HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:17:23 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Sirpa Saarinen writes:
>
>I wonder as well whether anyone else thinks that Bush has some problem
>in a direct conversation. Do you think that Bush appears to be somewhat
>spaced out each time when he is interviewed in a live broadcast (e.g. even
>in the pre-recorded LK-show)? I think he looks *very* old and fragile and
>that he has to think long what he says next. Maybe this is why these
>strange issues surface. 
>
This has been covered  a lot recently. I think there was a noticeable
fatigue -- if not depression -- in Bush's early campaign stuff. He
has seemed more solid recently. I trust my level of dislike for GHWB
is as high as that of 55% of the rest of the country, but my effort at 
balance tells me that Bush's health as an issue is a non-starter.

About the direct conversation issue, that is something else. GHWB does
not respond to any question that he does not want to reply to. But,
he is not alone in that. Self-preservation is pretty common.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:34:33 EDT
 <MATT.92Oct9114644@physics.berkeley.edu><10OCT199217534240@utarlg.uta.edu>
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

In article <10OCT199217534240@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen
Tice) says:

>I'm being told he did not take a leadership position in the anti-war
>effort, mostly going along with the crowd. Then he left the country all
>together, in pursuit of his own benefit. And he even went all the way to
>Soviet Union, to "broaden his own education."

>So when other young Americans were distingushing themselves as true
>leaders on the battlefield, in civil rights, and in the anti-war
>movement.... Bill Clinton left.

This is great! First Clinton is attacked for being TOO much into the
anti-war movement, and now he's being attacked for not being into it
ENOUGH!

I love this presidential campaign. It's worlds better than '88, that's
for sure. (Seriously. '88 was just nasty and grubby, but the '92 campaign
feels more like a rollercoaster. Whee!)

                  "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50431 ca.politics:8554 ba.politics:5972
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 1 of 4 (Scholarly References On Sexual Orientation & Child Molestation)
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:56:31 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Oct7.185127.9158@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> In article <12604@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #The Ground Rules
# 
# #I will not respond to any followup that contains ad hominem attacks,
# #even if there are substantive criticisms contained therein, simply
# #because it's too draining, and because someone who lacks the self-
# #control to respond to facts without engaging in character assassination
# #isn't worth my time; it's a sign that someone is so irrational as 
# #to be a waste of time to argue with.  
# 
# You are such a complete clueless lackwit you probably think this sentence
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# is an _ad hominem_ attack, and my postings less rational than the absolute
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# nonsense you have been posting.  
# -- 
#      Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
#                gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

These postings by Gene Ward Smith, and the ones by Paul Bartholomew, 
are such wonderful examples of what I was talking about.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get 
your way, have a riot.  Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52472 ca.politics:8726 ba.politics:6147
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: THIS ELECTION IS ILLEGIT!
Keywords: Candidates excluded from debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:31:19 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct16.005411.15755@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>
>
>         PROTEST UNFAIR ELECTION PROCESS
>
>The arbitrary exclusion of certain candidates from supposedly objective
>nonpartisan debates is a disgusting spectacle, and in my opinion,
>it renders this election illegitimate.  
.....

>
>
>--Al Date

It is hard for me to understand the claim that the debate process is either
unfair or illegitimate.

It is not illegitimate. The reason is that the debates are not conducted
by the government. There is no constitutional or legal requirement for 
the people conducting the debate to include all candidates.

It is not unfair. There are, in some sates perhaps 20 presidential candidates
on the ballot. Including all candiates would have resulting in each having
less that 4.5 minutes total time. The vast majority of the people in this 
country would be totally outraged in a debate that included all of the
candidates. Thus the number must be limited if the debate is to serve any
purpose at all. The means of limitation is arbitary. It has to be. You
can argue for one criteria. I can argue for another. I think the means 
chosen was to select those candidates that have some probability of being
elected and have had a large degree of national attention. It seems to me 
that it is a somewhat reasonable criteria.

I would have liked to see a few more people on the debates or at least on
one of them, perhaps the first.

I like some of the ideas of the Libertarian party, of the Greens, of the
Peace and Freedom Party. Perhaps if I knew more about them I would like
some of the ideas of all of the contenders.

It IMO unrealisitic to expect the debates to include more than they do
until the election process is changed. If we had a Single Transferrable Vote
the debates would open up. People would pay attention to the lesser known
candidates. If we had such a system perhaps I would mark my choices

1: Green Candidate
2: Peace and Freedom Candidate
3: Bill Clinton
4: Libertarian Candidate Andrew Mareou(sp)
....
Low Perot
...
Last Bush

People who like third parties would be more productive in getting what they
want if they worked for A Signle Transferrable Vote instead of criticised
the media for not including their candidate.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What if...
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:41:52 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct12.130405.815@altair.selu.edu> tmis1692@altair.selu.edu writes:
>What would happen if George Bush was Foreign Policy Director, Bill Clinton was
>Director of Social Programs and Ross Perot was the Manager of Economic
>Development and nobody was the president?
>
>Just curious, 

Vast disagreements on whether to get a pizza with pepperoni or sausage
& peppers.

There'd be a fight every evening for the remote control for the White
House TV.

A Bad Time for All in the morning, waiting for a turn at the bathroom,
especially during a crisis.

Paper, Hammer, Stone on Fridays to see who gets the bullet-proof limo
for the weekend.

The smart guy in this troika will get the aisle seat on Air Force One:
makes going to the restroom easier on those long flights.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:12:40 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Otto Tennant) writes:
|> Rob Harrington) writes:
|> 
|> >> And you Mr. Brewster -- lets step back just to the known and "admitted"
|> >> facts. BRAVE BILL was on VACATION in the Soviet Union while others of
|> >> his generation DIED.
|> >> 
|> >
|> >Gee and what was Dick Cheney doing?  Dan Quayle?  There are lots of people
|> >who DIDN'T fight in Vietnam.  Just because they didn't have to go does
|> >mean they're bad people... 
|> >
|> That's kind of an interesting statement.
|> 
|> There are several issues unstated here.
|> 
|> Third, does the present Governor of a small southern state, who
|> promised not to run for president as the governor of that small
|> southern state, need to defend whatever he did in 1969?
|> 
Terrific.  George Bush says he went to Russia and China and that 
these trips are part of his credentials as a presidential candidate
that understands the world.  Clinton says he went to Russia and
we are calling him a traitor and a possible KGB agent.

I guess the anti-Clinton forces think smoke works better than
platform.  Good luck folks.  How about the 1988 Bush/Quayle campaign
having a drug dealer, already in prison, placed in solitary
confinement and moving his parole 5 years because they found out
he was going to call a press conference to explain that he was
Quayle's supplier.

Probably more germain to the election than a college trip to moscow.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:05:25 EDT
From: <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: How can you vote for Perot?

  The guy is in, he's out, and he's back in again!  And Tuesday he showed just
how poor his judgement is.  Stockdale is a cute man who has led a remarkable
life, but let's be serious.  This guy as Vice President is MORE scary than
having Danny Boy as VP the last 4 years!!!  Could you see this guy making a
snap decision?  Could you see Stockdale giving a State of the Union Address.
Clinton's first speech after his nomination made the point that the first
decision any candidate makes is his Vice Presidential choice.  Bush gave us
Dan, and look what we got over the last four years.  Clinton chose Gore, who
as impressed more than not.  And Perot gave us Stockdale.  If anyone seriously
thinks that Stockdale would make a good VP, let alone President, then go ahead
and vote for Perot, you are hopeless anyway.  Let's be honest about this, and
if we are, we know that Perot really messed up on this one.
Kevin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50688 alt.politics.clinton:9519
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:47:25 EST
 <1992Oct7.002935.4596@desire.wright.edu> <1b20bpINNf3f@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1b20bpINNf3f@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.002935.4596@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
>>	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
>>John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
>>denied.
> 
> Let's get this straight: Clinton (and a bunch of other Oxford students)
> go to Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia for Christmas
> break. Now they can't get a security clearance? Do you have a security
> clearance, Stupendous? I'd be worried if someone s obviously paranoid
> could get one.

	Haven't applied for one.  But my dad had one high enough to work on
Stealth projects.  Needless to say, he couldn't take vacations in Eastern
Europe.

> Today's NY Times reports that one of Clinton's classmates on the trip is
> now a judge and worked nine years in the Reagan-Bush Justice Department.
> He can't figure out what the hell is going on. (He doesn't seem to have
> had much security clearance trouble, eh?) Incidentally, the same
> classmate also protested against the war in Vietnam.

	Judges don't need security clearances, they're not working for the
military or the executive branch.

> The Bush campaign refers to this as Red Willie. They don't think Clinton
> is really a KGB agent; they just keep on searching for that magic bullet
> that will stop Clinton.

	I don't think he is either.  It just fits in nicely with his other
patterns of deception (the affair, the marijuana, etc.)

	Would you buy a car from this guy?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Subject: Re: Your Permanent Record
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Summary: Keep Quit
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:57:23 GMT

In article <1764@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>, munck@stars.reston.unisys.com                             writes...
>In article <1992Oct10.232559.13416@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

This point needs further discussion.

>Here's an interesting point:  when all of these sophomores grow up and some
>eventually run for public office, all of their current half-thought-out
>rantings on the net will probably still be available in various archives. 
>After all, the full net stream is being captured and put on cdrom even now. 
>Every flame, every obscenity, every lapse of logic.  This is something new
>in the world of politics.
>
So what you are saying, in essence, is that "Big Brother Is Watching".

>So think about that out there in .edu land; are you sure about your facts
>and logic?  What you say now may doom your run for dogcatcher in 2012.
> 
I have a different thing for you to consider, "Who says that in 2012, 
Amerika will be anything like it is today? We might even be the United
States of Japan in 2012."

>Bob Munck
> 
_Garrett
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: MY VIEW OF THE DEBATE
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:10:26
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 13 Oct 1992 16:23:24 GMT

In article <1bet5tINN1dp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:

>    I have no problem with Clinton protesting the war. My problem is
> that he always attempts to stay on both sides of issues. Go ahead
> and SAY you protested the war.

When has Clinton ever said otherwise?  He opposed the Vietnam War in
1969, and he still believes that he was right to oppose it.  He has
never even suggested that he was in favor of the Vietnam War.  

--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:06:21 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <13OCT199216361127@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
: In article <84844@bcsaic.boeing.com>, lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum) writes...
: >In article <10OCT199220515401@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
: >: In article <1992Oct10.233650.14720@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes...
: >: 
: >: >It was a normal trip for young scholars.
: >: 
: >: If it was his first trip in the Soviet Union, then also likely a
: >: memorable experience. I wonder why he won't talk about it... if
: >: it was just a normal trip?
: >: 
: >I think that it is not at all unusual to have only vague
: >recollections of a trip that took place 23 years ago.  In 1974
: >I had a wonderful trip to Europe, but I doubt I could speak
: >very precisely about any person I met there or what I did on a
: >particular date, etc.  I can tell you what cities I visited
: >and some of the sights I saw, but precise memories?  Not very
: >likely.  
: 
: If I asked you, I hope you would at least offer that.  
: No big deal right? 
: 
When you are running for President, every question is a big
deal.  Especially when the GOP is clearly out to put you on
the defensive.  If you answer the question, then the voters
begin to think the question is legitimate.  There are times
when the proper response is "That is a disgusting insinuation
and I won't dignify it with a response".  This is one of those
times.


-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: whangj@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Junho Whang)
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:47:44 GMT


  What bothers me most about debt problem is that it's like
train hurtling toward a collapsing bridge.  If the conductor of
the train is at sleep, the passangers won't sense the trouble
until the lead car is half way over collapsing bridge, and
by then it's all too late.

   Clinton can pile up another 2 trillion dollers in debt over
next 4 years, and still get reelected, since 6 trillion debt 
demands only ~28% of total federal income (vs ~20% today) as
interest payment.  But by then it's too late, and the debt will
skyrocket through 8 trillion over following 4 years nomatter
who becomes the president after Clinton.

   So Clinton can get away with irresponsible fisical policy, and
be still fully viable for 2nd term.  Whatever Clinton said in 
last night's debate about debt reduction isn't worth a plug, 
since he doesn't have to stick to any of it.  If he did say he
would sign legally binding contract, I'd have seriously reconsidered
my impression of Clinton as the ultimate self-serving politician.

 - I'm running because I want to help the disadvantaged children 
 - I'm running because I want to improve our schools
 - I'm running because I want to 
 - I'm running because .....            
                                ad on infinitum    
                                                  -Clinton
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: We have a genuine case...
Organization: Just Patrick.  (I'm at work.)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:03:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.043701.28553@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1687E86A2.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.024125.7749@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>>"Intelligent Liberal" is an oxymoron, and a liberal is just a moron.
>>>
>>>:)
>>>Simon
>>
>>Simon...until now, I respected you, because you seemed to be trying to
>>have a serious debate.  Now, you have sunk to silly name-calling, and
>>you have lost my respect.  And *NO*, the smiley does not change that.
>>
>>I am quite a bit more liberal than you, although I do not find myself
>>in agreement with all "liberal" positions.  I am considered intelligent
>>by everyone who knows me.  You just insulted me with your silly
>>comments.  If you want to have a serious discussion with people, that
>>is not the right way to proceed.
>>
>I got equally "silly" flames in e-mail.  So now my side of the debate
>is invalid because I told a joke??  I'll keep up this debate, in a serious
>manner, what you saw is posted in measured amounts, not indiscriminately.

Well, if you really believe that what you're doing is debating in a serious
manner, then don't be too surprised if no one bothers to take you seriously.
Good luck with your LaRouchian campaign in 2008, assuming there's still a
Presidency to have an election for...

--PLH (just what's in that Edwards Aquifer water, anyway?)

--
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 15 Oct 1992 22:54:49 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE) writes:
|> Peter Nelson) writes:
|> >DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE) writes:
|> >>Dances With Babes) writes:
|> 
|> >>Protesting against your country, outside your country is a horrible thing
|> >>to do.  When one protests, it is to enact change in your gov't, community,
|> >>or whatever.  When you protest in an area where only foreigners can see,
|> >>how can that be thought of as an attempt to change something.  
|> >>The only effect that those protests could accomplish would be show Bills
|> >>fellow students that he was one of them.....he hated america too. 
|> >
|> >  I'm sure that most people at Georgia Tech are not this stupid,
|> >  so it's unfortunate that Mr. Wayne has to drag his school's
|> >  reputation through the mud with his idiocy.
|> 
|> Again, the liberal arguements always resort to insults, as they fail to read
|> the posts that they respond to.  I stated that the only thing that could be
|> accomplished was that he would show his fellow students he was one of them.
|> Foreign protesters generally protest the US because they dislike it.  I was
|> only suggesting that Bill was trying to make a statement by protesting
|> that he was one of them.  Politicians do that kind of thing all the time.  
|> I did not mean to suggest that he hated his country.  I also suggest that how
|> could he embarrass his own country if he was protesting in England where 
|> Americans could not see him.
|> 
I know this is a silly question, so that must be why no Bush supporter
has responded to it yet.  

If it was wrong (or bad judgement) for Clinton to protest the Vietnam
war in London, was it also wrong for Chinese students to protest
Tienemann Square in the US?  If Clinton need to be here for his protests
to be effective, does that mean the students should have gone back
to protest?

China would like to have them come home to protest in their own country.
Maybe we should send them.

Note that this is not an insult, but a question about the consistency
of your opinion.  You seem to respond only to insults, however.  Are
they easier to use to deflect the issue from the truth?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
From: jlysagh@hubcap.clemson.edu (james joseph lysaght)
Subject: Re: Dictionaries
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:56:50 GMT

arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:

>>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>I heard that "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary.

>And you believed them?

This is an old Old OLD joke!   but I still got a laugh out of it :-)

Jim
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50400 ca.politics:8553 ba.politics:5969