HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Comrade Clinton
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:09:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]


  Now everything seems crystal clear!  Bill Clinton is a deep plant by the
KGB, programmed to wreak economic havoc upon our country, leaving it
ripe for the picking by the second coming of the Soviet Union.  Hmmm,
Hillary always did remind me of the Russian woman trainer in Rocky IV.  {:^)
  Seriously, if ANY of this story of Clinton going to Moscow during the
height of the war is true, you can bet the Republicans are going to exploit
it to the max.  For someone who was a Rhodes scholar and has stated that in
his youth he wanted to remain politically viable, it would be the actions
of a moron to go to the Soviet Union FOR ANY REASON during the height of
the Vietnam war.  If these rumours are true, I'll laugh my *** off as he 
slides down the polls faster than Dukakis did in '88.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Private School Re: Public Education
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:00:55 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <5770@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Comments by williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) deleted.
>>
>>The numbers on the private school vouchers don't add up.
>
>I don't call myself a member of the rich, but I have attended a public
>and a private school. Currently I am attending a private university
>(Duke) and let me say I'd love to have a voucher or a loan check or
>something that would cover all my expenses with respect to tuition.
>

But, then again, who wouldn't love to be given a thousand dollars?
The question is:  does that $1000/(pupil in private school) improve
education in the United States or does it merely take money from
public education and give it to middle and upper income parents.
I suspect that latter.

>Again, I don't expect there to be the "enormous" flight to private
>schools as you might think. Private schools will be looking for the best
>possible students as will the families for the best schools. I don't
>think my old private school could carry more than 500 people, and their
>tuition costs are around $2.5K per student (max).
>

I don't expect so either.  Rather, I expect public schools to 
decrease in quality due to lack of funding and parents of children
in private schools to have $1000 in extra disposable income.

John D.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser)
Subject: Re: Where is Bush?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:15:20 GMT

Speaking of bumper stickers.. each presidential election year since
I can remember I've seen less and less stickers on cars in Calif.
I remember zillions of them during the 64 Johnson/Goldwater battle,
and had a Gene McCarthy "flower" sticker on my vw bug back in
'68 (as did zillions of other college students).. but since then
I've seen fewer and fewer. 

Congress should appropriate a few billion dollars to study 
this phenomena. :)



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:00:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
: In article <1992Sep23.215611.5980@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
> >and by the way, quit with the homophobic accusations. AIDS will most 
> >certainly spread throughout the heterosexual community the same way. 
> 
> It most certainly will not, or else it would have already.
> 

I'm afraid you are mistaken.  It hasn't hit the hetrosexual community 
as hard as the homosexual community *in this country*, but it will.

I spent some time in Africa last winter, and in some countries AIDs is
rampant in the entire population.  Yes, my friend, it is coming.
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:40:15 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct06.145614.26643@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.232634.14126@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>
>|> nation.  We got into Viet Nam because the President decided
>|> it was necessary for national security.  We entered every
>|> other war for the same reason.  
>|> 
>
>Please reread the Constitution.  The president cannot
>declare war.

A mere technicality.  The president requests Congress to declare
war.  No big deal in the past.  For the uninformed, Congress
authorized our participation in Viet Nam too.

>And if every war the president decides to fight
>is "just" by definition, then it's not surprising
>that you think we've never been in an unjust war.

By definition, action to preserve the security of our
country is just.  The President is sworn to protect and
defend the constitution (and the country) against all
enemies.
>|> 
>|> Clinton broke the law, and is unqualified to be President.
>|> 
>
>Exactly what law did Clinton break?

The one prohibiting false official statements to obtain
deferment from military service.  (Re: the letter stating
he intended to enter ROTC which is shown by his subsequent
actions to be false.  He never intended to complete ROTC...)

David Shackelford
Veteran and damn proud of it!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7737 alt.politics.clinton:8499 talk.bizarre:32820
From: terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (St Theresa of the Net)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:43:36 GMT
Organization: Computing Something Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct6.000021.14558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>In article <1akhv8INN1bv@uwm.edu  > terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Theresa J Flynn) writes:
> >PENCILS UP, YOU MAY BEGIN
> >Joel McNally, the Innocent Bystander -- The Milwaukee Journal 10/1/92
> >A midterm campaign examination on everything we have learned so far:
> >1. Which promise on taxes by George Bush do you find more persuasive?
> >   a.  His 1988 pledge:  "Read my lips.  No new taxes."
> >   b.  His new, improved 1992 pledge: "I am not going to do it again. Ever,
> >       ever."
>    Both.  Bush didn't raise taxes, Congress did.

[etc., etc.  we've all seen it.]

Uh, David, it was a *lighthearted piece of humor.*  Unfortunately, all the
paint fumes from your Nixon Youth Poster Workshop have probly toasted your
neurons.


-- 
A little bit of uh huh and a whole lot of oh yeah.   \  (414)CRUSH-13
T. Flynn's Casa de Interesting: 1755 N Cambridge Ave #306 Milwaukee WI 53202    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:6987 alt.politics.marrou:1336 talk.politics.misc:48331 alt.politics.elections:14495 talk.politics.theory:4367 alt.politics.clinton:7570
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: AIDS crisis
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:57:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <BvB7JL.MpB@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
> > >AIDS is not God's way of punishing the homosexuals for their lifestyle.
> 
> > AIDS is not a punishment from God at all. It is a natural consequence
> > of ignoring the users manual. Sort of like jumping of a cliff.
> 
> Can you please let me know where I can get a copy? It's not listed
> on any of the catalogues I can access. I assume it has Humans/ people/
> homo sapiens AND `users manual' in the title/subject.

I think it's called "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Perots book available now on USENET
Organization: None.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:34:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.182028.2586@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>For those who haven't read the NY Times Bestseller book by Ross
>Perot UNITED WE STAND, it covers in great detail Ross's plan for
>fixing the ills in America. I have read it and agree in principle
>with most of what he says. I had not formed any opinion on Ross - 
>but reading this book changed my view - its definitely worth reading! 

Anyone can write a book that most people would agree with... in
principle.

Tom

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:25:51 EDT
From: <PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: More republican Cowardice at Penn State
 <1992Sep23.024521.3088@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <Sep.27.13.24.20.1992.15940@romulus.rutgers.edu>
 <1992Sep27.191107.2016@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <Sep.28.09.01.42.1992.27710@romulus.rutgers.edu>
 <1992Sep29.161053.25364@digibd.com>

Only problem is that most of those brought up and educated in the United
States don't have a clue on how the political system works.  ... may be
described as citizens by default.  Very well pointed out, naturalized
citizens better fit the definition than 'native Americans.' (Last term not
meant to offend, just refers to all those born in the states.)

-- Phil

( Yeah, Ross Perot would make a great President, so did Nixon! )
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:26:34 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <FOX.92Oct2065604@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>I don't think a man who was never confronted with the dilemma
>of an unjust war and an unjust selective service system is
>really qualified to be president.

The United States has never participated in an unjust war.
Neither is the selective service system unjust.  The fundamental
principle involved is that the citizens of a nation should
be required to take action to preserve the security of that
nation.  We got into Viet Nam because the President decided
it was necessary for national security.  We entered every
other war for the same reason.  

There is no dilemma involved -- the only right choice is
to obey the law.  (Or leave and never come back)  The
only people who are qualified to be President are law-
abiding citizens.

Clinton broke the law, and is unqualified to be President.

David Shackelford
Desert Storm era Veteran
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Why I can't stand the Democratic party
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:03:03 GMT

Hey, dude, that's politics.  Those and similar tactics are practiced by 
Democrats and Republicans alike, all over the country.  Get used to it.


-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7340 talk.politics.misc:48818 misc.legal:17908
From: thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:01:28 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: alt.fan.dan-quayle,misc.test
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <Sep.30.09.44.18.1992.1435@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <92268.165034TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu> TAF102@psuvm.psu.edu (Tracy A. Freeling, who obviously has _MUCH_ to learn) writes:
>> Remember Dan Quayle at the Republican convention saying that America
>> has 70% of the world's lawyers?  Everyone was amazed by this figure
>> since we account for less than 10% of the world's population.
>
>Well, not everyone (though perhaps the ignorant were).  The claim is
>not new, nor is the figure original to Quayle.  This is something that
>has been bandied about for years -- though there is certainly quite a
>bit of controversy about it.

But the fact is that Quayle continues to repeat the number, long after
it's been disproved (and the member of his staff who came up with it
acknowledged that it doesn't have any basis in fact).

>I suppose it must be beyond the mental capacity of morons to deduce
>that there is probably an alternate explanation as to how the 70%
>figure was arrived at.

Yes.  It was made up.

>> So you see...as usual Dan's aquaintance with the facts is iffy.
>
>Dan Quayle has managed to get elected to the Senate of the United
>States (no trivial task) -- more than once.  What have you
>accomplished?

Well, I've gotten better grades in law school than Dan Quayle did.
Now, if only I had a family as rich as his...
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:01:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.122344.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.143859.1771@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep27.202721.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep27.214729.550@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>>>> I've been very concerned about Bush's failing health.
>>>> 
>>>> If you compare pictures of him from the last 12 years in 4 year
>>>> increments (I looked though old Time magazines at the library) after
>>>> each election he's really looking a lot worse.  The rate is
>>>> accellerating.
>> [...]
>> 
>>>     Oh please -- not any more unsubstantiated rumors!  But, since
>>>rumor and inaccurate data seems to be the fuel for the alt.politics.*
>>>fires, let me break my own rule and throw in a rumor I heard about
>>>Clinton.  I heard on the Bob Grant radio show on WABC - New York
>> [...]
>> 
>> (Oh Bob Grant, that institution of ethical reporting and integrity!)
>
>     I agree -- that is why I do not take it seriously.
> 
>> You changed the subject.  You're as bad a GHWB himself!  The issue is
>                                            ^^^^
>> that Bush is NOT as healthy as people think he is.  Has anyone else
>> ACTUALLY LOOKED at pictures of him?  He's really not looking good.
>
>     On a macroscopic scale, I did not change the subject -- the
>main topic dealt with a *rumor* about the *health* of Bush, not the
>*appearance* of Bush.  If you would like to discuss Bush's
>appearance, I would be glad to!  Sure, he looks much older than
>he did 12 years ago.  He was 56 years old then, and is 68 years old
>now.  Do you know of many people who look the same at ages 56 and 68?
>Bush is no spring chicken anymore (note that I used the word "chicken"
>as in "Chicken George" as a peace-offering to the fine people
>who, today, have called me "confused" and now a "GHWB").  If you
>are interested in appearance, obviously Clinton/Gore is your ticket
>(so long as you disregard the "cosmetically challenged" Hillary).
>
>     C. Perttunen

 
    Yes, you changed the subject is a big way from the start.  Don't you
realize that we should not have been talking about the Jennifers or 
Gennifers that Clinton or Bush might have slept with, we ought be talking 
people's living standards, our country's future, educations for the kids,
etc...  Or is that the republican campaigne stragedy to focus on womanizing,
draft and family values ?  

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7899 alt.politics.clinton:8707
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:37:51 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <amvdpyw@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.013435.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>> ... "free speech" It ... happend ... handeld ... disturbence ... 
>> ... Desert Strom....  Judging by your grasp of the English language, I'm
>> willing to wager that you are either a sophomore or a freshman... [sic] or
>> at least you should be.... aggrivate ... endith ...
>
>Considering that the rules of English spelling and punctuation violated above
>are taught before the 8th grade, one is irresistably drawn to the conclusion
>that vsg001 is envious of his antagonist's grasp of the English language, as
>the latter has shown a markedly greater familiarity with it than the former.

Nah, more like free-form art.

Actually, English spelling wasn't formalized until a couple of hundred
years ago, so he might have arrived in this century as part of
Quayle's entourage.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Bush's failing health
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:23:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep28.143859.1771@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
> In article <1992Sep27.202721.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep27.214729.550@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>>> I've been very concerned about Bush's failing health.
>>> 
>>> If you compare pictures of him from the last 12 years in 4 year
>>> increments (I looked though old Time magazines at the library) after
>>> each election he's really looking a lot worse.  The rate is
>>> accellerating.
> [...]
> 
>>     Oh please -- not any more unsubstantiated rumors!  But, since
>>rumor and inaccurate data seems to be the fuel for the alt.politics.*
>>fires, let me break my own rule and throw in a rumor I heard about
>>Clinton.  I heard on the Bob Grant radio show on WABC - New York
> [...]
> 
> (Oh Bob Grant, that institution of ethical reporting and integrity!)

     I agree -- that is why I do not take it seriously.
 
> You changed the subject.  You're as bad a GHWB himself!  The issue is
                                            ^^^^
> that Bush is NOT as healthy as people think he is.  Has anyone else
> ACTUALLY LOOKED at pictures of him?  He's really not looking good.

     On a macroscopic scale, I did not change the subject -- the
main topic dealt with a *rumor* about the *health* of Bush, not the
*appearance* of Bush.  If you would like to discuss Bush's
appearance, I would be glad to!  Sure, he looks much older than
he did 12 years ago.  He was 56 years old then, and is 68 years old
now.  Do you know of many people who look the same at ages 56 and 68?
Bush is no spring chicken anymore (note that I used the word "chicken"
as in "Chicken George" as a peace-offering to the fine people
who, today, have called me "confused" and now a "GHWB").  If you
are interested in appearance, obviously Clinton/Gore is your ticket
(so long as you disregard the "cosmetically challenged" Hillary).

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7549 alt.politics.clinton:8238 alt.politics.perot:1804 alt.politics.elections:14989 talk.politics.misc:49213
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Poll Potpourri
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:04:52 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <BvH668.F12@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>In article <1agbjqINN27c@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>
>>Some recent poll results in no particular order:
>>
>> Region     Clinton   Bush   Perot    ME     Sample    Dates Polled
>>+--------+----------+------+-------+------+----------+--------------+
>>USA            44      39     14      4.5    616 lv     9/23-9/27
>
>Pat's desk       1       0      0      0.0      1 lv     10/1

So, what were you doing on your desk when the pollster called? :-)



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson