HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Clinton, debate, AIDS, tokenism
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:38:56 GMT

If ever there was example of tokenism, it was
when Clinton mentioned that he had two people 
with AIDS on the platform at the democratic 
convention!

He didn't quote from them or paraphrase, he
just said he had them up front for everyone to
see.  This was in response to a question something
like "what are you going to do about AIDS?"  

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17455 talk.politics.misc:52608
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:01:46 GMT
	<1992Oct16.164523.12509@news.nd.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu's message of 16 Oct 92 16:45:23 GMT

slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
|Was it not Lee Atwater who went around making deathbed repentences to those 
|whom he was instrumental in savagely trashing?  I remember specifically 
|reading about a meeting between Atwater and Dukakis in which Atwater 
|apologized for the Willie Horton episode.

|Apparently, Atwater himself did not hold to the veracity of his statements 
|when he was confronted with the specter of his Maker.

Not to speak ill of the dead, but I found myself thinking at the time
that this was a campaign trick to get into heaven....
--
Peace.
"The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife,-- this
 longing to attain a self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into
 a better and truer self...He would not Africanize America, for 
 America has too much to teach the world and Africa.  He would not bleach
 his Negro soul in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro
 blood has a message for the world."
                          - W. E. B. DuBois 
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: Rational
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:02:30 GMT

In article <29373@life.ai.mit.edu>, benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct14.141850.9611@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
|> 
|> Stockdale demonstrated sheer ignorance of the issue. He shouldn't be
|> allowed to become Vice-President. Just like Quayle, except that he is
|> heroic and Quayle is...well we know what he is.

Hmmm ... Stockdale "shouldn't be allowed" to become VP, but Quayle should.

Yeah, right.

________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:27:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division

In article <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.
>Bullshit.

>|> They do not sponser international terrorism.
>Well, the USA was a democracy when it imported slaves.  Can anybody think
>of a more modern example?
>
>|> They do not threaten to destry other nations with weapons of mass destruction.
>"We will systematically destroy Japan's ability to wage war..."  Harry Truman.
>And France's nuclear weapons arn't exactly a gesture of good will either.
>
>|> Democracy abroad helps protect economic and security interests at home. 
>Can you say Vietnam?  I thought you could!  For the advanced lesson, try
>saying Nicaragua, Panama, and South America.

>Live in the real world.

I think you might be missing the point here.  Reading the 
article that was posted about the speech, it appeared to me 
that President-(almost)elect Clinton was stating his vision 
of the way democracies are supposed to act.   The assumption 
being that this is the doctrine upon which he would base his 
foreign policy decisions and initiatives.  I didn't read that
he was giving a history lesson.

It sounds well thought out and timely for the post-Cold War world.
Does anyone have the full transcript of the speech and care to 
post it?  It would seem to be good reading.


Dick Detweiler : rdetweil@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16978 alt.politics.bush:9292 alt.politics.clinton:10601 alt.politics.perot:2204
From: jjast7+@pitt.edu (James   J Alles)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Date: 15 Oct 92 07:44:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: University of Pittsburgh: it's an oxymoron thing.

In article <1992Oct14.203125.13419@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>
>I am FAR from a big booster of the current public school system,
>but the voucher plans I've seen so far from the Republicans
>do not impress me at all.  As soon as I am satisfied that
>no voucher (tax) money goes to religious schools, then
>I'll pay attention.            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
one forgets that the schools were taken over from the church by the
 government.  And don't tell me that the religions of humanism & 
homosexuality are not being preached on an increasing basis.  The public 
school systems are NOT neutral.

On that basis, I am not happy that Tax money goes to public schools.
Why don't we do away with them.  Let the free market rule.  better yet, 
let's extract it from the tax system, and let each person pay their way thru
cash or vouchers, public or private.  How many would choose the more 
expensive yeilding poorer results?

Peace, JA
--
But Officer, my car doesn't GO that fast!  alles@med.pitt.edu

-- 

Peace, JA
--
But Officer, my car doesn't GO that fast!  alles@med.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Time poll 1988
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:40:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.191110.24572@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
(interesting poll from 1988, deleted)
>---
>Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

Joe, are you trying to tell us that a presidential candidate
who maintains a > 10% lead for the last two months of
a campaign is likely to win the election?

Is that what you are trying to tell us?

Say it's so, Joe! :)

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: More Corruption in the Executive Branch
Date: 15 Oct 1992 20:39:33 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <athos-151092110622@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <1bk900INN4ul@overload.lbl.gov>, bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley
>K. Sherman) wrote:
>
>I see.  And the Democrat Congress doesn't use any of it's resources to hurt
>the president in *favor* of Bill Clinton?  Uh Huh.
>--
>Rick Eames
>athos@apple.com
>My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
>HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!

Actually, I don't think Bush needs any help from the
DemocratIC Congress to hurt himself...



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Debacle
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:35:26 GMT

The horror, the horror.
They should have just handed out handguns
and have the moderator shout:

FIRE

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16755 talk.politics.misc:51724
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: One VP debate comment...
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:30:13 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

One VP debate comment:

  As much mud-slinging as went on, I'd agree with Stockdale.  Why was he
there??  The issues were not going to get discussed anyway...

						Mike Falkner
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Oh yeah? (VP debate)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:31:08 GMT

In article <2670@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM writes:
>Did anybody else think that Dan was given some kind of Pavlovian
>training to respond, "But can you trust Bill Clinton?" any time he
>could not find something to say in his notes?

Yes, it is true.  Four years ago, the Vice-Shrub's programmed
response was "Jimmy Carter Grain Embargo".  Later, he was
reprogrammed to blurt "Family Values" when he found himself
in deep doo-doo.  Now, it's "But Can You Trust Bill Clinton?"
One of the signs of increasing maturity on the part of Quayl
is that it takes much less time to reprogram him than it 
used to.

>It kind of reminded me of when Dick Smothers would get Tom all riled,
>and, no matter what the dialog was about, Tom would say, "Oh yeah?
>Well, mom always liked you best!"

Maybe now it's "Jim Baker always liked you best!"



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:43:23 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications

In article <ISBELL.92Oct15022505@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>
>There's (apparently) good evidence that this is no more than a popular
>myth.  The "polling" according to a few Harvard JFK people I've talked
>to was unscientific:  the polled were people in country clubs and the
>like (ie already predisposed to vote republican).  Many maintain that
>Truman wasn't ever really behind because the effective margin of error
>was ridiculously high.  Sort of like polling Mary Matlin on Bush's
>prospects. 
>
>I'd love to see some documentation onthis one way or the other.
>--
>Peace.

Kind of like Rush Limbaugh's poll that puts Bush at near 90%!

-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16658 talk.politics.misc:51602
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 21:54:08 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>Yup, I think Our Man Dan actually won.  He came out there shooting,
>was aggressive with the occassional little fact, and didn't make an
>obvious gaffe.

Quayle made many obvious gaffe's.  The very first one came the first
time Gore was allowed to speak, and he continued on making an ass of
himself through the entire debate.  I do believe that Quayle came out
stronger than Admiral Stockdale, but he totally failed to make any
substantive points.

>Gore was wooden, and there were a couple of lines I thought he should
>have followed up on but didn't.  So much for zinging your opponent
>with the single-moderator.

I agree.  Gore was too rehearsed.  I kept hoping that he would losen
up, but it just never happened.  As for the debate format ... I feel
it was the one winner!

>Adm. Stockdale.  Hmm.  I felt sorry for him, especially at the
>beginning.

Ditto.

>The debate shouldn't change the overall election.  

If anything, Perot lost support due to the lackluster performance of
Stockdale.

>1) I want a President who tells the truth... -- The Danster himself
>	[Was it only me, or did other people have visions of
>	 Iran-contra and Iraq-gate, not to mention "Read My Lips"
>	 a-dancing through my head?]

This was more than a little lie.  

Stratocaster


-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
Don't believe what the Moral Majority says. Remember that they are neither.
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:06:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

>In article <1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>
>> How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country?

>"The only thing we have to fear is fearlessness."

It takes a lot more courage to defy the status quo than to go along 
blindly, doing whatever you're told.

>>How can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends,
>>family, a priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his
>>wife?

Clinton cheated on his wife in church?  In front of his friends, 
family, a priest, and God?  Yuk.  Any why did were all his family and
friends in a Catholic church?  Clinton is a Protestant.

>"To err is human."
>"Let he who is not guilty cast the first stone."
>That's a personal matter, none of our business.  If you insist on harping on
>this topic, then I'll insist on an explanation why Bush won't deny ever having
>an extramarital affair.

>>How can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
>>American work place?

>Agreed.  Bush must go.

>>How can we look up to a President who has experimented with drugs...
>>particularly in an age when drugs controls our streets, and murders children?

>Most of us have experimented with drugs.  Clinton's admitted experimentation
>occured well before the current antidrug hysteria, back when it was socially
>accepted.

Yes, Clinton did not experiment with drugs in an age when drugs control
our streets and murder our children.  He experimented with them in a
naive time when they were a new party toy.  And as socially acceptable
as it was then, he still didn't stick with it.

>Here's one for you: how can we look up to a president that doesn't respect the
>freedom of religion that this country was born of?

Or freedom of speech. Remember the flag burning bullshit from the last
election? If we are not allowed to burn the flag, then the flag is
meaningless and may as well be tossed in the trash. 

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:48:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.150446.14325@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>Nor were you in a foreign country. THAT is the issue (as Bush has clearly
>stated).

I HEARD GHWB say in front of a police group a few days ago
that protesting against ones country was the issue.  He definitely
DID NOT qualify it by referring to protest in another country.
Later on Larry King show (in contradiction to your
statement above) GHWB said that the issue was NOT protesting
or patriotism, but that Clinton didn't "come clean" about it
(even though he has).  It was especially sad to see the President
bellow that this issue was so "important" to him, since he
only brought it up after urging of a few congressmen and 
advisors.

>If you want to protest US policy in the US, fine, go to it and
>there's nothing wrong with it. When you take it overseas, during the middle
>of a war, it is wrong and goes against 200 years of American tradition.
>It's the same principle as a family dispute... you don't do it in the
>shopping mall.

I don't see any problem at all, especially when the "war"
is undeclared and there was already significant
opposition to the war in the US as well as the UK.

>]Apparently, the role of dissent in a democracy totally
>]escapes GHWB.
>
>Apparently the distinction about where you protest completely
>slipped by you.

It did, and it does.  I saw protests in the US by
people from Iran (under the Shah) and the Philippines
(under Marcos); the fact that these people were
protesting against policies of their home government
(while these regimes were regarded by the US government
as allies and budding democracies) did not bother me at all.
You see some problem in the "foreignness" of protesting
that I don't see.  Let's leave it at that.

>]Maybe I should take some small satisfaction in the fact
>]that my (and many others') prediction that the Republican
>]Sleaze-o-Matic (tm) would be working overtime in October.
>]But the sight of the President of the United States
>]sinking to the level of Robert Dornan is just
>]too sad.
>
>Well, Bill Clinton has been slinging all sorts of personal attacks
>at Bush since he has been in the race.

What insubstantiated personal attack or innuendo has 
Clinton made against Bush?

>Fair is fair, and character
>is a legitimate issue, in spite of the fact that the democrats are
>trying to remove it as an issue because their candidate doesn't
>have any.

If you regard a President who lied to the American people
about the motivation and conduct of the military adventure
in Panama as having "character", the Bush should get your vote.

>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:33:52 GMT

In article <9512@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.181855.12558@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct6.212129.29279@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>|> Democracies do not go to war with one another.
>>Bullshit.
>Name two.

	Athens and Sparta, two city-states with perhaps the greatest
eligible voter turnout ever known to Democracy, warred against each other.
Rome and the Germanic tribes, tribes led by Democratically-elected leaders
went to war.
	Those are examples in which two different Democracies went to war.
There are MANY instances of Democracies invading or defending themselves from
other states, or engaging in war with other states.  Want modern examples?
Just wait a few years.  I'm sure if you try hard enough you'll get 'em.

>>|> They do not threaten to destry other nations with weapons of mass destruc>
>>"We will systematically destroy Japan's ability to wage war..."  Harry Truman

>If Japan had not attacked, they would not have been bombed.  Do you deny that
>nations have a right to self defense.

	Why are you evading the fact that the original statement was incorrect?
Are you playing the desperate theologians' rationalization game? Do you in
fact worship your party like a god? And if so don't we deserve to be
free of your religion?

>>And France's nuclear weapons arn't exactly a gesture of good will either.
>True, but has France threatened to use them on anyone?  If anyone attacks
>France, then they might be bombed.  I guess you could call that a threat.

	If a socialist country possesses nuclear weapons it's ok, right?

>
>>Live in the real world.
>
>YOu ought to try it some time.

	You silly people.  I guess you think each other inhabits a
virtual reality someplace...hmmm.....sounds like political ideology...
hmmm....Democrats....hmmmm...yes....Democrats......

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.

			John
			wagner@chaos.uchicago.edu
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: A fair eductional system ? (was Re: Choice!)
Keywords: vouchers, religious schools, education
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:11:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections, talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

It has been proposed that a voucher system be instituted which would
allow parental choice of schools.  Many have proposed that this would 
lead to better schools through competition.  I tend to agree with 
this point.

A matter of controversy has been the eligibility of religious schools
for this program.  While I am not opposed to this on principle, such
a proposal begs the following question:

If tax vouchers are allowed for religious schools, will such schools 
operate under the different rules than all others, i.e. WILL THEY BE 
THE SOLE CLASS OF PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED SCHOOLS TO BE EXEMPT 
FROM TAXES?

Unless the religious schools pay taxes (or NO schools pay them), this 
entire voucher system would in effect provide a significant competitive
advantage to such schools, undermining in the long-term the "freedom of 
education" ostensibly offered by such a system.

My wife also mentioned another point; will such vouchers be available 
for home-schooling expenses, say based on whether children who are
educated at home can pass certain achievement tests?  If not, why?

Dave

P.S.  My apologies if this has already been covered; I haven't
      had time to handle all the traffic in these groups.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.my.head.hurts
From: ejhupper@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Huppertz)
Subject: Debate transcripts available via internet
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:03:46 GMT
Organization: Illinois State University


Is there an ftp site or some other place where I can get the debate
transcripts?  Compuserve?  America On-Line?  I noticed the Clinton
campaign is quick to publish its statements and speeches to all facets
of the net. |-)

-E.

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 +
+ ejhupper@ilstu.edu |  the usual   | MYSELF into your .sig!!  Mwa ha ha... +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++