HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:14:25 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Oct14.231919.4815@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Just so everyone gets the timeline correct:
>
>	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
>it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can point
>to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that was
>only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did not" vote
>for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.

     Politicians don't lie.  The interpret reality creatively.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10809 alt.politics.bush:9412
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Magic Johnson (Was Re: Debates)
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:28:52 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct14.052327.10938@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.031444.26715@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <5ondnip@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>>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    |
>>>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>You believe NPR?? Radio Socialiste National, National Proletariat Radio??
>>Geez, I'd believe anybody before believing NPR.
>
>  Apparently.  You'd even believe Bush before believing NPR.  Only if God can
>come and bring the facts to you in front of your eyes you probably will still
>deny it because Bush said otherwise.
Well, Clinton has yet to tell us the truth about his draft dodging and his 1969
trip t Moscow, so who is to be believed.
NPR--a little like the old Radio Moscow.   :-)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10073 talk.politics.misc:51378
From: ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:11:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b62204.student.cwru.edu

In article <Bw2B0r.9yx@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <ads3.11.718935631@PO.CWRU.edu> ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults) writes:

>>If the economy is growing (or even staying stable), we are not in a
>>a recession.  A recession is defined as a period of time during which
>>GNP declines for two or more successive quarters.  Open up any
>>Macroeconomics textbook for confirmation of that. 

>   Another Usenerd answer.  Yes, technically this is correct.  But
>   it's a "distinction without a difference".   Maybe we need some
>   new word for whatever we're in, but slinging economic formalisms
>   around the Net doesn't change the fact that the economy's in the
>   toilet (open up any plumbing textbook).

First, thanks so much for deleting the part of my post which agrees with
you that the economy is indeed bad shape.  Guess it makes flaming me
easier, right?

Second, there is a difference.  The economy is in bad shape.  However, If
we were still in a recession, the economy would be getting even worse,
instead of just staying consistantly bad.  We'd be headed toward the
sewer instead of just being in the toilet.

   ---Andrew

[Part of A Jeopardy Game]  * Paul McHale for Congress *   //    Andrew Shults
Emma: "Let's try 'The Best Medicine' for $20, Alex."    //   ads3@po.cwru.edu
Alex: "And the answer is -- '[Congressman] Don Ritter's pledge to run a clean
       campaign focusing on the issues' (BZZZZ) Emma."
Emma: "What is ha ha ha ha?"-B. White, Columnist, Allentown [PA] Morning Call
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9911 alt.politics.bush:8766 talk.politics.misc:51168 alt.sex:32758 sci.skeptic:17834
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:42:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct12.100046.10430@email.tuwien.ac.at> robert@guam.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Robert Glock) writes:
>In article <21098@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>The question is, would you have sex with someone you know has AIDS, and trust
>>your life to a condom?

Well, possibly two or three.  Dunno, burn that bridge when I come to it.

>>Do you teach your kids "I know you're little more than
>>a rabbit, here, have a condom"?

Do you teach your kids "I know you're little more than an agar block, here,
have some antibiotics?"

>> if you play Russian roulette with only one round in the
>>chamber it's safer than playing it with six?  

Isn't it?  Six round RR is rather more probably fatal than one round.
>
>This is not a really good comparison. It would be better to say "Safe sex
>is like playing Russian roulette with rounds took from a box containing
>10 % life rounds and all the others blind ones". 

No, safe sex is like playing russian roulette with something between the hammer
and the pan (Okay, so I don't know my gun anatomy, gimme a break!)  If you
do it right and always, the chances of failure are rather less.

Oh, One round roulette.

Big Al.  Maybe safe sex is like Karaoke.  Or punt returns.  Maybe flying 
ultralights.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ... [REPOST]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:00:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <AerNnCG00iUxI2IXpH@andrew.cmu.edu>, Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ... [REPOST]
|> CC: 
|> In-Reply-To: <1bjremINN18q@rave.larc.nasa.gov>
|> References: <1992Oct13.205054.27002@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
|> <1992Oct14.140052.22484@cs.wm.edu>
|> <1992Oct14.162909.6653@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
|> 	<1bjremINN18q@rave.larc.nasa.gov>
|> Distribution: usa
|> 
|>  
|>  jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov writes:
|> 
|> >Ummm...the government does have many regulations, but that's not the
|> >reason some public schools are ineffective...
|> >if you happen to know anything about public schools
|> >you would find that schools are run at the local level, with state
|> >and local funding. the fed does little to help one way or another...
|> >As far as the schools being ineffective, try asking some of the
|> >teachers and administrators why... a major cause for poor performance
|> >is that they have to teach at an "average" level...
|> 
|> 
|> How do you explain a  Private school's ability to run excellent programs
|> at a lower cost than public schools?
|> Also, Don't you think the NEA has  accountibility for the sorry state of
|> our system of Education? ( Isn't the N for National?)
|> 

Teaching is the most unrespected, poorly paid,
and most important occupation.  Public Schools are
filled to over-capacity, teachers are not able to
give personal attention to students, and there is
no equipment for learning.  Private schools, on 
the other hand, have small classrooms, better
equipment, and less students overall.  Sure, I
could keep the cost down if I had half the students
who came mostly from families that are more financially 
stable.

And besides, when was the last time you spent eight
hours with your kid?  Talk about family values.


Jared Dahl

Opinions expressed are mine.
From: grefen@cs.pitt.edu (Gregory Grefenstette)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Quayle: from Dolt to Jerk
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:30:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science


After last night's debate I was surprised by the commentator's
reactions,  particularly their suggestion that Quayle came off well.

Except for one commentator's remark that Quayle's nervous
laughter was a little troubling,  the rest seem to feel
that Quayle not coming off as a dolt as he did in 88
and only appearing as a jerk was a definite improvement.


--Gregory Grefenstette
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs310as@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Tonya Yu)
Subject: testing
Summary: this is a test.
Keywords: testing
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 10:11:03 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:53:38 GMT

You know, it says something about this country that, when Congress finally
overrides a veto, it's over *cable television* !!!

You can screw around with people's civil rights, economics, race relations,
and military spending.  But by God you better not mess with their
television!

What a mess we have in Washington...



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Followup-To:  alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:48:10 GMT

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*! :)

Can this be proof that
                        2 Rights != Correct
????
-- 
*** 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!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:30:38 GMT

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

>--
>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
>
>
>


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10526 alt.politics.elections:16883 talk.politics.misc:51880
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:48:11 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
|> Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
|> 
|> >The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
|> >due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
|> >of his billions last year. 
|> 
|> >Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!
|> 
|> This is very misleading.  You don't pay taxes on the money you have accrued,
|> you pay taxes on the taxable income made THAT YEAR!  All of R. Perot's money
|> is relatively old, he hasn't made anything other than interest (and then
|> most of it in tax DEFERED anuities) since GM paid him off.  You take the
|> little bit of taxable income (proportionally speaking) that he made
|> last year, then deduct (a quite proper practice) all the money he GAVE
|> AWAY, and he probably did only make $30,000 to the good last year.
|> 
|> You Clinton people need to really try to think about things before
|> you just spout them off, but I know that isn't in the agenda...
|> 
Actually, we Clinton people figured Perot was good with money.  2 Billion
in a CD at 5% is $100,000,000.  If you give away 99%, you still have 
$1 million left in taxable income.  I realize it isn't quite this simple,
but $30,000, sure!

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:30:11 GMT

In article <Bw2CJG.LM1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>: But the bigger question is why?  Probably because North Dakota has one of
>: the lowest rates of drug abuse and homosexuality.  
>
>Excuse me, but it is EXTREMELY improbable that North Dakota has a 
>_significantly_ lower rate of homosexuality than any other place in
>the world.  The trait of homosexuality and bisexuality is scattered
>throughout the population without regard to geography.  Being born
>in Minot does not give a baby "better" chance to be het than it would
>have if it were born in San Fransisco.

But people move.  It's only natural for a minority like homosexuals to
gravitate to urban areas where they would be likely to find other
homosexuals.  And North Dakota is extremely lacking in urban areas.
Even if a baby born in Fargo has the same chance as being homosexual
as one in San Francisco, once that baby becomes an adult, other factors
come into play.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: We will not back down
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:21:45 GMT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

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."
                      --Ecclesiastes 10:2
--A far better lesson

		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard- ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.poli
From: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:28:08 GMT

In article <14OCT199214000932@zeus.tamu.edu> dbn7350@zeus.tamu.edu (NASH, DAVID
 BENNETT III) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.194546.19965@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galil
eo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...
>>I'm amazed that you actually stumbled onto a point.  You're right.  There
>>are a lot of programs that could save more lives.  Most AIDS activists 
>>believe
>>that AIDS is going to run wild.  If they are right then we need to make
>>it a priority.  But I would much rather see all of the money spent on
>>condom adds spent in education in how having sex especially anal
>>sex spreads AIDS.  As for the other lifesaving issues, call your
>>congressmen and tell them to get off their asses and stop spending
>>money on stupid money-wasting programs.  Elect a Libertarian.  Do
>>something but stop posting spurious observations.


>Where is all of this leading??? Concentration camps for people who have
>anal sex? And why are views different from your libertarian ones spurious?

Those views are *not* libertarian.  I don't care what the author claims.  
A lot of ultraconservative homophobes try to make themselves look like
supporters of individual liberty by calling themselves 'libertarians'.
Please ignore them--they are attempting to ride on the coattails of a
philosophical and political movement of free thinkers.

Steve Conley
sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"Chastity is not an option."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:04:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.235249.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     H-O-L-Y C-O-W!  Shrub wins!  Shrub wins!  (O.K., I'll stop
>the Harry Caray imitation.)

Not.

Shrub's little attempt to steer the discussion into character issues
was flatly rejected by the audience.  Beyond that, there was nothing
he had that Clinton didn't have a counter to.  A draw more or less.

I'm still much amused when Bush brings up the matter of trust,
considering the broken promises and deception in his record.

>     Some comments on the participants:
>     Bush:    Kept looking at his watch.

"It's time for them to go."  Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

>     Clinton: Kept making funny faces into the camera while Bush spoke.
>              All of his plans had three points.  (Very amusing!)

Remember, three is a MAGIC number.  Just like the Dems to tap into
our collective unconscious.

>     Perot:   You're out of time, Mr. Perot.  Mr. Perot!  MR. PEROT!!
>              The chair was elevated too high for him to actually sit.

Ah, quite.  And he missed the last one, where he didn't hear the
"Well, what about the women" question and just rambled off on his own.
Not a hint he knew what he was talking about: his pat response when
the discussion ventured outside his realm of expertise was to refer to
the millions of random plans floating around DC without being
specific.


--
"All that talk about trickle-down theory made
Quayle want to leave the room for a minute."
				-- Letterman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.correct
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:45:16 GMT

In <1992Oct9.175054.24315@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.062031.17714@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.161243.18291@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>>Why are homosexuals so heterophobic?

>>Sure.  You give me one example when young gay men or lesbian women
>>hang outside hetero bars and attack hetero couples calling them
>>"fucking breeders" and I'll be willing to talk about heterophobia.
>>Until then, you're just blowing hot air.  

>Come on, do you really want to toss around annecdotes?  How about 
>homosexual catholic priests who prey on young boys?  There's enough 

If you want to talk about rape and molestation, the predominance is
_clearly_ heterosexual, and I'm not talking in anecdotes, I'm talking
in _a national epidemic_.

>of rotten people on both sides to go around.  The fact is, that it 
>is against the law for anyone to hang around outside bars and wait 
>for someone to beat up.  If charges are not getting pressed, or 
>perpetrators go free, then let's dean with the judicial system 
>(IMO get most of the liberal, criminals rights types out of robes.)

I wonder why I'm not surprised?  Of course you want to get rid of
those liberal types...they're the ones who tend to follow the 
Constitution rather than the law-and-order doctrine that George
Wallace, Bush, etc. advocate.  I'm sick of criminal rights being
slammed.  Believe it or not, not everyone who goes to jail deserves
to be there.  Criminal rights are citizens rights, pure and simple.

>By the way, should white people be encouraged to be blackophobic 
>simply because I can list as many annecdotes about black people 
>mugging white people as you would like to hear?

Whoops!  We have a budding racist here!  (Maybe a full-blown one!)
Go ahead, asshole, give me some statistics.  They should be amusing.

--
"We will worship like the Druids,
Drinking strange fermented fluids,
running naked through the woo-ids,
'coz that's good enough for me!


>Ted

>-- 
>"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
>	-Benjamin Hooks

>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: Kelly.Burns@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Kelly Burns)
Subject: TEXAS SENATE RACE AND HOMOSEXUALS
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:47:25 GMT

I would like to get some information on a state  senate race in Texas.
This is what I know.  The Democratic incumbant announced that he was gay
after winning election the last cycle.  He has supported the legal right
of gays to marry.  Particularly he has supported a lesbian couple that was
married in a chruch in Houston.  His Republican challenger opposes all of
this.  (A homosexual in the state senate, legal marriages between
homosexuals, and the lesbian couple who married.)  I am interested because
I have been told that this has become the single issue in the campaign. 
If anyone has any information I would appreciate receiving it.  I
understand  that there was a DONOHUE on the issue, but the show is on
while I am at work and didn't get to see it.  Thanks.

Kelly Burns
Burns@ipfwcvax
Burns@cvax.ipfw.indiana.edu
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton