HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: Bush in Fantasy Land
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:55:34 GMT

In article <1760@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.151720.27511@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>> 
>> I couldn't beleive it when I turn on the TV last night and saw Bush seriously
>> suggesting that Clinton went to Moscow as a 22 year-old student and organized
>> a demonstration aginst US involvement in Indo-China.
>
>It hadn't even occurred to me that that's what Bush and his sleaze-doctors
>were trying to imply until I heard various talk-show callers demanding to know
>"the whole story" about Clinton's speeches in Red Square.  Listening carefully
>to the debate last night, I was convinced that Bush was trying to do exactly
>that by juxtaposing "Moscow" and "demonstrations against the US" without
>actually saying it.

Its a shame when Bush sinks to such lows, but I dislike it for another reason.
Bush insults our intelligence when he thinks we care about non-issues.  I
could care less whether Hillary Clinton smoked pot in Moscow when I know
Bush has been busy packing the Supreme Court with anti-abortionists and we
are one justice away from losing our rights for decades to come.  

There are great stakes involved in this election and only a moron would base
their vote on character non-issues.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mister rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
X-Xxdate: Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:29:13 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:30:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.203654.22501@u.washington.edu> Eric Sieferman,
sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu writes: (responding to me)
>>if you think your cable company is charging too much for the service you
>>receive, there is a better alternative to regulation.
>>
>>call them and cancel. tell them why you cancelled.
>>your payment for TV service will be lower this way.
>
>Do you have any examples of this approach actually
>achieving the desired results?

the only desired results i need are that i do not pay more for a service
than it is worth to me. therefore, canceling certainly does qualify.

>
>Other possible results of cancelling cable service:
>(1)  The cable company assuming that I am just another
>crank, like those who cancel service because they
>believe that TV is manipulated by the liberal
>media, or by the trilateral commission, or by space aliens, ...
>Any future effect I might have on the cost or 
>content of cable tv has been removed, because I am
>no longer a customer.

possible, but they're not particularly bright. but then, if you're paying
more than the service is worth to you, they're smarter than you.

>(2)  The cable company raising rates on everyone
>else to make up for lost revenue.

not likely, even more people would cancel.

=============
mister rogers
=============
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:31:05 GMT

>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>:   In regards to point 2), during the eighties Reagan claimed an enormous
>: number of jobs were created.  The Democrats continuously hammered him
>: saying that most of the jobs were low wage.  BINGO!  The same thing has
>: been true of the economy in Arkansas.  Who wants tremendous job growth if
>: the jobs will all pay minimum wage?  
 
StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>Having a low paying job is certainly a helluva lot better than not having
>a job at all.

  Not under the Democrats.  You'll make more staying unemployed, working
under the table, and collecting unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. 
than holding a minimum wage job.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: The Emergency Broadcast system
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:03:34 GMT

In article <29222@life.ai.mit.edu> bush-hq@campaign92.org (Bush/Quayle '92) writes:

Oh, at last, a post from the Re-Elect the Shrub Organization (I'd love
to have a zippy acronym here, but I rather not come up with one right
now).  What took you guys so long?

>
>This is a test of the Bush auto-posting network.
>
>If this had been an actual post, it might have said
>something interesting.
>

This test-post will most likely be the most interesting thing
to come out of this address....



--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:21:56 GMT

note followup

jason@hal.eel.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes ...
>Unfortunantly I wasn't able to paste all of the above; but it goes on to say
>that we should all be able to make any choice we want.  "Let us chose" and
>all of that...
>
>My point is that some choices should be hinderend.  For example if I chose 
>to disagree with you; can I then (by your own logic) chose to kill you.
>To rid myself of facing controversy?  By your logic...yes!  But the answer
>should be NO!

The point of abortion is not to kill.  It is an unfortunate and
unavoidable consequence.  By my logic if I disagree with you and you
don't like it, you can stop listening to me (easy, eh?).  By your
logic, should I need a spare kidney, I am free to take it from you
regardless of your wishes.

So then, now that you've actually been at a college and away from home
for a few weeks now, how do you like the college life?     :-)

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: rint69@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (rintoul bradley e)
Subject: Pro-Bush yet not anti-Marijuana
Summary: pot
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:07:41 GMT
Keywords: Clinton and pot

I consider myself to be more pro-Bush than pro-Clinton
but I must say that after reading a few posts on here I
have to laugh at the way the Clinton/Marijuana issue is
being dealt with. It should not even really be an issue
at all, other than the fact that marijuana was and is
illegal. I'm seeing it treated here as though marijuana
is a dangerous and diabolical drug. Some of you out there
need to quit listening to all the garbage the government's
been trying to feed you now for at least 20 years. Any of
you ever seen Reefer Madness? The fact that Bill Clinton
tried marijuana at least shows to me that he is a person
capable of individual thinking and not just some robot
politician.

Laugh all you want "you-who-have-been-around-the-block-a
few-more-times-than-me". Just please don't believe all the
shit (and I do mean shit) about pot.        



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Bush in Fantasy Land
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:38:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.175900.3893@csrd.uiuc.edu> saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:

>But don't hold your breath: I would not be surprised if we hear before Nov.
>3 that Clinton is a child rapist and wife beater as well as a pot-smoking peace
>activist working for the KGB (did anyone catch the funny program of Comrade
>Clinton in Moskov on NPR last night?). Every day in the last few weeks the 
>accusations have become more and more absurd. I believe that the Bush campaign>*can* sink lower than this. Hey, who cares about the economy anyway? Main thing 
>is that George, Dan and Jim can keep their jobs.
>
>Sirpa Saarinen
>saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu

	Well, don't worry- if it turns out that Clinton is a child
sodomizing transvestite, the liberals will all love him and smite with
righteousness any who would differ.  If it turns out that he was a
KGB spy, it will have been 'in his youth,' when 'everyone was doing
that sort of thing and it was ok.'  What could Clinton possibly have
done that could in any way alter the Democrat's view of him? He never
had an opportunity to dirty his hands in the federal government, so from
their point of view he is as white and innocent as newfallen snow. Anything
else is being racist, sexist, unhip, unrealistic, whathaveyou.
	Fact is folks, Clinton ain't got a damn good reason why he should
be president before millions of others except that he's a Democrat, and
if that's good enough for you, so be it.

			JOhn


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8457 alt.politics.clinton:9444 alt.politics.elections:15904
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: At this very moment ...
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:33:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <BvuIAH.9qM@beach.csulb.edu > sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
 >
 >  Would anyone like to entertain the concept that the reason that the
 >Republicans and Bush are so desperate to retain control of the Presidency
 >(and the Administration) that they are willing to look foolish, hypocritical,
 >disgusting, and just generally like petulant asses is that they are scared
 >stiff that if/when the Democrats get control and access to the Executive
 >files that an awful lot of underhanded, nasty, dishonest, and even some
 >illegal dealing will come to light and that reputations, careers will be
 >ruined and indictments sought and obtained. 

I think you've got it part right, but you go astray partway through.

If/when the Democrats get control and access to the Executive,
an awful lot of underhanded, nasty, dishonest, and even some
illegal dealing will go on.

Not to mention that they'll ruin the country by taking all of
our money away and giving it to "the poor".  

Not to mention that they'll kill thousands of Americans by
screwing up the health care system so badly it can't function.

Not to mention that they'll destroy American business by  
regulating it to death.

Not to mention that they'll corrupt our children by telling
them everything we think is moral is immoral, and
everything we think is immoral is moral.

Not to mention that the next time somebody invades an oil-rich
country they'll say "while you're at it go ahead and take the
rest of the oil too".

Crazy, you think?  I prefer to not take the chance.
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:24:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.025354.7306@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <2AD22B42.25070@news.service.uci.edu> jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.075113.24657@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>You have asked me to elaborate.  So here goes:
>>>
>>>I am concerned about Clinton's tax policies.  I hope to be successful
>>>finacially, 
>>>I plan to be a writer
>>
>>If you plan to be successful financially, may I suggest you examine
>>your career goals?
>
>Depends on what he's writing.  And he did say, "aspiring" I believe.
>
>Re: a previous poster noting that "a lot" is two words.
>	That's what editors are for.
>

My apologies to Simon.  I wrote this too glibly.  I didn't mean to 
imply that Simon wrote poorly.  I meant that financial success and
a career as a professional writer are not as common as subsistence
living and a career as a professional writer.  (I thought the two
comments together were pretty funny ... but, regardless Simon, 
keep your aspirations.)

John D.
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Rep. Bob Dornan (CA-R)
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:54:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <1992Oct8.211132.23941@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>In article <BvtFL4.JMG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David 
>Bell) writes:
>> I hear this guy is running for reelection this time around.
>> 
>> Who is he running against?  
>> What are the latest polls?  
>> How do I send money to his opponent?  
>
>He represents one of the most conservative districts in the country.  He 
>is a virtual shoe-in.
>

You'd think so, but actually Dornan represents the only "non-safe"
district in Orange County.  It has slightly more Demos than Repubs.
I don't know who he's running against.  He had a bitter primary fight 
and won relatively easily.  He has a reputation for erratic behaviour,
that may cause him trouble (his nickname is Bully Bob), but he gets
plenty of money and always pulls it out.

John D.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9284 alt.politics.clinton:10590
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: VP Debate
Keywords: Couple of used car salesmen
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:40:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

Did you notice the part where Quayle and Gore were both
rambling at each other, like a couple of cats trying to
tear each other's eyes out, and right at the end of the
tear, they both said at the same time:

	"You're avoiding the issue... Please answer my question."

Then, they smiled at one another, kind of like two used
car salesmen that realized that the other was just as low-
down as he was, and knew the same tricks of the trade. I
think they developed some respect for each other, while
making me lose alot of respect for both of them. (There
wasn't much to be lost, anyhow.)

Stockton was kind of hard to follow, and the folks who
watched the debates with me weren't much impressed with
him. I think he makes a bad public impression, but likely
has a pretty good mind.

I thought Gore was just as polished as he could be, but
didn't Congress vote themselves a pay raise in the middle
of the night last year? Why do we want to promote a guy
who was part of that? I think deep down, he's a career
politician, which means you can't trust him any further
than you can throw him.

Danny boy was actually well-prepared. He's still the same
slime he always was, but he seemed to put together a few
coherent thoughts, in spite of himself. Too bad his boss
can't bring himself to admit Neil did something wrong,
and we're going to take the hit for it. Another career
politician.

-- Mike

I'm gonna vote my conscience... Then, I can say "I told you
so!" to the folks who elect Clinton. :-)

------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9211 alt.politics.clinton:10502 alt.politics.elections:16858 talk.politics.misc:51848 alt.rush-limbaugh:7448 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5417
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Wednesday, 7 Oct 1992 23:14:04 PST
From: <RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush- a sleazy scumbag!

I could not believe what our Pres. (It chokes in my throat) bush said about Cli
nton's trip to Moscow . He said it was not understandable that someone went the
re one year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia and that Clinton had not level
ed with the American people.

I am so angry I could spit. A Trip made when you are a student and that is Anti
-american!!? This man (Bush) is a total disgrace to the  Presidency and is livi
ng up to his statement to do anything to win election. Let us throw this bum ou
t as far as one can throw. If any Republican with honor can defend this behavio
ur then one can't be angry but only pity.

Disgusting( I am too mad to think of anything else to say)!

rajagopalan.......Throw Mr.Bum Bush and his Moron No.2 out in the Cold come Jan
1993.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9272 alt.politics.clinton:10575
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pandering, both ways, level with American people, etc...
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:37:47 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Xanthippe strikes again....

In article <7jmdkpu@Unify.Com>, ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
> 
> Oh, dear, I'm afraid cdpert01 caught you instead.

     (In case you're wondering, ceb@dbrus and I only know each 
      other on a "user-id" basis.)

> If his/her post lacks any substance, or is dumb, or is
> gratuitously insulting, or is nonsensical, then it's a good bet that s/he
> thinks s/he's being amusing.

     You're starting to catch on, but avoid interpretation in terms of
strict dichotomies (or di-comedies).  (To the rest of the Usenet readers,
note ceb@dbrus' use of third-person bashing, i.e. the use of "s/he."
Note how I employ a second-person conversation, i.e. I use the word
"you."  I believe the employment of the second person proves to yield
a more kinder, gentler version of mudslinging.)

> It is completely impossible for anyone except cdpert01 to tell 
> when cdpert01's post is meant seriously; 

     Difficult, yes -- completely impossible, no.  

> therefore, there's no point in anyone taking any of cdpert01's 
> posts seriously.
 
     Ouch, that hurts!  I would accuse you of being libel, except
that if I am wrong, I would be libelous in my accusation of your
being libel.

> 20 more days!

     How did you know my birthday?  Don't spend too much on my gift....

     C. Perttunen

P.S.  In order to justify this being in alt.politics.clinton and
      alt.politics.bush let me add that I think Quayle was victorious
      over Gore in the VP debate.  The score after two events:
      Perot/Stockdale 1, Bush/Quayle 1, and Clinton/Gore 0.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: skinny@board8.uucp (skinny)
Subject: They're All Weenies
Summary: All polititians are Weenies
Keywords: weenies
Organization: board8
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 01:26:03 GMT

 Bush lied about taxes.
 Clinton lies about everything (and more amazingly, the liberals don't care).
 The libertarians are intellectual air-heads in dream land. 
 Ross is just TOO geeky.

 Face it.
 
 They are all Weenies.
 
 Weenies.
 Weenies.
 Weenies all.

 thank you.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8965 alt.politics.elections:16527 alt.politics.perot:2083
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:31:38 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

A word to soft Clinton supporters and to those who have yet to decide:
Remember -- no one has to be politically correct inside the voting booth!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8624 alt.politics.clinton:9704 alt.politics.elections:16096
From: forbush@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: State by State Poll Results
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:16:15 GMT

Arkansas is AR not AK!


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:10:37 GMT

munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:

>It's certainly preferable to having a *pro-war* type in control!!

I don't know too many "pro-war" types. However, it is necessary to have an
individual in control of the world's largest military force who knows how
to use it, and when it use it, should circumstances dictate.


>Yes, folks, it's the old "If you ain't with us, you're agin us" ploy.
>"Anti-War" in the milieu we're talking about was clearly "anti-Vietnam-War,"
>not necessarily opposition to all wars under all circumstances.

Did not Clinton write an article or some other such paragraph where he
denounced "war"? I recall some time back a controversy where he said no,
he didn't write it, yes he did write it, and yes he did write it but was
only referring to the Vietnam War.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:02:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.164945.24090@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

What's wrong when a person says:

>I'm an environmentalist,

And then says:

>I just don't think people ought to say "save the planet" when they mean 
>"save mankind". 

Clue, that person doesn't know the meaning of "environmentalist."

>Given the choice, I'd prefer to save our species--not a lifeless chunk of 
>minerals.

 If Allah is merciful, you won't be given the choice.  Someone who knows
what they're talking about will have it, if it isn't already too late for
choices.

Let's hear it for single species ecosystems!

>-- 
>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
>Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
>Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham

Larry J

-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton