HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Top 10 questions to ask Bush on Larry King
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:10:44 GMT

In article <1at2agINN33i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
>
>In a previous article, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) says:
>
>>Bush is going to reappear on Larry King Live Wed. WITH PHONE CALLS:
>>
>>so i thought we should compile the top ten questions we would
>>love to ask him Wednesday night:
>>
>>1. Any truth to the rumor that you plan on replacing Dan Quayle with
>>   Howard Stern?
>
>2. Are pork rinds _really_ your farorite food?

3. Are you planning to buy the _Canis, by Calvin Klein_ perfume
[featured on Saturday Night Live] for Millie?




--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Perot's feeble reason for coming back
Organization: Clark University
Date: 26 SEP 92 14:59:02 GMT


In a previous article, clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) wrote:
>   It's now down to whether he formally declares his candidacy,
>and whether people are willing to jump on the Perot bandwagon
>once again.   If he does, and is rather successful, he will have
>been one extremely clever politician.
> 
Perot's early "withdrawl" is then both a blessing and a curse. He hasn't 
endured the media and partisan attacks to the extent of the other candidates,
but on the other hand, why wouldn't he want to?

-				|   "Don't torture yourself, Gomez.
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|    That's my job."
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    			- Morticia Addams
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: New CNN Poll
Organization: Organization
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.023309.5662@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>   A new CNN/Time magazine poll was released tonight.
>
>Results in a two person race :
>	
>                  9/25               Last Poll (Late August)
>Clinton           53 %			50 %
>Bush              39 %			42 %
>Perot		   1 %			 1 %
>Other/Undecided    7 %			 7 %
>
>Results in a three candidate race :
>
>Clinton           42 %
>Bush              33 %
>Perot		  17 %


  Assuming this is correct, Clinton loses 11 points if Perot gets in,
and Bush loses 6 points.  This is not surprising when you consider
that most of Clinton's supporters are more anti-Bush than pro-Clinton.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Clinton on Training
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:05:07 GMT


  What do netters think of Clinton's 1.5% payroll tax to pay for
"training" and further education.  I'm not a big fan of it for the same reason
I'm not a big fan of any new payroll taxes.  Also, I think "forcing" the
American workers to "invest" 1.5% of their money in training is
a bit parental.   It may be a good idea in general, but I don't like
the idea of government forcing the issue.  I think these decisions are
much better made on an individual level.

  Sidenote: Anyone that thinks that "companies" will pick up the cost, 
probably believes that their "employer" pays half of their FICA. :-) 


Pat



-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:43:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.230436.2195@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <38800@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>

Phill, have you considered working for the Bush campaign.  Your
talents at distortion and outright lies would be most welcome there!

>Ross *claims that he hates Bush. There is no evidence to sugest that 
>this is the
>case. Both are right wing populists who would promise anything to get elected.

I fact, Perot had not claimed anything (as far I had heard) one way or
the other, until yesterday.  He _did_ say he didn't like the _record_ of
the Bush administration.

>
>Perot makes a big thing about "making hard choices" etc etc. Yet what is his
>plan to balance the budget? He wants to extort $200 billion per annum from
>Europe and Asia to cover the deficit. Does that sound remotely like a hard
>decision?

Here is this same old, tired lie again.  You only look stupid to anyone 
who has read the book, and there are MILLIONS of them, although it
certainly seems that the majority of Perot detractors on USENET would
prefer to remain ignorant of what UWSA is all about.

Perhaps Phill, being a lifetime beneficiary of our protection, merely
wishes the status quo to continue.  I know he has claimed otherwise,
but why does he continue to perpetrate this lie?

> [Reagan policy statement deleted]
>start. Where are the on the record statements from Perot condeming these
>policies five years ago?

Relevance?  Perot was NOT RUNNING five years ago!  Why all the 
chimeras, Phill?

>I can give dates and times for speaches that I gave five years ago in which I
>accurately predicted the effect of the "new right" grab what you can "greed is
>good" ecconomics, can Perot?

Once again, relevance?  Any imbecile can make predictions, no doubt you 
see them in the tabloids every day.

What counts are solutions.  

Perot's are not perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than 
Bush or Clinton offer.

Why don't you read "United We Stand"?  Maybe then you'll understand
what the "Perot movement" is about; and to be fair to you, it's not 
always what Ross says!  He's fallible, just as you or I.

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:37:50 GMT

From article <1992Oct1.155806.6031@netcom.com>, by nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle):
> 
>       But there's no excuse for only accepting "yes" votes.

Nonsense, did the Democrats allow Republicans to vote "NO" on Clinton
at their convention?  The Republicans?  It doesn't make any difference 
how many people don't want Perot to run.  If a significant number of 
people want him in the race he should run.  I'd say that the 9-17% he's 
running in the polls now constitutes a significant number of people.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jeff@don't.want.email
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: IS IT ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY?
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:54:50 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri's Technological University


I'll bet you that everything that is happening and all that is to happen  
is just a big conspriacy to keep the little people little and the big  
people big.

Look at David Rockefeller.
Look at the Tri-Lateral Comission.
Look at the LIBERAL media.
Look, Look, Look!

It is all around!  And they are a few that are controlling the whole  
sha-Bang!  

Why did Jimmy Carter fare so badly?

He was not in the Tri-Lateral Comission!

You can't tell me that there was'nt something fishy going on!

Now we wonder why the economy stunk so bad in the 70's!

Clinton will win, he's part of the whole ball game!

Jeff
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Question Bush Will Not Answer
Summary: Iran-Contra
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:28:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1aq088INNbnc@overload.lbl.gov>, bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)           writes...
> 
>If you see Bush being interviewed, note that Bush's conditions
>for interviews currently state that no questions may be asked
>about his role in the illegal sale of weapons to Iran.
> 
Does anyone know if this is a condition on the coming debates?

>    --Brad Sherman
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: The Question Bush Will Not Answer
Date: 5 Oct 1992 18:07:04 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov


If you see Bush being interviewed, note that Bush's conditions
for interviews currently state that no questions may be asked
about his role in the illegal sale of weapons to Iran.

    --Brad Sherman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz info
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 06:40:12 GMT

In article <1728300001@igc.apc.org> Gordon O. Perkins <gperkins@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>Briefly, Gritz is a vicious anti-communist who hangs out with other 
>anti-semites and racists st the Spotlight magazine and Populist Party.
>The Populist Party's 1984 pres candidate was David Duke. Big Bo recently
>was a featured mediator trying to talk some racist in Idaho out of 
>some "confrontation" with the FBI. If you don't like fascism, ignore
>Bo in 92. 
>

Don't forget that Bo is also the guy who said that he wanted to dissolve the
Federal Reserve system, taking over the individual banks with armed force if
necessary. Quite honestly, I think that he may be a couple tacos short of a
combination plate.......

Tom H.


-- 

Just a message looking for a .signature file......
 
thyat@sdf.lonestar.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: NYT Poll 10/6 (Perot groundswell? NOT!)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:33:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct6.144727.15717@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>
>Dates:  10/2-10/4
>
>Who polled: 1252 adults, 994 said they were registered voters.
>
>Numbers relating to voting were based on 934 respondents representing
>the "probable electorate."
>
>
>Overall voter preference:
>
>Clinton        46
>Bush           38
>Perot           7
>Other           9
>
...
>
>Other recent polls:
>
>                                                           error   date
>Washington Post/ ABC News: Clinton 48,  Bush 35,  Perot 9    4     10/5
    
    Other - 8

>USA Today/CNN/Gallup:      Clinton 47,  Bush 35,  Perot 10   3     10/5

    Other - 8


    Looks like Perot is capturing a major portion of the undecided vote
    thus leaving Bush little or no chance of getting back into the race.





-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sasbrb@rolypoly.unx.sas.com (Brendan Bailey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perots book "UNITED WE STAND" is a best seller.
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:36:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasbrb@rolypoly.unx.sas.com


In article <1664@frackit.UUCP>, dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.174308.11263@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>> All followups PLEASE to 'alt.politics.elections' only.
>>
>> "UNITED WE STAND" by Ross Perot is compelling reading and has topped
>> the bestseller list for 3 weeks in a row now. Its only $4.95 and
>> is money well spent in this election year.
>>
>> If you haven't read it - go get it.
>
>I haven't read it yet. Can't decide whether to read it or not. I've sent
>questionnaires out to all my friends and neighbors and pending what they
>say I may read it. If they tell me to I will.
>
>It's in the peoples hands.
>
>:) <-(for the humor impaired)
>
haha.

    Wait a minute.  A few months back, you WERE going to read it, but that 
raised so much commotion, you decided to not to read it, right?  Are you 
only now reconsidering to read the book since many of your neighbors have
labeled you a "quitter"? 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Bailey                         "The NFL is on record saying that if 
SAS Institute, Inc - QA/Graph           it adds 150 expansion teams or hell 
sasbrb@unx.sas.com                      freezes over -- whichever comes      
Go Heels! Go Hornets! Go Panthers!      first -- Raleigh will be awarded a
The NFL in Charlotte! Target: 1994!!!   franchise." - The Charlotte Observer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot's Re-Entry: What's the Possible Electoral Effect?
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:52:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.124348.12393@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
>
>OK, so now he's back in officially.  I've heard various opinions
>in the media regarding who's hurt and who's helped by Perot's
>candidacy.  I've heard that he could cause Clinton to win Texas

First off - Scott, this is not meant to flame you in any way, nor
to ignore your question (I'm sure there will be a boatload of
opinions on that :^)).

If I may pose question to the readership at large, why do people 
care what Perot's effect is on the other two?  Why do people allow 
polls to dictate for whom they vote?

The traditional tripe served up by the American media to the 
electorate in effect claims the impossibility of a win by *any* 
third party (or non-party for that matter) candidate.  No clearer
demonstration that last night's McNeil-Lehrer show is necessary.

Did anyone else who watched McNeil-Lehrer last night wonder
why --> Democratic and Republican party professional pollsters <--
had such a prominent position on the show?

Does anyone has a transcript they can post?

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:52:12 GMT

In article <8188@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen) writes:
>
>Our national debt has reached $4 trillions and is raising with explosive 
>speed. In average, a family of 4 has $ 80,000 of public debt. Is this normal?
>
>I have found a way out of this mess, and I believe that it is the only way.
>
>To get rid of this debt, simply pay back less than we're supposed to !
>
>But How ?
>
>We can do it legally by having an INTENTIONAL HIGH INFLATION RATE !

Methinks Weimar Germany tried this.  They got Hitler.
(We'll get Perot... kidding!)


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15313 alt.politics.bush:7858 alt.politics.clinton:8656 alt.rush-limbaugh:6629
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Interesting Happenings on Larry King Live (STL)
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:56:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
!Just before the start of Larry King Live this evening, featuring an interview
!with Bill Clinton and Al Gore, the TCI Cablevision signal for CNN became 
!disrupted (it looked similar to the scrambling used on Pay-TV channels).
!   At 9 PM, just after the show ended, the signal returned to normal.
!   TCI Cablevision was not sure of the cause, at the last I heard.
!   Just makes you wonder...

Someone seems to be partying a bit after the veto override. :)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: khanh@crowe.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: WHY IS ABORTION NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE ?
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:04:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles


Abortion is not a women's issue. Therefore, only men have the right to 
decide whether abortions should be legalized.
Why ?

Consider the following situation:
Two heavy weight boxers are competing for the world championship. But after
a very long fight, neither of them is knocked out. So who will decide the 
outcome of the fight ? Of course we can not give one of the two fighters
the right to decide. This right should be given to neutral judges. 

Abortion, like this situation, is a conflict of interest between two parties.
In this case, the first boxer is the (potential) mother, and the second boxer
is her fetus. The mother wants an abortion: she may be unprepared for a child,
or she may be still in school, or maybe she simply does'n want to be ridiculed
as a single mother. The fetus, on the other hand, has its own interest. The
fetus can's say. It even can't think. But we can safely assume that every
organism has an innate desire to survive. Therefore, abortion is not in the
interest of the fetus. In this conflict of multual-exclusive interests, it is
unfair to give either party the right to the final decision. Like the above
example of the boxers, the final decision should be given to the outsiders
who have no interest in the outcome of their decisions. That's why only men
should have the right to vote on abortion issues. Women tend to be sympathetic
only to other women, and their votes will of course be biased against the 
fetus's interest.
Futhermore, to insure the highest fairness possible, only young men who have
never married can vote on this issue. Otherwise, family commitment will 
influence the votes of married men. Married men are not free to express their
own opinions in this sensitive issue.


Kan Nuel.
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ross Perot Prediction
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:47:20 GMT

filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:


>In any event, I don't think Perot will do well in the debates.  And
>I think that's gonna really piss him off.

I think he will hold is own. He doesn't have any special interests to
worry about, so that he slithers down both sides of an issue. He will
probably be entertaining to watch, and is likely to be labelled 'the
Harry Truman' of the campaign (for his style only).

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14435 talk.politics.misc:48221
From: M23231@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: United We Stand And Deliver
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:32:05 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <Bv5KKL.Hnr@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>
dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
 
>
>In article <Bv5Iv4.I6D@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <Bv5HEF.ELu@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>
>(tacit admission of defeat on this point)
>
>Query: are you more concerned with a little more taxes now,
>       or dire economic straights when the bills come due?
>       Certainly the latter does not qualify as "as little
>       interference as possible"?
>
****************
Do you mean "economic straights" or "economic straits"? I think I've been
receiving the "economic straights"--otherwise known as the purple shaft.
****************
From: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Campaign '92 Documents Available--FREE
Date: 30 Sep 1992 14:20:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



   The National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), is pleased to 
announce a new service for the duration of Campaign '92.

   We are teaming-up with the American Cybercasting Corporation to 
provide special Campaign '92 newsgroups to Internet hosts anywhere 
in the world--for FREE.

   These will be special moderated newsgroups containing the full-
text of the position papers, speeches, press releases, fact 
sheets, (and anything else we can obtain) from the campaigns of 
the REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and LIBERTARIAN parties.  Each item will 
be carried complete and un-cut, and each is obtained directly from 
official sources within the respective campaigns.  (These are NOT 
discussion groups--you can get that in alt.politics.<whatever>.  
They are moderated newsgroups containing pure campaign information 
for your study and analysis.  You can argue about it somewhere 
else.)

   These special newsgroups will be delivered directly to your
host system by ACC.  The value is obvious for political science 
classes, students, faculty, staff, and anyone else who wants the
FULL story and not just sound-bites and factoids.

   To obtain the newsgroups, have some decision-maker at your 
computing center send an e.mail message to: usa@americast.com 
and all will be made manifest by return e.mail.  The message
MUST contain the name, title, and institution of the person
making the request somewhere in it.

   To repeat, there is no charge to receive this service from
American Cybercasting (although donations to NPTN will be 
gratefully accepted).

-- 
T.M. Grundner, Ed.D
President, National Public Telecomputing Network
Box 1987
Cleveland, Ohio 44106 - e.mail: tmg@nptn.org
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Party Registration
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:20:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
>In Ohio, you just walk in the polling place, sign your name in a register,
>and tell them whether you want to vote in the Republican or Democratic
>booth. Maybe selecting one at this point is a de facto registration,
>but you can change the next time around with no paperwork.
>
>The parties must be able to get a list of who voted in what primary, as
>I get mailings from the Democrats and never from the Republicans (whose
>primary I have never participated in).

Here in the UK, we find this absurd. Political parties are
private organisations, if you want to join one fine, send your
fees off to its headquarters, sign whatever it is you have to
sign to join it, pay whatever fees they ask.

Elections, however are secret. Surely the idea of a polling
booth for the different parties goes against the very idea of a
secret ballot, it's more like the old USSR. Also, how can a
political party function if it has no control whatever on who
joins it? If anyone can walk in off the streets and be signed
up as a member of a political party, able to decide who its
candidates are and what is to be in its platform, what is to
protect a party from being taken over by people opposed to all
it stands for?

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections