HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: New California Poll 52-32-9
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:48:33 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1avru4INN1oa@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>Hey NY, TX, FL!  Poll results?

New York is irrelevant, because it's a Democratic leader -- if the
Democrats don't win New York, they're getting blown out in all of the
other states.

Polls have shown Florida to Bush with a substantial lead or neck-and-neck,
which would indicate that Bush has a lead too narrow for his tastes.  Perot
may or may not have changed that.

Perot will make the most impact in Texas; Bush had a lead there, not sure
if he still does. 
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 02:55:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.025825.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.122844.13908@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
>> 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.
>He did. And so did Miss Fitzgerald, for that matter.

Oh, come on.  Bush is a known womanizer to every Republican operative I have
heard comment (*very* off the record) on the subject.  Take a look at his
family history:  he's been away from home at several points in his
marriage.  He is not reported to have been celibate during those periods.

As for the denials, how naive can you get?  Maybe you haven't been around
very long, but I've seen this stuff before, and a denial is not proof of
innocence. I mean the woman works in his administration as the *assistant
chief of protocol* for cryin out loud!  Surely the least imaginative among
you can come up with at least a _few_ things wags could make out of _that_
indiscretion!  Read the source of this particular allegation.  It was not
started out of vindictiveness, but out of the grief of a Bush family friend
who felt he had been asked to betray Barbara!  This is not the sign of a
classy husband nor was he kind to the friend he placed in the middle.  If
you are going to insist on denying Bush's guilt, at least face up to the
self-serving transparency of entire situation.

All you are doing is (a) cynically or (b) naively promoting lies about
faithfulness and marital fidelity as being worthy substitutes for the real
thing.  How sad for you that you can't tell the difference.  How sad for
Bush that he lives that kind of lie.  I respect him a damn sight less than
Clinton.

>> (Drug experimentation is common remarks deleted.)
>Hmm. That would explain it. Don't you think that gives you a slight credibility
>problem?

No, Mister Self-righteous, I think it makes him a lot less scary than you
are.  You confuse rigidity, fear, and anger with moral uprightness.  That
is far more dangerous than a brief youthful experimentation with pot.
 
>Here endith the Lesson

You are not in a position to be giving lessons to anyone.  You should be
ordering your steak "rare."  Very very rare.  (And for crying out loud, get
drunk and get laid while you are at it!)



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16710 alt.politics.clinton:10349 alt.politics.bush:9102
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:53:12 GMT

In article <1bhdhvINNdv@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>In article <1bg24gINNsmh@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>He also kept saying that Clinton wants to raise 150 billion in
>taxes and Gore kept saying thats not true.  Gore could have explained
>there plan much better than just saying "not true, not true".

Quayle got the last word in that discussion and then they went onto 
a new topic. (That happened to both Quayle and Gore last night.) 

The Clinton plan proposes 150 bil. in new programs, 104 bil. cuts 
in old programs for a net tax increase of 46 bil. to be paid 
by incomes of over $200,000 which have received more than their fair 
share of tax breaks in the last 12 years.

Quayle can't seem to distinguish programs from taxes, or maybe he doesn't 
know how to subtract cuts from new programs.  


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Lost some respect for CNN (was Re: Vice Shrub won)
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:29:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.014439.16698@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>In article <FOX.92Oct14205851@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.193820.28066@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>
>>   >>I looked at page 304 in Gore's book.  Quayle was right.
>>   >
>>   >CNN also reported this morning that the $100 billion figure on page 304
>>   >refers to the cost of the World War II Marshal Plan, not Gore's
>>   >environmental "Marshal" plan.  Gore was right.
>>
>>   But I thought Gore used "Marshal Plan" in the context that we should
>>   dedicate the same amount of resources today on an environmental "Marshal(l?)
>>   Plan" as we did on the WWII Marshal(l?) Plan.
>>
>>He was talking about a global effort, not a U.S. effort.
>
>ABC News and CCN Special Assignment both reported on Quayle's numerous
>misstatements and distortions tonight.  They note that there is nothing in
>Gore's book to support this assertion about $100 billion.  Gore advocated
>an international effort, with multiple participants, in which the US share
>of the costs is not discussed.  Both news organizations found Quayle to be
>playing fast and loose with the facts.

No, only CNN's Brooks Jackson found that.  On Nightline, Jeff Greenfield
(who I think will someday be America's most respected anchor for his
insightfull, witty, and unbiased reporting - no, he's not a relative of
mine {:^) ) found most of Quayle's allegations had some merit, with a few
having their truthfullness based on each person's interpretation of the
facts.  I have really lost respect for CNN, which usually beats the
networks in terms of accurate and unbiased reporting.  Brooks Jackson said
Quayle was plain WRONG when he said Gore supported the CBI.  In fact, Gore
voted against it in the early eighties when it was up for a vote on it's
own, but voted for it when it was included as part of a larger bill in
1990.  On this point Quayle was RIGHT and CNN's Brooks Jackson was WRONG.
Other members of the media supported ABC's view on Wednesday.  The worst
thing about this CNN debacle was that all day I've heard the Clinton
campaign using CNN's mistake in defense of Gore - pretty pathetic.

Back to p.304 - How many times when the US was involved in a multinational
collaboration (Desert Storm, NATO, UN, etc.) did the US NOT have to pick up
a major (> 50%) share of the costs?  Case closed.  Quayle's interpretation
had it's merit.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: drug wars (was re: VP debates)
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 15 Oct 1992 18:43:12 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct15.113548.59731@cc.usu.edu>, fajack@cc.usu.edu writes:
|(Dave Sill) writes:
||Question: if you support the repeal of Prohibition but not
||legalization of other drugs, why not?  The parallels are clear.

|But there is a very major difference between drugs and
|alcohol.  You will get addicted to drugs very quickly. [...]

Anybody who'd make such a blanket statement is clearly utterly
uninformed.  Why don't you do some reading & then come back?

Some hints for you:
  Alcohol is a drug.
  So are caffeine & nicotine.
  Not all drugs are alike.
  Some drugs have low abuse potential; some high.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 
"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging 
to an individual than the use of the drug itself." 
                               -- President Jimmy Carter (8/2/77)  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Threatened Suit Against Bush/Quayle Campaign
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:34:28 GMT

   I heard on CNN tonight that Time/Warner has threatened to file suit
against the Bush/Quayle campaign unless they pull their latest TV ad which
features the Time magazine with the cover saying "Do voters really trust
Bill Clinton ?"

   An interesting note they pointed out is that Time is usually a little 
"Republican-leaning".

Greg

-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15507 alt.politics.bush:8062 alt.politics.clinton:8937 alt.politics.perot:1899
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: New California Poll 52-32-9
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:30:12 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov


The _San Francisco Examiner_, 7 Nov. 1992, writes:

[Poll of 811 likely California voters conducted 3 Oct. through 5 Oct.
 Margin of Error +/- 3.5%, Conducted by Political/Media Research.]

 If the election were held today among President Bush, Gov. Bill
 Clinton and Ross Perot, for whom would you vote?

     Bush     Clinton     Perot
      32        52         9

 "What has happened," said Political/Media Research pollster Robert
 Joffee, "is that Perot once again reminded voters what they didn't
 like about Bush and that he wasn't there as an alternative.  They
 dislike him even more."
-------
    --Brad Sherman

Hey NY, TX, FL!  Poll results?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.150845.10882@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct14.005404.13659@news.columbia.edu> 
|>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|>> Yup, I think Our Man Dan actually won.  He came out there shooting,

Shooting with little substantive ammunition.  ATTACK. DESTROY. EXTERMINATE.
ATTACK. Clinton. ATTACK. He said very few things about his boss probably
because his boss finally admitted knowing about the Iran-Contra deal
when it was happening.  


|>I think Quayle scored some big 
|>points on the school choice issue by pointing out that allowing vouchers 
|>for private schools would enable people who aren't rich to afford to send 
|>kids to private schools.  

If you give everyone a voucher to send their kids to private schools
then only the wealthy/fairly wealthy will still be able to send their
kids to private schools.  If you can't afford to send your kid to private 
school now how is a check from the Federal Government which would be less 
than the tuition required by the private schools help you to send you
children there, especially since the price of private schooling will 
increase because of the basic laws of supply and demand.  Not to mention 
that everyone including the wealthy/fairly wealthy who can already pay 
for their kids to go to private school would get this voucher/check which 
would further enable them to afford the escalating costs of private school
tuition since the demand would be greater than the supply of schools.
 

|>Quayle was
|>much more passionate in his delivery and also seemed much quicker to the 
|>draw in rebuffing some of Gore's statements.    Stockdale had some good 

If you call being an starved attack dog passionate ok.  I like my dog
with a few more brains.

Stockdale seems to have been at George Bush's Halcion parties.

--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: New California Poll 52-32-9
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:25:26 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:

: Perot will make the most impact in Texas; Bush had a lead there, not sure
: if he still does. 

Granted, this info is probably no longer completely accurate, at the
beginning of Benito Perot's Great Tease Act, Part II, I saw poll results
that showed Perot (if he reentered the race) neck-and-neck with
Clinton and Bush.  The results were 30-30-29, +/- 3%.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17131 alt.politics.clinton:10782
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: I will not vote Democratic - here's why.
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:17:08 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <16880F99F.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.182613.3469@fid.morgan.com>
> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>  
>>>>  The ONLY reason Clinton is currently leading in the polls is due to the
>>>>fact that a majority of Americans believe that under a Clinton
>>>>administration only the rich will have their taxes raised and through this
>>>>additional revenue Clinton will revitalize the economy.
>>
>>But don't trust him....fellow (democratic) governor Jim Florio certainly
>>misled us in NJ. When he ran for governor in 1989, candidate Florio said "I see
>>no reasons to raise taxes". Less than six months later, Florio pushed through
>>the largest single tax increase (for any state) in the history of our country!
> ( Lots deleted)
>>
>>Joe
>  
> Pardon me, Joe, but what the *hell* does Florio's record in New Jersey
> have to do with Clinton?  Sheesh...
>  
> Jim McMaster


The same old tax and spend theory! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Keywords: orgasms, family leave 
Organization: Organization
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:50:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.180617.7256@netcom.com> aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>In article <Bvsqz3.1L4@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>>somebody writes:
>>>	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.
>>>Its only messy if you shoot somebody in the face or your so wet that
>>>you flood your bedroom.
>>
>>  What does this have to do with Bush?
>
>The Republicans have elected to make Family Values a key issue in this
>campaign.  Without going into a long discussion, I need only point to
>Bush's veto of the Family Leave Act to show the falsity of their position.

  This shows nothing, since the bill did not provide any funds to pay for
these "family" leaves.  It's simply more political posturing.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org (Andrew Rogers)
Subject: Re: Bush's desperation
Organization: HICAM/OSD
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:37:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.230718.12625@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
>3) Today's accusation from Bush's campaign manager about Clinton's 
>   involvement in the Kennedy assasination (especially when Bush
>   was the one who sent a memo to Kennedy before the assasination).

Are you referring to the obvious hoax in alt.conspiracy, or did the Bush
campaign really make such an allegation?  If the latter, please fill us
in on the details.

On the other hand, check this out:

*  An FBi report made public in the late 1970s, which lay buried among the
98,755 pages of documents released at the time, indicates that within
hours of Kennedy's death, "On November 22, 1963, Mr. George H.W. Bush,
5525 Briar, Houston, Texas, telephonically advised ... that one James
Parrott has been talking of killing the President when he comes to
Houston.  Kennedy had visited Houston the previous day.  Bush was the
head of a Houston oil company and in the early stages of an ultimately
unsuccessful bid for the US Senate.  The FBI launched an investigation
of Parrott, who denied ever threatening Kennedy's life.  When questioned
about the FBI report by the _San Francisco Examiner_ in 1988, the then-
Vice President's press office originally said Bush hadn't made the call and
challenged the document's authenticity.  Several days later, an aide told
the _Examiner_ Bush "does not recall" making the call.  Parrott has no
doubt it was President Bush who placed the call.  At the time of the
assassination, Parrott served as a volunteer for the Harris County
Republican Party, which Bush then chaired.

(Source: _The Realist_, Summer 1992.)

AWR
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:26:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:
>In article <1992Oct8.202316.4532@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>]What really saddened me about GHWB's performance last night
>]was the implications of his remarks.  He criticized Clinton
>]for organizing anit-war rallies overseas, and attacking and
>]protesting against his country while living in Europe.
>]
>]Most of us who participated in anti-war protests were
>]not attacking America, nor were we in any way traitorous.
>
>Nor were you in a foreign country. THAT is the issue (as Bush has clearly
>stated). 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.

 However England is where Clinton *was*. It is not as if he got
a Rhodes Scholarship in order to portest the war.

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

 This is a distinction only because you have declared it to
be one. The right to protest does not cover territory but
people.

>]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. 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 attacking Bush's record is attacking Bush then there have
been personsal attacks. What is an example of Clinton attacking
Bush personally?


-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:18:46 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Perot Dies in VP Debate
	<1992Oct14.092534.18505@netcom.com>
Distribution: na

> 
>>Stockdale, a thoroughly likable and respect-worthy individual, would
>>not be a credible candidate for county assessor, let alone VP.  He
>>was, though, an invaluable contribution to the event, showing how
>>plastic one has to become to succeed in national politics.
> 
>Since when does a gift for public speaking qualify one for VP?  I can 
>think of about a thousand other qualities I'd rather have in a 
>candidate.  The guy was in the spotlight before a couple hundred 
>million people for the first time in his life.  Give him a break.


Sorry, when your running for vice preseident you don't get any breaks.
The man is not qualified to be president so he's not qualified to be VP
either. I really would rather not have a tired old man unready to face
the challenges of leadership one haert break away from being Commander
and Chief. 
 
 

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