HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Clinton in NC
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:47:25 GMT

In article <1588800025@igc.apc.org> Little Findhorn Farms <ltlfindhorn@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>Yippee!
>   Clinton is coming to Charlotte NC (where I live)
>next Monday (Oct.12). It should be a great rally.
>He has a lot of support here.
>   Does anyone out there have suggestions for
>how we can make his visit memorable?  
>Let me know.
>---Donna
>

	Yes. 'Protest' him.  Plus, offer him some laxatives.
He's full of shit, you know.
				John


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10445 talk.politics.misc:51795
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Why the Dems make poor financial leaders...
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:54:48 EST
Summary: The reality hammer strikes again!
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <92288.005751U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>       Dan Quayle lobbed grenades all night but none hit.  So Dan
>  Quayle resorted to old Republican tactics -- he lied.

	Danny Boy gave it to Al "did not" Gore pretty good.

>       He repeatedly lied about the Clinton/Gore economic plan yet
>  said absolutely nothing about the Bush/Quayle proposal.  That's easy
>  to understand since the Bush Administration has the worst economic
>  record since Herbert Hoover and has no plan to change their dismal
>  track record.

	Actually, it's the worst since...Carter.  Heh.

>       The economy wasn't the only thing Dan Quayle didn't want to talk
>  about.  He didn't mention his secretive Competitiveness Council, Iraq

	Secretive?  Maybe to Gore & Clinton :).

>  Gate or Iran Contra eventhough George Bush - just hours before the
>  debate - finally admitted he knew about the arms-for-hostage deal
>  with Iran after he denied it for the past six years.

	*Yawn*.  And?  Will Willie document his flip-flops on the draft for us?

>       Quayle used the debate to set an all-time record for denials and
>  lies.  Here is the encyclopedic list.

	Actually, Al "did not" Gore holds that record.

>             THE CLINTON/GORE PLAN: RHETORIC VS. REALITY
> 
>                      THE CLINTON ECONOMIC PLAN

	#!%*)U#!.  This is the fourth time you've posted this!!!

	We are not made of money you losers!!!!  This is why so many people
distrust the Democrats with money!!!

	Spend spend spend spend.  I guess that's what happens when you're using
other people's money.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: USENET Readers Flunk Arithmetic (was: Re: Education President Flunks Arithmetic)
Date: 14 Oct 1992 11:04:11 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Sep25.171117.22248@walter.bellcore.com>, nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
|> The ad says that Clinton ``increased the sales tax by 33 percent''.  
|> Actually, he increased the sales tax from 3 percent to 4-1/2 percent.
|> This can be described as either a 50 percent increase 
|> or a 1-1/2 percent increase;
|> but there is no way it can correctly be described as an increase of 33 percent.

In article <1992Sep29.183019.13583@fia.dmg.ml.com> jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin) writes:
>You misquoted... the ad states that Clinton "increased taxes by over 33
>percent."  This being the case, the ad is quite correct, unless, of course
>you live in a different universe, because in any math using any (legal) base,
>50 > 33... :-)

The 1-1/2 percent increase is 33 percent of the present level of 4-1/2 percent.

Now close your books, kids.  We're going to have a math test.


On a sidenote, why Bush must lose: being in the tight grip of a 60 year
political and economic cycle with 3 successive conservative Republican
administrations having screwed us over yet again with 10 years of false
prosperity, wealth concentration, under the misbegotten conceptions of
supply side economics, climaxed by stock market crashes, acorss the board
bankruptcies, major layoffs, homelessness, and lame duck administrations
presiding over looming bank failures (as will occur in December when the
shit hits the fan), it is a matter of historical inevitability that Clinton
win this election with over 60% of the pupular vote and a vast majority of
the electoral vote.

Nothing personal Mr. Bush.  You may have been an okay president now and
then in places.  But history is casting you in the role as another Herbert
Hoover, like it or not.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek)
Subject: Red Willie??
Organization: Oryx Energy, Dallas, Texas.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:04:51 GMT

In this morning's paper, I read the following quote 
from Comrade Clinton regarding his trip to the "Rodina":

"I paid my own way, I got a visa, and _mostly_ I was just 
a tourist."  (emphasis added).

By his own words, he admits that he was there, at least
in part, for purposes other than tourism.  This should
put to rest the comments claiming he was there _strictly_
as a tourist.  What portion of the trip was pleasure and
what portion was business??  What were the "non-tourist" 
activities in which he participated??  Might this be a 
Freudian slip of some sort, or just a "pathetic"
choice of words?

I know that being a lawyer and Rhodes scholar, Slick would 
not have made as simple a mistake as poorly wording his 
sentences, therefore there must be something else.  
On the other hand, after the Democaratic Convention where
he made the statement:  "Give Al Gore and I a chance to run
the country." (or something close to this).  It makes you
wonder?

He certainly meant to say that, after all, Slick would not
stoop so low as to attempt to sidestep an issue or reverse
positions.  On the other hand, the recent post concerning his
flip-flopping on various issues makes one wonder, too.

Oh well, das vadanya, Comrade Clintonovitch.

----------------------
"I'm a politician, and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm
stealing their lollipops."
                 Jeffery Pelt (The Hunt for Red October - movie)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11018 talk.politics.misc:52488
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:29:14 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Vinay Julapalli Rao) writes:
|> Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
|> Stupendous Man) writes:
|> >
|> >>	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
|> >>debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of change
|> >>saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.
|> >
|> >George Bush was indeed pro-choice, then he switched to pro-life. 
|> >
|> >So much for that "trustworthyness."
|> 
|> Although both Bush and Gore may have flip-flopped on the the abortion issue,
|> doesn't Gore's denial that he ever flip-flopped on the issue question his
|> "trustworthiness"? 
|> 
Only if you make the assumption that pro-life means anti-abortion.  I
don't, Clinton doesn't, and Gore doesn't.  We are all pro life.  Life
is a good and wonderful thing.  That has nothing to do with my feelings
about whether a woman should be denied the right to choose to have
an abortion.

-- 
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
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 05:50:57 GMT

In article <21098@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>In <1992Oct11.030319.9764@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>    Life is a series of "irresponsible" activities.  Do you live in a plastic
>    bubble?  Or do you too engage in irresponsible activities?  (Do you eat
>    butter? Margarine? Beef? Do you smoke? Drive small cars? Spend long hours 
>    in front of computer terminals bad for your eyesight instead of getting 
>    aerobic exercise?)

>The question is, would you have sex with someone you know has AIDS, and trust
>your life to a condom?  Do you teach your kids "I know you're little more than
>a rabbit, here, have a condom"?  Isn't the big push toward "safe" sex a

Well, I don't *have* kids, but since I'm not that far past being one, I
can say that you're living in a fairy tale world.  If you tell your kids
"Don't have sex," that doesn't mean they aren't going to have sex.  They
still will.  If you tell them "Use a condom if you do," then there's a
chance they might.

Do you not teach your children about seat belts because then they might
drive unsafely?

>little like saying if you play Russian roulette with only one round in the
>chamber it's safer than playing it with six?  Since the failure rate of
>condoms is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-30%, isn't continuing to
>condone "playing around" about the same as condoning Russian roulette? 

No.  Your numbers are incorrect.  The failure rate is closer to 10%.
But that doesn't mean condoms fail one out of every ten times they're
used.  If it did, then condoms *would* be almost useless.  It means that
of people who use condoms consistently for a year, 1/10 of them will
become pregnant.  (1/10 of the women, anyway.  :))

There's a much greater chance your kids will die in an auto accident 
than that they'll contract AIDS if they use a condom.  But that doesn't
mean you don't teach them how to drive safely, hoping that they won't
drive at all.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10395 alt.politics.bush:9133 alt.politics.marrou:1617 alt.politics.correct:5684 talk.politics.misc:51733 alt.sex:32932
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:35:45 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Oct12.194546.19965@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.030319.9764@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.154536.10425@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>>>how is this fallacious?
>>>    1. irrisponsible behavior is the primary factor in the spread of AIDS
>>>    2. eliminating such behavior will slow the spread of AIDS dramatically.
>>>

So when will you start to work against all of the other life threating situations
Cancer/Heart Disease are the big dangers, many scientific findings point 
towards many conditions related to " irrisponsible behavior as the primary factor"
of these problems, smoking, alcohol, poor diet, chemically treated foods, etc.

Don't take aim at just one thing and call it the "Great Cause of All our Misery"
you must look at everything, this society does many things which can be classified
as " irrisponsible behavior".

>
>AIDS virus.  That doesn't sound too effective to me when you're talking
>a lethal disease.  Noone wants to say "Don't have sex" or "Don't have
>homosexual sex" because their afraid of offending someone.  That's
>total BS.  It's not about sex being bad, it's sex could be deadly.  

You are trying to prevent a behavoir pattern, which you won't.  So the next
best thing is too at least be involved in damage control.  You are not going
to change people for at least one generation, probably more, and that will
be accomplished via education, as soon as, we get on with it.  We have too
many people worried about teaching our childern about things that the parents
don't want to know about.  Of course, it usually ends up they find out the
wrong way.
>
>
>You may have a life of irresponsible activities.  Don't make that 
>assumption about others.  I'm perfect. B-)  On a serious note,  I'm
>not talking about legislating behaviors unless it has a serious 
>demonstratable effect on society.  For instance, I believe in MJ and
>possibly other drug legalization.  But, in the case of AIDS, I think 
>it has definitely been shown that behavior change is where we will be most
>effective in eliminating AIDS as a threat to our society.

Hmm!  " irrisponsible behavior " can be connected to MJ... plus other drugs
that we may not think are dangerous, actually it is not the drug but the
user that is dangerous.  I'll bet I could list several areas that would show
you are not as responsible as you think.  I would agree about the requirement
For a behave change, but that does not require nor imply the need for the
elimination of homosexual sex, if you want that then you have to eliminate all
sex, since the majority of HIV transmission is heterosexual.
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: 12 Oct 1992 20:01:17 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) said..
>75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) wrote:
>
>>  RHETORIC: "I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own
>>  country. I just find it impossible to understand how an American can
>>  demonstrate against his own country"
>> 
>>  REALITY: President Bush didn't always feel this way. During the
>>  Vietnam War he supported people's right to demonstrate against the
>>  U.S. [Houston Chronicle, 10/15/69]   [...]
>
>This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. ANYONE who watched last
>night, and anyone who watched Larry King last week will remember that he
>said he could not understand people who demonstrated against his country IN
>A FOREIGN LAND.  Our Clinton Friends here have left out that crucial part
>of the line, how clever.  He has repeatedly said he understands fully
>demonstrating in YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

Actually, here's what he said last week while addressing the Fraternal
Order of Police.

	BUSH:  You let the liberal elite do their number today, trying 
	to call me Joe McCarthy, I'm standing with American principle. 
	It is wrong to demonstrate against your country when your 
	country's at war. And I'm not going to back away from it one 
	single bit.

Perhaps he's flip-flopping because this approach has backfired on him.
Now on to the more important issue, why does it matter WHERE you protest?
George Bush sure wasn't saying "I just think it's wrong" when Chinese
students here in the US were protesting the massacre in Tienanmen square.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10232 tx.politics:6031 austin.politics:207 austin.talk:259 austin.general:3203
From: petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:03:58 GMT
	<1992Oct12.134333.15318@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <21707@rpp386.lonestar.org>
Reply-To: petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Organization: Henry's Laughing Gas Co., Inc.

In article <21707@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.134333.15318@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Yes, and 9 Nobel Laureates and some 500 other economists have stated
>>that Clinton's plan of selective and targetted cuts would be better
>>for the economy than Bush's proposal to simply let the rich reap more
>>profits. 
>
>There is an old saying, it goes something like "If you lined up all
>the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn't reach a
>conclusion."
>
>Just to burst your bubble, but there are economists who practice
>partisan politics.  There is, so far as I know, no CPA who has ever
>been made a saint for being pure and chaste in his (or her) pursuit
>of numerical purity.

Ahh, funny article in today's NY Times business section about how
several investment firms created portfolios that contained accounts
that would do good (in their opinion) under Bush's reign and under
Clinton's reign (obviously, they're not the same :-).  The Clinton
portfolio stayed about 7% higher than the S&P, and the Bush one
was about 2% lower.  Consistently.

What does this tell us?

Oh yea.  The Clinton portfolio included companies that did recycling,
environmental &c, ...  The Bush portfolia included defense corporations,
&c.

-pet-
--
Michael A. Petonic	       petonic@hal.com		       +1-512-794-2855
        HaL Computer Systems International, Ltd. -- A Bermuda Corporation
                     Director of Dangerous Activities  [ACK to GeoffK@ism780c]
				 Austin, Texas
                          "No balls, no blue chip."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 15:23:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <Bvu0y5.22F@rice.edu>, kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
|>         The preceding political announcement has been paid 
|>            for by DRAFT DODGERS FOR CLINTON AND QUAYLE.  

This is amusing when you consider that neither Clinton nor Quayle ever
dodged any draft.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
                "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: LOTD (tm) BUSH, Lie Of The Day
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:18:15 GMT

 
    From the Larry King Show,  at the end of the show, Bush turned to
the live audience (who seems to be selected Bush supporters), and said
to them, 
   "I am really going to win this thing".
 
    REALLY ? 
 
   
    Hereby I nominate the above as LOFD (tm).  The award will be presented
on Nov. 3.

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@a01.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:54:56 GMT


In article <1992Oct7.154954.11694@news.acns.nwu.edu>, lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey) writes:

>> 	You miss the point. The American culture is not a neutral entity.
>> 	to date, it has been defined primarily by white Western European
>> 	males. 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. We need to build
>> 	a society that acknowledges the right of people from different
>> 	cultural and religious backgrounds to bring their values to the
>> 	table as we create and continually re-create American culture.
>> 	The whole point of this place is that no one culture owns it.
>> 	That may be its fatal flaw if we can't learn to live together,
>> 	but the jury is (happily) still out on that.
>> 	No Americans, regardless of their background, are devoid of
>> 	the baggage of the culture of their ancestors... even if 
>> 	they can't perceive the roots of their own values. If that,
>> 	to you, is "tribalism", so be it. Just be sure you recognize
>> 	your own tribalism, and don't ask others to join your tribe.
>> 

What tribe?  I'm the one protesting tribalism.  I'm not advocating it
on any scale.  

One of the primordial features of America that makes it great is it's
patriotism.  What you have is truly a nation.  When Americans go to
war (for instance), the whole country rallies (usually).  In a 
dangerously cosmopolitan country like Canada, national concerns
mean very little to the many tribes whose tribalism is encouraged
by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  

Oh well, Canada is on the verge of breakup and possibly civil war
but that means nothing to you, I suppose.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election
From: machman@stein.u.washington.edu (the machman)
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:32:10 GMT

anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:

>In article <blah blah> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>Shrub's little attempt to steer the discussion into character issues
>>was flatly rejected by the audience.  
>
>Nonsense.  Bush obviously didn't want to touch character and he actually
>steered around it himself with the stuff about his father and duty to 
>country.

What debate were -you- watching?  Bush very obviously wanted to go into
"character" issues.  He was the first one to go that direction, until the
audience made it known that they were tired of hearing about that stuff.

At one point, Clinton actually avoided an attack situation that he could
have taken advantage of.  When one woman asked a question about the US
as being a force abroad, Bush and Perot responded first.  The moderator
then asked Clinton if he wanted to comment on Bush's dealings with Saddam
Hussein.  Clinton said sure, but first he'd like to answer the woman's 
question.  Clinton never did get any jabs at Bush in on that issue, though
he was obviously invited to do so.  I thought that reflected well on Clinton.

>-anwar

						-- dave

-- 
 /'''   The Machman        machman@u.washington.edu        david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections