 'em dig their own
trench, line them up, AND THEN MAKE THEM FILL OUT ONE COPY OF EACH
AND EVERY GOVERNMENT FORM IN EXISTENCE -- no food, water, or sleep until
done.

Cruel and unusual, eh???



-- 
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 ...)
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 16 Oct 1992 17:01:48 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct16.083104.6648@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>By definition, a recession is when you have two consecutive quarters
>of *no* growth or *negative* growth. The fact that the economy is
>growing presently at 2% a year means WE ARE NOT IN A RECESSION.
>

Balderdash.  A recession is any period of reduced economic activity.

Just because some economic theorists have decided to place an exact
quantitative definition on it does not mean that they now own the
word.  By your definition we could have the following pattern of
growth by quarter:
  { -10%, 1%, -10%, 1%, ... }
and never be in a recession!
----
    --Brad Sherman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton