HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pfister@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (tom pfister)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Civil Liberties and Drugs
Keywords: New-Speak
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:22:53 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In response to someones assertion that they will vote Libertarian
 heff@ki.ch.apollo.hp.com  writes:
>
>I'm all for using your vote to attempt to make a statement, and show 
>support for a philosophy and platform you _really_ believe in.
>However, I must also be somewhat of a pragmatist when November 6 rolls
>around.  There is no way Marrou is going to win this election.
>>In my mind, it would be the worst possible thing for this country to have
>Bush in there for a second term.  Judge for yourself what you'd like your
>vote to do - make a statement, or make a difference in who's elected.

I agree that a second Bush term would be very bad.  I also believe that
four years of Clinton will not be much better and I believe that the very
worst possible thing for our country would be that the republicans/democrats
continue their two party domination of American politics for another decade 
or two.  If we continue to make are selection only from these two because 
we don't think any third party has a chance of actually being elected we
will in fact perptuate the situation and no third party will ever grow 
strong enough to even affect the platforms of the two major parties, much
less win an outright victory over them.  If the percentage of voters that
swing toward Libertarian, or some other third party, increases significantly
year after year the republican/democrats will have to look at what that
growing voter-block wants.
(I would expect that significant growth could actually be quite small, say
 2 or 3 percent of the voters per election.)

Tom
pfister@indiana.edu                      voting grudgingly
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:35:57 GMT

Just thinking...

With President Bush now quite willing to debate, I miss the "Chicken" moniker.

How about a replacement: "Tail-gunner George."

Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

OK, maybe it's "Torpedo-bomber George," but you get the point.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections

              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               [ ]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: guru-a0@access.digex.com (Guru Aleph-Null)
Subject: #Debate -- The Internet Relay Chat Channel
Summary: We need more people! Makes things more interesting!
Keywords: debate irc politics
Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:11:17 GMT

Tonight, during the US Presidential Debate, a lot of people blew-off
some steam and did real-time commentary ala Comedy Channel-- but it
was a lot more serious and not all in jest. 

The sad thing was, we barely broke 22 people in the conference! We
need more people! You don't have to be US citizens, because who gets
the office of the President of the United States affects everyone
globally. Chaos theory even predicts that you can have some influence on
the decsision we Americans make.

I would suggest to show up about a half-hour before the debates for a
warm-up (we wouldn't want you to sprain anything.. although doing this
will increase your risk of carpal-tunnel syndrome) and get involved
for the duration of the discussion and stick around for the post
debate analsys. While participating, have the appropriate media nearby
(television, radio, messenger pigeon) and watch/listen the debate
while chatting.

An added advantage of watching the debate-aftermath this way is the
ability to simultaneously get poll results from every network and news
organization as they happen without missing anything. Everyone watches
different channels and filters out the commercials etc etc.

So don't be shy! Ask your System Administrator or local Guru (please
not me) about how to use Internet Relay Chat if you have never used it
before and participate!

Those of you who know how the IRC system works, great! Be sure to show
up! We'll all be happy to have you there!

The next debate is the Vice-Presidential debate, this Tuesday. Check
your local listings/news services for details.

--
Guru Aleph-Null
AKA Guru_A0 on IRC
guru-a0@access.digex.com


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17029 alt.politics.bush:9317 alt.politics.clinton:10660 alt.politics.perot:2219 talk.politics.misc:52051
From: deena@milton.u.washington.edu (Christene Etzel)
Subject: Democratic Platform
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:14:13 GMT

I am trying to get a copy of the Democratic Platform. If you have a copy
please send it to me at deena@u.washington.edu.

Thanks

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.my.head.hurts
From: dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Debate transcripts available via internet
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:07:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.090346.20565@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz) writes:

>My tuppence about the debate:  Bush plodded forth with more of the same, 
>Clinton made sense but didn't impress me, and Perot sounded the best but
>didn't say anything real--just "I'm a-gonna git some WORK done in that
>thar White House."  My vote's still with Clinton.

>+ Eric J. Huppertz   | Disclaimers: | Signature virus mutation: I will copy +

	The economy sucks. Who better to run the country than someone who:

	1) Works well with people 
	2) Became rich on his own effort (that is a sign of action)
	3) Is not a stinking politician


	Perot has my vote; no questions asked. Anyone who votes for Bush
is just plain nuts. Clinton is a viable option but will do nothing special.

	Perot is a man of action. I am willing to bet that he will be a 
dominant figure no matter what happens after the election.


-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: DEBATE: OPINION FROM AN UNDECIDED
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:44:36 GMT


In article <1bcv0bINNguo@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, 
strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) said:

> Good point!  I avoided throwing heavy objects at George Bush by
> venting my anger through the IRC channel #Debate.  I look forward to
> seeing _YOU_ there next time, Bill.

Aargh.  I log in and greeted by messages like:

******** 6.023e23 unread articles in talk.socks.argyle--read now? [ynq]

and you want me to sink time into IRC too? :-)

> Bush is famous for his blathering.  It would be nice if we could
> have a President capable of speaking in complete sentences.

Nice, but not mandatory... if the _content_ of Bush's speech didn't
disgust me, I could live with his minor difficulties in re delivery,
just as I can (so far) live with Bill Clinton's problems with his
facial muscles.  (Memo to Clinton: Stop _smiling_ all the time,
damnit!  You look like you've coated your teeth with Teflon and your
lips keep sliding off them, fer chrissakes.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17288 talk.politics.misc:52430 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5518 alt.rush-limbaugh:7629 alt.fan.howard-stern:2150 talk.politics.guns:22231
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics,alt.fan.howard-stern,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:09:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct15.211455.23080@anat.UMSMED.EDU> jbh@anat.UMSMED.EDU (James B. Hutchins) writes:
>
>In article <60.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>> [stuff deleted]
>>For example, witness this testy exchange
>>between reporters and designated Republican attack-bitch, Mary Matalin:
>
>[more stuff deleted]
>
>Does this remind anyone else of Lee (Willie Horton) Atwater?  Does Matalin
>play blues guitar?

Yeah, Matalin reminds me a lot of Atwater - both told the simple truth, and 
both were savaged as nazis and sleaze campaigners for daring to tell the truth
about the political opponents.
-- 
John Switzer               | Why am I voting for Clinton? Because... 
                           | Bill Gates: 36, CEO Microsoft, $6 billion
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Me: 36, Tech Writer, 1978 Diesel Rabbit
jrs@netcom.com             | Screw the nerdy rich! (at least 'til I get there)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16838 talk.politics.misc:51827
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:38:23 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

My impressions on the VP debate:
 
Quayle did much better than I expected, in that he did not appear a
total fool, as he usually does.  He learned a few lines very well, and
did not let himself be dragged from the script.  His tone was
offensive, though.  He struck me as a yappy little dog worrying at
Gore's cuffs all night.
 
Gore was wooden, as usual.  He probably should have responded to Quayle
more, but he did avoid being dragged into the muck.  He interrupted
Quayle by calmly saying "May I respond", while Quayle just interjected
his own statements whenever he chose.
 
Stockdale looked like an amiable Grandpa, completely out of his depth.
He couldn't even give his opening statement without fumbling for his
glasses to check his notes.  He also frankly admitted ignorance on a
couple of topics.  Legend has it that Perot was completely unrehearsed
for the first debate.  If so, he got away with it by "just being Ross".
If Stockdale was completely unrehearsed (and he certainly looked it),
he did not carry it off nearly so well.
 
Who won?  I think Gore certainly did nothing to hurt himself or
Clinton.  Quayle made all the proper attacks on Clinton, which may hurt
him a bit, but one of his lines may backfire.  When he said "Some
crisis will happen, who do you want to have in charge?", was I the only
one who thought, "If Bush dies, it might be you..AAACCCKKK!!!"
Stockdale was a dead last, and certainly did not help Perot.
 
Bush still trails by two touchdowns late in the fourth quarter.  If he
does not hit the Hail Mary soon, this race is over.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: BUSH CAMP ACCUSES CLINTON OF TREASON
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:14:48 GMT

In article <64.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>Richmond, VA (AP) - On his way out of the University of Virginia
>auditorium following last night's second Presidential debate, President
>George Bush expressed his strong disappointment with the debate format.
>"The questions were far too narrowly focused," said the President. "The
>American people need to be informed about the character of their cand-
>idates. It's not a matter of knocking the other guy just for the sake
>of knocking the other guy. The American people understand that. But they
>must have all the facts about the candidates level of trust. It's very
>important. This foreign sympathizer thing, for instance." When asked to
>clarify his comment, the President explained, "I can't cite chapter and
>verse--and I'm sure the press will help me on this tomorrow--but I think
>it is plain wrong when an American running for President supports the
>baseball team of another country in the World Series. Maybe it's a
>generational thing--I don't know--I can only tell you I don't like it."

CAN YOU IDIOTS PLEASE SHOW SOME INTELLIGENCE AND TRIM THE DAMN 
CROSS-POSTINGS SO GARBAGE LIKE THIS DOESN'T APPEAR IN alt.fan.dave_barry 
and rec.sport.baseball!!
-- 
John Switzer               | Why am I voting for Clinton? Because... 
                           | Bill Gates: 36, CEO Microsoft, $6 billion
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Me: 36, Tech Writer, 1978 Diesel Rabbit
jrs@netcom.com             | Screw the nerdy rich! (at least 'til I get there)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:33:53 GMT

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>In <1992Oct16.172346.4164@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> mayne@phi.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne) writes:

>>As far as I know Atwater never said that anything is his negative ad
>>campaigns was false, just that it was wrong to use the facts the way
>>he did attacking opponents personally.

>Ah, but what facts? The legislation that let Horton out of jail
>was the product of the previous (Republican) governor, according
>to later media reports - after the damage was done. I doubt that
>Atwater or Matalin would recognize the truth if it sat on them.

Actually it was (drum roll) Mr. Al *Tipper* Gore who brought up the
tidbit about Duke boy signing Willie (life without parole) Horton's 
ticket out of the slammer.  Legistation aside, one would think that
even a liberal might have reservations about letting a LwoP inmate
out for a weekend party.

----

Larry
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:46:52 GMT

strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:

>ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
>votes than George Bush.  Namely:

>	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush

>This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.

no Mr. Butthead, it hasn't even started yet (save a couple of absentees
in Tx).  The only points that count are those switches thrown on 
Nov. 3rd...polls and predictions count for no more than the pre-game
show at the super bowl.  I have the memory of H. Truman with a newspaper....


Chad (me real name....)

>Stratocaster


>-- 
>	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
>      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
>				   
>There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 16:29:47 GMT

In article <1bisf2INN90e@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
>votes than George Bush.  Namely:
>
>	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush
>
>This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.
>
>Stratocaster
>
>
>-- 
>	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
>      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
>				   
>There are no monks in my band.  There are no saints in this land. - RHCP

A few months ago, someone posted a state-by-state breakdown of the
predicted electoral outcome based on current polls.  Could someone post
a breakdown using the current figures?

-- 
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.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Lost some respect for CNN (was Re: Vice Shrub won)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:46:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1bmkmlINNao2@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.082757.12778@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In <1992Oct15.175653.1600@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>>Un, you forgot to mention Clinton/Gore who also think continued membership
>>>in NATO is vital.
>>
>>But they don't think we need 150k troops in Europe to prevent a Soviet
>>invasion of the West.
>
>But they DO think we need 100K troops in Europe to prevent a Soviet invasion
>of the West.  

    Not necessarily.  I heard them mentioning that we would need to maintain
    troops in Europe because of the latter's proximity to some "strategically-
    important" regions (read: Middle-Eastern oil fields) of the world.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: DEBATE: OPINION FROM AN UNDECIDED
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:37:30 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.195947.21290@athena.mit.edu>, 
jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) said:

> I was flabbergasted to read the amazingly one-sided opinions of the
> debate Monday morning--I just skimmed through the articles related
> to the debates and all I seemed to hear was that Clinton won hands
> down.
>
> Didn't anybody else want to puke when they saw how polished and
> refined he was?  When they saw his practiced little winks and nods
> and flashes of the eyebrows and totally cheap, cheasy, artificial,
> "I'm one of you" charisma?

I dunno.  I deliberately avoided watching the debate, for two reasons.
(1) I was afraid that if I did watch, I wouldn't be able to keep from
throwing something heavy right through the screen at George Bush
sometime during the show (and I really can't afford a new tv right
now), and (2) I prefer to evaluate and debate people on the basis of
_what_ they say, in cold, hard print, rather than on _how_ they say it
(that's why I'm a Usenet addict :-).

> I went into the debates expecting George Bush to be utterly
> humiliated, but he dusted Billy Boy by just by being himself, and
> telling us what he feels.

Um, according to what I read, just about the first thing George Bush
said was:

   I said something the other day where I was accused of being like
   Joe McCarthy because I questioned -- I put it this way; I think
   it's wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize
   demonstrations against your own country on foreign soil.  Maybe
   they say, "Well, it was a youthful indiscretion."  I was 19 or 20,
   flying off an aircraft carrier and that shaped me to be Commander-
   in-Chief of the armed forces and I'm sorry, but demonstrating --
   it's not a question of patriotism.  It's a question of character
   and judgment.  But he has made -- not admitted -- a mistake and I
   just find it impossible to understand how an American can
   demonstrate against his own country in a foreign land -- organizing
   demonstrations against it when young men are held prisoner in Hanoi
   or kids out of the ghetto were drafted.

If you think that sort of blathering counts as "dusting" one's
opponent, well, you're entitled to your opinion.  But I think it makes
Bush look like a "Love it or Leave it" style idiot.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:59:41 GMT

In article <7160@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
>jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (I) write:
>>
>>He denied having an affair with Miss Fitzgerald, but
>
>When did he deny having an affair with her?  All I've heard is one denial
>of a specific incident, the one that came out of a footnote of some book.
>He has never denied having an affair with J. Fitzgerald, as far as I
>know.  Any references?
>

It was on the same TV show where he answered the question on whether
or not he would still accept his granddaughter if she had an abortion.
(I think it was a CBS show.)

But, the fact remains -- it's not a political issue.  Blindly accusing
Bush of having affairs is as irresponsible and irrelevant as accusing
Clinton.

John D.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot