HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lewin@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu (Jonathan Lewin)
Subject: Are Bush's speeches anywhere on the internet?
Keywords: bush politics speech transcript
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 01:59:13 GMT

I desperately need copies of Bush's foreign policy speeches.  Are they
available anywhere on the internet?

Thanks

Jonathan  lewin@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: What happened to ???
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:20:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.001628.25917@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> davidk@welch.jhu.edu writes:
>Does anyone know what happened to Mz. Fitzgerald, the woman that G. Bush had an 
>affair with?  I had heard something a while ago and forgot all about it until
>a friend of mine asked.  So I will ask you all, Anyone knows where she went?
>
>-=davidk@welch.jhu.edu
>my words, my question...
>
>
>

I don't know her whereabouts, but I do know she is on record as saying
it never happened... go figure.

-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser)
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:06:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.031246.14163@pellns.alleg.edu> freshlt@quig17.alleg.edu (Timothy Freshly) writes:
>
>
>	So when Reagan/Bush were in office it was OK to bash them but now  
>that your candidate is in office NO ONE should criticize anything.  Don't  
>be so hypocritical.
>	I do agree, however, that we need to pull together to help get the  
>ball rolling again.
>
>			Tim

In the interest of "accuracy in media", since everyone here seems to
be so fond of that goal.. let's all keep in mind that Bill Clinton
won't be President until noon on 20 January 1993.  He hasn't taken
office yet. He hasn't acted in any way in the capacity of President
yet. So hey kids, take a deep breath and give the guy a chance to
at least get his desk and family and saxaphone into the White House
before you start peeling off his skin with a dull spoon, eh?

Harv


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton)
Subject: Re: We have a winner
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:56:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.180150.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.173625.15195@athena.cs.uga.edu>, stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton) writes:
>> 
>> arguments with you via email or news.
>
>Uh, CAT. You are blatantly lying here. You replied to my "Hey Cat" post
>through e-mail on several occations. I wish that I would have saved them, I

Vince, get a clue.  I have never emailed you and also, I refuse to reply
because the elections are over.  I have a life to get on with now.  You
and Brett obviously don't.  Enjoy.

Cat

>posts, you said that you were leaving this group, and that any responces to you
Yes, I did leave the alt.politics group, this is also on alt.fan.dan-quayle,
one I still subscribe to.  Check the headers.

 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.bizarre
From: awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells)
Subject: Re: FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle
Summary: ignore
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.230111.6724@sci34hub.sci.com>, gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) writes:
> In article <92309.005353RAP115@psuvm.psu.edu> <RAP115@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
> |  As Jerry Brown wanted to do, we took back America!  
> 
> Yeah, but the idea was to take it away from the politicians, not
> the citizens....
> 
 "Took a piece of America back,
  But who had it first?
  Hear the Indian Curse.
 
  Robbed so many, so much,
  It ain't funny,
  Now 'e got 'em face on money..."

  Chuck D., Public Enemy



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13277 alt.politics.clinton:15985
From: larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Na na, na na na na, Hey hey hey , good bye
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:11:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General, Westboro, Mass.


Actually, Bush's loss was not humiliating at all.  Clinton campaigned
quite well, to his credit.  Remember, Bush was within a point on some
polls before the organized Democrat procecutors and Democrat press
made old news sound new and confused the electorate.

Much more humiliating defeats were suffered by Dukakis (Thank God!!!)
and Mondale.

Well, obviously you voted for Clinton.  I hope that those of you that
did will accept responsibility if he fails.  It goes with the gloating
regarding his victory.

By the way, Clinton is already having an affect.  In the past month,
home mortgage interest rates are up nearly a point.  That'll cost us
more than Perot's gas tax.  The home owner/buyer takes it on the chin
again.

Larry
--
    @@               Larry Rogers               *
   @@@               Larry_Rogers@dg.com        *   Big Brother
   @@@ &&&           larry@boris.webo.dg.com    *   is Watching
    @@ &&            Data General  508-870-8441 * 

The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.

"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
   Dire Straits
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 17:17:43 EST
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

> Let's say the "issues" were less taxes and less government.
> 
> Please answer how the ACTIONS taken by the Bush administration follow this
> with:
> 1) large % increase in white house staff
> 2) "read my lips no new taxes"

Call it a lesser of two evils. :)

> If the "issue" was less taxes and less government then why did the 
> Libertarians NOT win?  I will maintain there is little differance between
> Rebublicans and the Democrats in the big picture of things.  Big Govn.
> assures their survival.  And big gonv takes big $$$ to run.

Same reason term limitations are so popular - for every congressthing
except the one in your own district, who does a great job of bringing home
the pork. (I'm using "your" as a general term, I don't mean you personally!)

As long as people can vote to impose their will on others, they will do so.

> What points?  No real FUNCTIONAL differance between Republicans and
> Democrats?  No real "issues" in the campaign?

The republicans seem a couple of percentage points lower on the hypocrite
scale, but it's a pretty close contest there.


--
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13189 alt.politics.clinton:15857 alt.rush-limbaugh:9053
From: rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Rob Brooks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:36:18 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College

In article <1992Nov4.153313.174@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com writes:
> 
> 
> In a perverse kind of way, it is sort of a relief that the left now runs 
> the White House AND the Congress.
> 
> Those of us who didn't endorse Clinton can now go from defense to offense,
> and in fact, we'll enjoy ourselves (in a Pyrrhic kind of way). 
> 
> Because from January 20, 1993 on, EVERY bad thing that happens will be
> Clinton's fault.  Higher taxes.  Higher deficits.  More regulations.  More
> spending.  Homelessness.  Pollution.  Hunger in Africa.  Drought in
> California.  Everything will now be Clinton's fault -- just as everything
> after January 1981 was Reagan's fault, and all bad events after January
> 1989 were Bush's fault (so sayeth the left). 
> 
> The rest of us now get to sit back and throw stones, without ever once
> offering a single constructive suggestion.  We can now adopt precisely the
> same strategies, use the same techniques, that the left used to tell
> America that it's all Clinton's fault, because the left has spent 12 years
> convincing America that the President is responsible for EVERYthing that
> happens.  Remember the line, "The President presided over ____________"
> (big deficits, jobs lost, any other nasty event here)? 
> 
> Hell, it worked for the left for 12 years; they can't get away with 
> changing that myth now.
> 
> Hee, hee, heeeee......  <slick grin>

Um, I think we're kind of missing the point here.  I was under the
impression that the way to rebuild a country was to work with its leaders,
not "throw stones" at them.  I'm as guilty of Reagan/Bush bashing as the
next guy but, as Bush and Perot both said on election night, it's time to
stop attacking the other parties and time to work together to rebuild
America.  

BTW, are trickle-down economics *really* Clinton's fault? <slicker grin>

Rob (rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu)
> 
> ------
> 
>  Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
>  Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
>  "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
> 
> -- In two years, 59% of the voters will DENY voting for Clinton. --
> --             And I'll give excellent odds on it.               --
> 
> 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13297 alt.politics.clinton:16006
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Not a Native! (Was Re: Rush Limbaugh, Sacramento's furball ...)
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:25:01 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Nov3.164353.7477@netcom.com> saf@netcom.com (Steve A. Feinstein) writes:
>In article <Bx5562.330@eis.calstate.edu> ftoppin@eis.calstate.edu (Frank Topping) writes:
>>
>>Sheesh, Sacramento burped; ...and _again_ the nation gets the furball.
>> 
>>Whatta Skumbag - what is any respectable candidate for president (let
>>alone _the_ president) doing praising Rush Limbaugh and enviting him to
>>the White House?
>> 
>
>Ditto! :)

Hey, don't you slime my city!  The ever-fragrant Rush was born and raised in
the Midwest (a guy here who takes him seriously thinks he's from Kansas but
isn't sure) and didn't contaminate Sacramento until 1984.  The TV station
that has his show puts him in the same category as Jay Leno and David Letter-
man:  talk show hosts cum comedians.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|		"Life is uncertain.  Eat dessert first."  - Anon. 	   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: eg1@ra.msstate.edu (Ernie Gammon)
Subject: Clinton joke......hehehe.
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:49:34 GMT

Heh...I heard this joke the other day, and I just couldnt resist posting it.

Have you heard that in Arkansas, they're having hamburgers this year
for Thanksgiving??
























Yeah, they sent their TURKEY to Washington.......

*grin*

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Now, to start working on the downfall of the USA
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: world, na, usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:57:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.050551.1856@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> In article <92310.185447KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov4.055022.6777@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
|> >tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) says:

<stuff deleted>

|> Well, this certainly helped convince me that Christian Principles are
|> alive and well... I plan to go to church tomorrow!

Well, Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan will both be encouraged to here that the
"revolution" that you humanists declared in HMII is failing so miserably
~20 years later . . .

Which Seventh Day Adventist Church did you attend?


dp

***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13126 alt.politics.elections:22583
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Foul Words and False
Date: 5 Nov 1992 13:39:12 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <5NOV199207010394@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1da3k2INN9dd@fido.asd.sgi.com>, coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes...
>>In article <5NOV199202465423@vxcrna.cern.ch>, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>>|> In article <1992Nov4.194250.14760@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes...
>>|> >In article <griffinb.720791098@unix1.tcd.ie> griffinb@unix1.tcd.ie (brendan james griffin) writes:
>>|> >>In <1992Nov2.175821.12287@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> 
>>No, no, you have it wrong. Clinton was demonstrating *because* his fellow
>>Americans were dying. As soon as you say "while" instead of "because", you
>>sink into a semantic tarpit that doesn't care about what happened, but 
>>rather only about what one can be made to believe about what happened.
>
>I fail to see how demonstrating in a foreign country (where he was also
>conveniently safe from the draft, yet still "politically viable") did anything
>to aid these poor victims for which he supposedly cared so much.  Why not
>come home and take a stand where it might have some effect on the government?
>Why not openly repudiate the draft then instead of playing administrative
>games that look for all the world like someone trying to stay out of the draft
>while keeping a low profile?
>
Hmmmm...demonstrating in a foreign country...seems to be *as* effective
if not *more* effective than demonstrating in the U.S. By demonstrating
in the U.S. Clinton would just be one of a few hundred thousand protestors,
something the government could, to a certain extent, hush up...By demonstrating
in England, Clinton was one of a few thousand protesting in a place that
the U.S. government could not easily hush up...I can't think of a better
way to get something done than by embarrassing the U.S. government in front
of the entire world...Think the Chinese students that protested IN THE US
about problems in China would have been as effective if they had been
protesting in China ? No, they'd probably be dead...


>Ethics alone are great for moralists and Sunday school teachers, but I'm
>afraid the world outside Podunk, Iowa is a bit rougher.  I'm not questioning
>Carter's motives, but merely saying that world history is littered with these
>naive do-gooders who expect tyrants to play by club rules.  The first ethic
>as far as I'm concerned is self-preservation.  

No, self-preservation is not an "ethic" it is an "animal-instinct" quite
a different matter. Personally I would prefer to have an ethical person
running the country and dealing with unethical enemies, than having
an unethical person running the country...




Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Just for a moment
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:36:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.162040.18428@osf.org>, Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
> 
> I can remember saying that I wanted to move out of the country when
> Reagan was elected.  It is very painful to see someone that you have
> worked for lose, but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to give up. 
> I know how ugly a loss of this magnitude can be and it sure ain't
> fun or pretty.  Good luck!!  The dems winning this year proves the
> value of keeping your eyes on the prize and not giving up.  

 My. We sure like ourselves don't we? "A loss of this magnatude"? Ah... No.
Clinton did not win, in any magnatude. And yes, it WILL be fun. Just because
the country is going to have a mild screwing, courtesey of the Clinton
Administration, does not mean that the SuccessMindedVotingRepublicans are going
to have their fun spoiled. We like our money. We like our cars. We like our
homes. We like our swimming pools. We like our jobs. We would like to keep these
things. This is why we vote Republican. No one is going to spoil our fun, until
these things are threatened. That's when we get really pissed off and go blow
the hell out of some Iraqi's. That's why we like our guns. These things are
fun. If Clinton screws up, we impeach him, or elect another president. This is
one of the beauty's of voting for the loser. If everything works out, good.
Great. If not, we told ya so.  :-) 

> I would hope the the Republicans can take
> some time to figure out what happened and begin to heal the wounds
> of their own party.   They can then begin to formulate new ideas and
> policies that will contribute to the level of debate in this
> country.  

  Boy. What happend? Well, we lost. It happens. To say that we lost because the
Republicans have an inherent flaw, well, that's just wishful thinking. If that
were true, the popular vote wouldn't even have been close. We are not a weak
party by no means, just look at who the '96 candidates will be: Jack Kemp, Phil
Gramm, Vin Weber (perhaps), Tommy Thompson, Pat Buchanon, Dan Qualye (no
chance, but he is a good man), Bill Benett, Norman Schwartzchkpaff has
expressed interests indirectly, and Colin Powell is a possible running mate for
Jack Kemp. If this is true, I believe the Kemp/Powell is basically unbeatable,
provided they don't pull a Gary Hart or anything. True, we need to quiet the
religious right, but they are no different than any other powerful lobbyist 
group. They demanded to be on the platform and promised votes for it. So they
got on the platform, and we lost. No problem, next time we'll keep them happy,
and not put their views in the public record. Maybe some poltical appointments
or something, I don't know. 


--That Vince guy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:25:11 GMT

In <1992Nov4.211224.27247@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:
>>The right wing didn't lead Bush around by the nose...Bush sold them down
>>the river repeatedly, then, a few months before the election, tried to
>>portray himself as a conservative.  They weren't buying.  That's why
>>Buchannan was in the primaries. 

>I sincerely hope that the "lesson" the Republicans learn from their
>disaster is that they must purge the party of moderates like Bush
>and move farther to the right. Sixteen more years of Clinton/Gore!

>>The election was far more anti-Bush than pro-Clinton...

Funny, this is what the media claims, are repubs now believing the
talking heads, those nattering nabobs of negativism? Nah, couldn't be.

:-)

>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.

>---
>Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

REB

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13525 alt.politics.elections:23112
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:04:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.205202.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>If you are a Dem this does not concern you.
>
>Dear Republicans,
>	Do not dispare, we are far too strong a party to become split, just
>because of one election. We will remain strong. We will remain in power. We
>will remain heard. The future of the Republican party is still very strong. Our
>party has been in power for a long time, and now its time to watch WHY the
>American people have rejected Democratic ideals. It is time to see why all
>other nations have rejected liberalism. Stay involved. Stay informed. And we
>will crush them in 1996!! Get behind Jack Kemp. After four years of President
>Clinton, we are going to need him.
>
Vince-  I'm not being a sore loser but I worry about how things will be under
Clinton.  I'm only 22, I don't remember Carter, and I thought I did the right
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Gov of Texas in 1994? Re: check THIS guy out
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:12:34 GMT

jacksonk@regulus.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:

>More than money, he has a lot more sense.  As long as he doesn't make
>jokes about rape he would be allright.  Then again, the govenorship of
>Texas is a step down from being the most voted-for independent since
>T. Roosevelt.  In plain Texas talk : "You don't sell your car to buy a
>horse!"
>-- 

From where I sit, it looks like trading a blueprint for a house.

And you should allow for the possibility that the White House might
not be empty in 1996, despite current polls (60% against and
growing, they scream!!!!)
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.p
From: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Remember ...
Organization: The Ohio State University
   Please don't refer to Georgia as a *small* Southern state.  It ranks 11th in
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:12:57 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13780 alt.politics.clinton:16899 alt.politics.elections:23520 talk.politics.misc:59658
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: None
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:50:01 GMT


} jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
} >... Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
} >Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.

Careful.  That Clinton should not do what Bush was doing does not mean
that he should be given carte blanche on whatever he wants to do instead.
He can do lots of obnoxious things, and still not do what Bush was doing.
That's what scares me.

--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: davidk@welch.jhu.edu (David Kitaguchi)
Subject: What happened to ???
Reply-To: davidk@welch.jhu.edu
Organization: Welch Medical Library
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:16:28 GMT

Does anyone know what happened to Mz. Fitzgerald, the woman that G. Bush had an 
affair with?  I had heard something a while ago and forgot all about it until
a friend of mine asked.  So I will ask you all, Anyone knows where she went?

-=davidk@welch.jhu.edu
my words, my question...



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush