HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aeschwar@ncsu.edu (Adam E. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Email Addresses!!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:48:48 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

cossett@ac.dal.ca writes:

>I would be interested in getting Clinton's email address. If anyone has it could you forward it to me. Thanks.

You can contact Clinton for President at:  75300.3115@compuserve.com

Also, here is some more contact information (which I have not
verified). For general correspondence, please send your mail to:

        Clinton for President
        P.O. Box 615
        Little Rock,   AR   72203

** To call for T-shirts, Bumper Stickers, Buttons,  etc. Please call: **

        (800) 428-8600

To send a FAX, please use this number:

        (501) 372-2292

To call the campaign HQ:

        (501) 372-1992

Online addresses (forums on both services):

        Compuserve      Clinton for President   75300,3115

        America Online  Clinton Pz


--Adam
--
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
| Adam Schwartz  | W: 919-515-5424  | ASCII mail only, please. 
| adam@ncsu.edu  |    (Raleigh, NC) | 
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Been to Arkansas lately?
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:29:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Penn State University

In article <BvvwCG.MrH@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hartlemp@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
(Michael P Hartley) says:
>
>   I just returned from a trip to Ark. and would like to let those who haven't
>been there know what 'Clintonomics' has done.  It seems the most flourishing
>businesses are flea markets.  All the antiquated farm equipment reminded my
>folks of what they used back in the 50's.  There were abandoned houses and
>farms all along the back roads.  It may be true that there has been a growth
>of jobs in the state, but they must be $2/hr stuff.
>

Well, that's the perception that someone from the midwest (and especially
the STEEL midwest) might have of the South in general.  The south didn't
join the industrial revolution until the end of the 1800s.  When they did,
they wiped the northeast out.  Still, those were small pockets of industry -
the South is still primarily rural and poor because they didn't have
ownership of all the industry (there was a lot of northern ownership).
So, Clintonomics didn't do what you saw.

I've been to Arkansas and it's not nearly as bad as Alabama or Mississippi.
But, it's probably not what a northerner would consider "advanced" because,
relatively speaking, it's not as industrialized.

>   Michael P Hartley                 #           |  Physicist by Choice
>                      ****           |           |  Brilliant by act of God

And modest to a fault.

Hope this helps.

Jeff Luck                 *These opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University       "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU               -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9541 tx.politics:5966 austin.politics:191 austin.talk:247 austin.general:3163
From: richard@kunikpok.UUCP (Richard Hasting)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 18:58:30 CDT
Organization: Kunikpok Kennels and Komputers (Pet Project)

purp@wixer.cactus.org (Jim Meyer) writes:

> 
> Why? It strikes me that a democratic Congress and a democratic President
> could do amazing things, rather than squabbling as the current
> Legilature and President have.
> 
> --Jim, ready to see Bush get planted in November.
> -- 
> +--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
> |  Julien Finaudere' du Main Pourpre         |  Jim Meyer DoD#680      |
> |  Collegium Turris Animarum, Bryn Gwylad    |  purp@wixer.cactus.org  |
> +--------------------------------------------+-------------------------+

While Congress is in session, neither a man's liberty or property is 
safe.   (loosely quoted?)  

I am not sure that this is a good thing.  WHat I would like to see is 
$400 Billion less in spending, not $200 Billion more for investments.  
Kinda like getting a great interest rate on a house that you can't 
afford.  No matter how you like your new house, you still have to pay the 
bills.  Unfortunately, you have to eat too.  At least the road to poverty 
will be well paved with good intentions.  A productive and useful session 
of congress should have each and everyone of us that munches at the 
federal trough, screaming bloody murder.  It will hurt, but the country 
will live through it a be much stronger for it in the future.  We would 
be able to compete economically and socially with other nations.  As it 
stands, Congress hates wealth, and its creation.  As Paul TaxOnGas 
stated, you cannot be pro growth without being pro business.  I do not 
think that the Democrats are capable of being pro business in the way 
which would provide for an increase in our economic success.  They are 
better now than 12 years ago, but in ways they are worse as well.  Every 
economist that has ever gone in front of the economic develoment 
committees in Congress say that Cap Gains tax cuts would increase the 
overall savings rates.  Yet, those who would save most would be the 
people with large assets.  So, instead of helping the economy, Congress 
says, "Can't help the rich, I would lose votes!"  even if it would be a 
positive influence on the overall economy, benefitting all of us as a 
whole.  

Ah.. Vote the bums out.

Richard

Richard Hasting, Computer Literacy 2000 Project Office
richard@kunikpok.uucp
"When all is said and done, more is said than done."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:17:25 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

: The highest unemployment rate was reached under FDR
: in 1939 at 52%. Now folks, 7.2% is a hell of a long way from the
: 52% reached after two terms of the New Deal.

I want to see documentation for that figure.  My almanac claims that
the unemployment rate for 1939 was 17.2%.

: The Dow Index has increased from less than 200 under JFK to 2000
: under Ronald Reagan and over 3000 today. A remarkable period of
: growth unpresidented in US history.

Year	DJIA range
1961	610.26-734.91
1962	535.76-726.01
1963	646.79-767.21
	(Source: The World Almanac)

Care to try that again?

Also, do you know what the DJIA would be if the 30 stocks were correctly
priced?  'Twould be in the 1500-2000 range.  Stock prices on popular
stocks are currently artificially high.  They reflect delusions of
traders, and investors wanting to make unrealistic profits.

Be careful with facts and figures.  They're awfully easy to check up
upon, and quite often they don't mean what they think you mean.
--
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



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
From: robert@guam.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Robert Glock)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:00:46 GMT

In article <21098@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>The question is, would you have sex with someone you know has AIDS, and trust
>your life to a condom?  Do you teach your kids "I know you're little more than
>a rabbit, here, have a condom"?  Isn't the big push toward "safe" sex a
>little like saying if you play Russian roulette with only one round in the
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>chamber it's safer than playing it with six?  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is not a really good comparison. It would be better to say "Safe sex
is like playing Russian roulette with rounds took from a box containing
10 % life rounds and all the others blind ones". Your chances to meet 
someone carrying the AIDS virus are small; multiply this with your chances
to use a bad condom and you get your chances of really being infected with
AIDS.

--
Robert Glock                           Dept. of VLSI Design
robert@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at            University of Technology, Vienna
                                       Austria / OLD EUROPE
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: ==> Over 500 Economists Endorse Clinton (II)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:13:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <92286.152254U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>List of over 500 economists endorsing Governor Bill Clinton (con't.)

  [  long list deleted  ]

  When you consider the track record economists have had in predicting,
  explaining, or modeling economic behavior, and especially how the
  current recession has completely stymied them, this is a bit like
  being endorsed by a cabal of Marin County spirit channelers.  

  Also note that many of these are the same economists who signed an
  open letter earlier this year OPPOSING a balanced budget amendment
  to the US Constitution.

  So far Clinton has gained the endorsments of the economists,
  the American Bar Association, and the AFL-CIO.   What next,
  the American Association of Used-Car dealers?

  Clinton is a big tax-and-spender just like Bush, but without 
  Bush's virtue of having an adversarial relationship with Congress
  to keep either the President or Congress from being able to fully
  advance their program.   A Clinton Presidency will look sort of
  like today's Canada: high taxes, double-digit inflation, a weak
  currency, and political turmoil.   You think we have economic
  problems now?   Just wait three or four years.  If you have a
  dollar in your pocket today, you'll look back on 1992 as "the
  good old days".   Sometimes a little gridlock isn't such a bad
  thing.


---peter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:57:15 EST
 <1b28h4INNgjf@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <1992Oct8.222400.13614@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1b2dvoINNqvr@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1b2dvoINNqvr@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
> |>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> |>Bill Clinton now only makes 35,000 per year (source 10-8-92 USA today)
> |>He seems very in touch with the adverage person to me. He has been
> |>poor, no one will argue that. He worked and payed his own way through
> |>school. When he finished law school he went back home to Ark to practice
> |>instead of Wall St. 
> |But you forget that along with that Governor's salary, Clinton gets room
> |(the Governor's mansion) and board (fine dining every night).  I thought it
> |was estimated that these and other perks came out to over $100,000 a year.
> |Bush gets perks also, so I think it can be said that neither of them can be
> |considered paupers.
> 
> Which one (if either) of them would be a non-pauper out of
> office?  According to the above, Clinton out of office is 
> left with $35K/year;  Bush out of office still has oil money.

	They're both set for life.  First, there is the pension from
governor/president (plus Bush gets Senate money, and probably state dept also),
plus Bill has Hillary (well, maybe like Ted had his wife--until after the race
:), and George's dogs can always write more books.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:52:49 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     H-O-L-Y C-O-W!  Shrub wins!  Shrub wins!  (O.K., I'll stop
the Harry Caray imitation.)
     It was pretty close in the C-SPAN post-debate viewer call-in;
by my tally it was 18 pro-Bush, 14 pro-Clinton, and 6 pro-Perot
(with a bunch of nebulous calls -- your tally may differ).  It
didn't seem like too many viewers changed their vote based on
the debate.
     Now, let me give my views.  First, it was hard for me to
maintain a high level of interest toward the end of the debate.
(Maybe they should have an American Gladiators type debate to
balance this one.)  I kinda got tired of listening to long-winded
responses.  Second, I don't think this debate will really sway
too many people away from their original candidate.  Third, I
get the impression from the C-SPAN callers that Perot may be
losing some of his appeal.
     Some comments on the participants:
     Bush:    Kept looking at his watch.
     Clinton: Kept making funny faces into the camera while Bush spoke.
              All of his plans had three points.  (Very amusing!)
     Perot:   You're out of time, Mr. Perot.  Mr. Perot!  MR. PEROT!!
              The chair was elevated too high for him to actually sit.

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:13:41 GMT

In article <Bw2CyM.Lv3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:

>
>: 	increase Congress' salaries 50% <- A LINE ITEM VETO would allow
>: 					the president to veto this line
>: 					as opposed to the whole document
>: 					and yes, it is a GOOD thing
>
>Of course, there is now a Constitutional amendment (the 27th) that
>prohibits Congress from voting itself a pay raise so quickly.
						   ^^^^^^^^^^

	'so quickly' is the key...they will still get their raises.


>: 	Vote PEROT. THE OTHERS ARE JUST SLIMY POLITICIANS.



-- 
      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.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Magic Johnson (Was Re: Debates)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:04:45 GMT

In article <48672@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.031444.26715@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>|> You believe NPR?? Radio Socialiste National, National Proletariat Radio??
>|> Geez, I'd believe anybody before believing NPR.
>
>Since NPR interviews people who present a very wide variety of opinions
>and broadcasts segments prepared by people of multiple political positions,
>it is definitely not a matter of "believing".  It is a matter of being well
>informed.  I have heard such "socialists" as George Will, William Safire,
>and Linda Chavez on NPR.  I assume you won't "believe" them because
>they were on NPR.
>
>NPR is, in my opinion, the best radio you can find on your dial today when
>it comes to news and information.  I have a high degree of respect for people
>who listen to NPR because I know that they are well informed and interested
>in what is going on in this country  and in the world.  You can even listen to
>the BBC and the CBC on NPR stations.  But you probably would call these
>world renowned stations Radio Communist or something like that.
>
Oh alright I was joking.  NPR has been taking some flak concerning
its (alleged) liberal bias.

And if you want to hear BBC and CBC directly, get a

Simon
I do listen to Rush Limbaugh, go on flame away on that one
(heat sheild up)


BBC has got the best unbiased news coverage, IMHO.  T
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10064 alt.politics.perot:2052 alt.politics.bush:8884 alt.politics.elections:16452
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:52:19 GMT
	<1992Oct12.215310.13656@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: StarOwl@uiuc.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 21:53:10 GMT

Be fair to CBS.  They were contractually obliged to air the play-offs,
as I recall.
--
Peace.
         "It's rural America.  It's where I came from.  
          We always refer to ourselves as real America.  
          Rural America, real America, real, real, America."
                      -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10715 talk.politics.misc:52105
From: casey@snail.ecn.purdue.edu (Kenneth H Casey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BRAVES WIN!!! (oh yeah, Bush stuff too)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:25:07 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:


>. . .  George never referred to Willie by name, nor did he use Willie's
>picture.

Bush most certainly did utter the words "Willie Horton" during the 1988
campaign, but perhaps the bright colors from the flag that Bush wrapped
around himself distracted people from that fact.

(Yes, a committee independent of the Bush campaign ran the TV spots, but
this does change the fact that Willie Horton helped Bush get elected.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: evasquez@dewey.NMSU.Edu 
Subject: Re: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:03:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.220008.25909@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  
c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> 
> So who's in the lead in terms of number of books sold, current ranking, etc.
> 
> Ross Perot's Book, Albert Gores, Rush Limbaughs, or Clintons Biography?
The Dan Quayle Diktionaree.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 22:12:42 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: ==> Clinton/Gore On Gun Control

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            CLINTON/GORE ON GUN CONTROL



Every year, more than 20,000 Americans are killed
with handguns; many thousands more are injured.  A
large and growing number of these victims are
killed by semi-automatic assault weapons which have
no legitimate sporting purpose.  The streets of our
cities have become gun bazaars.  We must make them
safe again.

The large majority of gun owners are law-abiding
citizens who use their guns in a responsible
manner.  Bill Clinton and Al Gore know that the
Constitution guarantees an individuals basic right
to keep and bear arms, and they will uphold that
right.

Support the Brady Bill

Sign the Brady Bill, which mandates a 5-day waiting
period for handgun purchases to allow police
sufficient time to determine whether intended
purchasers are underage or have criminal
backgrounds, drug histories, or mental health
histories.  Al Gore was a primary author and
cosponsor of the Senate version of the Brady Bill,
which includes a background check.  Bill Clinton
has endorsed the Brady Bill.

Ban assault weapons

*    Ban semi-automatic assault weapons that have
     no legitimate hunting purpose and support the
     right of local law enforcement officials to
     ban such weapons when gangs move into their
     neighborhoods.

*    Limit access to multiple-round clips like the
     ones used in the tragic killings in Killeen,
     Texas.

Get tough on crime

*    Create a National Police Corps and offer
     veterans and active military personnel a
     chance to become law enforcement officers at
     home.  This will add 100,000 new police
     officers to the streets.

*    Enact tougher sentences for criminals who use
     guns.

*    Implement a federal program for safe schools
     so children can concentrate on learning.

*    Create boot camps for first-time non-violent
     offenders.

*    Develop strong anti-gang initiatives, and
     empower public housing residents to get rid of
     drug dealers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.134456.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Oct16.150013.14372@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> > In article <1992Oct16.094212.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
|> > |> 
|> > |>      He [Perot] talks about how easy it would be to compromise with
|> > |> Congress -- I really wish that someone would have asked him
|> > |> about his past unsuccessful dealings with the bureaucratic
|> > |> GM establishment.  When he didn't get his way, back then, he 
|> > |> "packed up his marbles and went home." 
|> > |> 
|> > 
|> > No, this is another misconception.  He was bought out.  Had no choice in
|> > the matter.
|> > 
|> > He even told them not to buy him out.  That they couldn't afford to do
|> > it.
|> 
|>      If you actually believe this, I do not think I can change your
|> mind.  All I can say is that I lived in Detroit and worked at
|> GM in the mid-80's, and Perot's behavior in this campaign is
|> a carbon-copy of his behavior at GM.
|>  

I am perfectly willing to listen to you try to convince me otherwise.

But I will agree that he tried to change GM for the better and he is
trying to change the US for the better also.

|> > Yet seven years later GM decides that he was right all along and they do
|> > need to build quality cars.
|> 
|>      Perot wanted to "Saturnize" all of GM -- an idea which had
|> its merits.  But, the problem was that he could not get GM
|> management to bite on his ideas.  Similarly, Mr. Perot could
|> have the best ideas in the world about how to "fix" the
|> country, but he has to get Congress to bite.
|> 
|>      C. Perttunen 

Is Bush going to be able to get Congress to bite?  Will Clinton?  I do
not think either of them have any better chance than Perot just because
of partisan politics.  And there are enough conservitive Dems in
congress to stifle Clinton.

Fine though.  Lets let this country go to hell.  Who cares.  In four
years every one will say "We should have elected Perot".

Doug

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton