HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 10:55:54 EDT
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

> 	I lov it! Once again you Democrats, liberals, basically
> cowardly scum of the Earth once again make a personal attack on
> an opposing viewpoint! What is this, Krystalnacht?  Who are the 
> fascists!  Attack me personally, you damned dogs of scum and cowardice,
> and I will take you ALL to your graves!

Yes, truly this is a well-reasoned and cogent analysis of the facts
that is completely devoid of personal attacks.

> 
> 					John Peter Wagner
> P.S. Pardon the bellicosity. 


Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:15:13 GMT

In article <14049.2aca2172@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-
state.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisvi
lle.edu writes:
>
>   [repost deleted]
>
>Bullshit. The Republiclones go out of their way to try any and every angle
>of distortion that they can dream up. What percentage of _your_ income
>have you honestly donated to charity? How about Fearless Leader GWBH?
>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
>about America's First Son who ripped off the tax payers $2.5M and got
>off scott-free. You people make me sick.
>
>Anyone who thinks Dan Quayle is competant at *anything* is also a MORON
>and should be equally ridiculed.
>
>-Garrett


Herman Goebells??  Never heard of him
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   | "Read my lips ... I'll do anything to
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     |  get reelected ... I knew nothing about
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|  Iran-Contra."  What credibility problem?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7929 alt.politics.bush:7291
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush Knows Clinton Better
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:55:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.215253.22961@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.000132.28290@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep18.212836.29660@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>>There can be only one reason why Bush is avoiding debates and dredging
>>>up irrelevancies rather than discussing the issues.  He knows that Clinton
>>>is stronger on the issues and would therefore make a better president.
>>>Bush, on the other hand, has a larger war chest and can therfore plaster
>>>the air-waves with propagander.  The only way Bush can hope to win is to
>>>avoid an open discussion of the issues.
>>
>>The "war chest"s are the SAME size.  That's how public funding for the
>>presidential election works.
>
>In that case, why do they have campaign fund-raisers?

To raise funds for other purposes and candidates.  The presidential election
isn't the only political activity this year that costs money.

>>There can be many reasons why Bush doesn't like a particular debate
>>format or even debates in general.  Does anyone really think that
>>debate prowess means anything?
>
>A presidential debate differs from a debate, such as you may have had at high
>school, in that, in the latter case, a debating team is assigned a position
>on a given topic and asked to present a case for that position.  Hence, that
>would be a test of debating prowess.

Fine so far.

>A presidential debate is quite different.

Let's see about that.

>It can be assumed that both participants are eloquent speakers,
>given that they have secured the nominations of their respective parties.

Good start, a false assumption followed by a bogus argument.

Moreover, even if it was true, eloquent speakers are not necessarily
equally so, which throws us back to the previous discussion of what
matters in a debate, the one that acknowledged that other factors
matter.

>Hence, the speaker with the advantage is the one whose position is best
>supported by the facts.

If that was true, or even if DEMOCRATS actually believed it, it
wouldn't have made any difference if Reagan had had Carter's debate
prep materials, yet said access is supposedly important.  You can't
have it both ways.

It isn't true.  Debates are not decided by facts.  (One interesting
election fact is that people who watched the Kennedy-Nixon debates
thought that Kennedy won, but people who listened to them on the radio
thought that Nixon did.  Same facts, same debate, same people, yet
visuals made a difference.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: VietNam Revisionism
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:15:26 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

It is somewhat puzzling to hear all the talk about VietNam these days.
You hear people talking as if everything we did was wrong, that the real
heroes were the ones who evaded the draft, that our intentions were
nefarious, and so on.  Many of these posts and claims must be coming from
people who were not very old at the time of the war, since the claims
just don't mesh with facts.  I am not making any claims about Governor
Clinton and his portrayal of his draft record, etc.  I am referring to
those writers, speakers, and so on, who, in defense of Clinton, misrepresent
the nature of the VietNam War - a war much too complex to capture in the
soundbite mentality of today.  People tend to dismiss the facts of what
happened to the South Vietnamese and Cambodians after the US left.  The
sources of the war were not US or even French involvements.  Peking had
a horrible plan for the VietNamese and they eventually fulfilled it.
No-one talks credibly about the good reasons for our involvement in that
war - reasons that were proven by the actions of the Chinese and North
VietNamese after we left.  I can stomach people protesting the war.
I cannot stomach people portraying those who went and tried to save the
South VietNamese from their eventual fate as anything other than heroes.
Especially since they did not go "in order to maintain their political
viability within the system".  I encourage those of you who have resolved
the memory of that war into an "it was wrong" soundbite to consult history
books about the cause and aftereffects of the war.  Those who fail to heed
the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: gnat@stein.u.washington.edu (L Boyd)
Subject: Perot's Campaign Logo -- a coincidence?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:21:17 GMT


Has anyone noticed Perot's new "America First" (or whatever the hell it
is!) signs?  If a camera is placed properly, one can only see Perot behind
a podium with about a dozen stars at the bottom of the frame.

Kinda looks like he's promoted himself to a 12-star general.  So much for the
Consitution...

(-:

Lauren
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:14 PDT
Subject: The Latest, Best Campaign Feed
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1588800019:000:2137
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Sep 30 23:14:00 1992


From: <jlohrmann>
Subject: The Latest, Best Campaign Feed


Due to modified circumstances the latest and best feed of information
direct from political campaigns appears to be through the following
source:

-------- Forwarded Message --------

   The National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), is pleased to 
announce a new service for the duration of Campaign '92.

   We are teaming-up with the American Cybercasting Corporation to 
provide special Campaign '92 newsgroups to Internet hosts anywhere 
in the world--for FREE.

   These will be special moderated newsgroups containing the full-
text of the position papers, speeches, press releases, fact 
sheets, (and anything else we can obtain) from the campaigns of 
the REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and LIBERTARIAN parties.  Each item will 
be carried complete and un-cut, and each is obtained directly from 
official sources within the respective campaigns.  (These are NOT 
discussion groups--you can get that in alt.politics.<whatever>.  
They are moderated newsgroups containing pure campaign information 
for your study and analysis.  You can argue about it somewhere 
else.)

   These special newsgroups will be delivered directly to your
host system by ACC.  The value is obvious for political science 
classes, students, faculty, staff, and anyone else who wants the
FULL story and not just sound-bites and factoids.

   To obtain the newsgroups, have some decision-maker at your 
computing center send an e.mail message to: usa@americast.com 
and all will be made manifest by return e.mail.  The message
MUST contain the name, title, and institution of the person
making the request somewhere in it.

   To repeat, there is no charge to receive this service from
American Cybercasting (although donations to NPTN will be 
gratefully accepted).


Tom Grundner
President, National Public Telecomputing Network
Voice: 216-368-2733  Fax: 216-368-5436
e.mail: tmg@nptn.org




Distribution:
  John C. Mallery >internet:jcma@reagan.ai.mit.edu
  >Eric Loeb >INTERNET:loeb@psyche.mit.edu
  Bert Smith >INTERNET:bowler@Athena.MIT.EDU
  >Jeff Lohrmann >INTERNET:jlohrmann@igc.apc.org




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: difference between Democrats and GOP
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:41:26 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

: Who?  I haven't heard anyone call for making homosexuality against the
: law.*  If any do, they are certainly not in the mainstream and it is
: certainly not the position of the Republican party.
: 
: * I know some states have laws against certain homosexual (and
: heterosexual) acts, but these laws were passed last century or longer ago,
: are generally not enforced (yes I know they have been used against some
: people and I think it is terrible) and I haven't heard anyone call for
: their active enforcement or the passage of more such laws.  

Have you been to Oregon recently?  There is a proposal on the November
ballot there that would amend the state constitution to basically
_require_ the state to discriminate against people of "abnormal"
sexual preferences -- including homosexuality and bisexuality.
The last poll of any kind I heard from there said that the proposal
had the support of about 50% of the people there.

Yes, I will agree that the Republicans probably did not explicitly say
that they want to outlaw homosexuality and bisexuality at the convention,
despite the signs some delegates were holding, that said things like
"Family rights, not gay rights."  I can't be sure because I got nauseated
very quickly watching the convention on C-SPAN.  However, there are
right-wingers out there who are trying to get homosexuality and bisexuality
outlawed.
--
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.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:29:19 GMT

In article <21660@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
> No, "Russia" is an example unto itself.  It was unable to feed itself
> years ago - back when it could still produce oil and gold for export.
> We don't have Russia's problems - we have plenty of good solid industry,
> we just have a government that it bent on pissing away all of our money.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How very kind of you to point out to all the Dems. why their tax and spend (oh,
sorry, this year it's "investing in America") liberal policies just don't add
up. Perhaps a better example would be the socialism that like Sweden, a
liberals wettest dream. What is their tax rate, up to (adjusted to US dollars)
70%? Of course if I am wrong, please correct me, it's most likely higher... but
hey- with Slick Willie we could hit that tax rate in what, 2 years? 
--
Disclaimers.Disclaimers.
		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Re: Why won't you answer, Mr. Gore?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:20:09 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Money should be used to help develop other country's economic standing
>so that (in part) they can be better trade partners with the US?

>	Why can't you answer that question, Mr. Gore?

Bush has done a great job in creating employment... in
Russia, Poland, Mexico...

Maybe the problem is that we should invest our money in america
so we can compete with Germany, Japan and the like instead of
building up other countries. If they get the money, they are 
just going to buy cheaper (and better?) products from the other,
more competitive countries.

Why don't we invest in making America more competitive instead
of other countries?

Why can't you answer that question, Mr Stupendous?
=======
BRI FARENELL
CLARKSON '95 
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Clinton at Ohio State
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:58:38 GMT

     Because there was so much net-traffic about the Bush visit to Penn State, 
I decided to write about Bill Clinton's trip to Ohio State today.
     I arrived at the site of the speech too late to see how the Bush/Quayle 
supporters were handled. I didn't see any Bush/Quayle signs near the podium, 
though -- my understanding is that those seats were given to people who 
volunteered to help set up (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). I can't 
tell you if this rally had the kind of security overkill that Bush's Happy 
Valley visit apparently featured.
     Clinton was about 20 minutes late to the podium, but he gave a good speech
to make up for it. I can't say I agreed with everything he said, and I plan to 
vote for Marrou/Lord, but I did enjoy his speech immensely. He is good at 
working a crowd. He played off of the Republican demonstrators well, a skill 
that Bush apparently has yet to learn. (I know, I know, now that Buchanan is 
out Bush doesn't have to *face* Republican demonstrators... :-) )
     The B/Q'ers at the rally were well-behaved. They were grouped in a wedge
on the edge of the crowd, and were probably out-numbered about 10 to 1. Despite
this, they easily shouted down the rest of the crowd before Clinton arrived (I
may not be accurate here -- I was standing right next to them). After Clinton
began his speech, though, they were drowned out so much that I couldn't hear
them from 30 feet away. I can't even guess how many people were there total.
     The B/Q'ers won in the slogans department. The response from Clinton
supporters to the B/Q'ers chants was tepid and unimaginative. You'd expect
Democrats to be creative! :-) One of the more...umm...*interesting* chants that
the B/Q'ers had was "Bill Wants Bush", followed by "Hillary Wants Bush" (which 
could mean several things). I was disappointed that, when former governor 
Richard "Dick" Celeste got up to speak, the B/Q'ers didn't chant "Dick Wants 
Bush". (Sorry for the crudity, but this was too good to pass up! :-) )
     All in all, a good rally.

                                     Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    *The* Ohio State University
    When I was growing up, Cal and Kansas were competitive programs. They
      still are. But it's not quite the same... :-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:06:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <21636@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep28.173827.36902@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
|> >That's what I thought at first, but JFH said $5K per *family*, and I'm
|> >quite sure that the average family is bigger than 1 person.
|> 
|> The article I read said that the Federal government could have the same
|> effect if it mailed a check for about $5,000 to every house in the
|> country.  It was not clear what that means =exactly=.  I've taken it to
|> mean every person, every taxpayer, every house, and every several other
|> things.

I think they really are two different things and it's just a
coincidence that they are both about $5000.  One is measuring the 
amount of spending per person, and the other is measuring amount of
benefit per household.  It makes sense that the amount of benefit per
person is smaller than the spending per person, because not all
government spending benefits people directly (interest on the debt for
example).

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWD Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8378 tx.politics:5827
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:05:55 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct2.160530.15018@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>Businesses, (for example car makers) and governments, (local, state,
>and foriegn,) and people, old and young, from all over the world invest
>in US bonds because they have never been defaulted on in over 200
>years.  You can't say that about any other investment.  They are the
>safest most guaranteed place to put your money on the planet.
>
>The US economy is immense.  It is a significant fraction of the world
>economy.  The US debt is also immense.  It is also a significant
>fraction of world debt.  It is all the more significant because it is
>now and always has been the safe haven of last resort.

It's obvious that Curt has written this sarcastically, but even the
make-believe notion that US bonds are "safe" is wrong.  The US
government can "re-value" the debt anytime it feels like it, and it
doesn't have to "default" on it to do so.

The government can start by turning on the printing presses and not
turning them off until the debt is paid off.  This is a lousey idea
(see "pre-WWII Germany" for details ...), but would work just fine.

The government can also let inflation run wild - Carter did this.  It
has the nasty side effect that interest rates run wild as well, which
Carter also did.  Rampant inflation (say, 15% per year) would half
the national debt in 5 years, and put it back to pre-Reagan levels in
10.  One nice side effect of this is that as interest rates on the
bonds soar, the value of old bonds on the open market plummets - the
government could move into the market and start buying up its debt for
pennies on the dollar.

I happen to favor the "inflation" model myself.  For one thing, the
debt is, in part, so large because Congress continued to operate
under the "inflation is high" way of thinking long after Reagan put
the lid on inflation.  We see this in continually expanding programs.
It's OK if a program grows 5% and inflation is 5% - they cancel each
other out.  But we've not had 5% inflation in a while.

But to answer the questions about what would happen if we devalued
our debt, the answer is "nothing".  We used to do it all the time.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7279 alt.politics.bush:6744
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments)
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:37:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
@In article <5532@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
@"
@"How many lives do you think should die in going after Saddam Hussein?
@"(And I'm not exclusively referring to American lives. Iraqi lives as
@"well.) How will we know we have Saddam rather than some look-alike?
@
@O come now, do you mean that our military is so inept that its special
@forces cannot take out *ONE MAN*?? What planet are *YOU* living on??

The same planet in which we tried to take out Pineapple head Noriega.
And we really didn't get him either since we had to negotiate with the
Vatican to get him "extradicted" from their embassy. And I think we can
recall all the stories about American soldiers who died trying to get
one man, and how it was "outrageous" that we used our forces to get one
man to trial in the US.

The difference here though is that unlike Panama, any invasion of Iraq
would have been expected. We surprised Noriega and his army in one fell
swoop, and we got him a few days later. The conflict with Madman Hussein
had been ongoing since Iraq invaded Kuwait in August. They had FIVE
months to construct barricades and plant land mines on the Mesopotamian
plains from the Gulf to Baghdad. Sure we could have airlifted special
forces into Baghdad, but we still were not sure exactly where Saddam
was, if he was in Baghdad at all!

I don't doubt our special forces, but I don't know how a decision to get
Saddam would be militarily prudent.

@We could have equipped some mercenaries, or Kurds to do the job too. 

We could have armed the Kurds, but that was beyond the scope of the UN
mandate. How many UN countries would favor the US arming a
minority group striving for its own autonomy against an oppressive
government? Hmm... (Yugoslavia, USSR, China definitely would have gone
for that idea, I'm sure!)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	No social life & damn proud of it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot