HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: How do three way debates go?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:01:46 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) said..

[re: 3-way debates]

>Has there been a precedent?
>Is there a standard way of doing this?

There were several this year, between Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, and
Jerry Brown.  The BEST one I saw had the three candidates sitting around
a table -- the moderator would throw out a topic, and say who could
go first.  Then they went around the table and let everyone make their
statement.  After going around the table, it became "free form" where
the candidates could bring up specific points or question the others
about that topic.

I was VERY impressed.  It was incredibly informative -- I came away from
watching that (it was carried live on CNN) with a very presise feeling
about how the candidates stood on a wide variety of issues. 

The single-moderator was also a great part.  I remember watching the
Bush/Dukakis debates in 88, with the panel of journalists, and it was
a joke.  On every "question" both candidates would make their canned
statement, and then go on to the next question. 

That was impossible in the format I described above -- sure, they made
their canned statements, Jerry always managed to work in his 800 number
or say "take back our government", but THEN they would start to actually
*discuss* their positions.

Remarkable.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer                        It's Tuesday September 22, 1992 -- 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com         time for the Presidential Debate.
aschaffe@netcom.com                   Do you know where your President is?
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call 1-800-272-9763.
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:39:32 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Is there an index to the Clinton position papers?
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:22:02 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) said..
>pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>>Would someone please direct me to the position papers dealing with:
>>
>>   nicotine addiction in US
>>   US tobacco sales to developing nations
>>   tobacco subsidies
>>   tobacco advertising in US
>
>Searching on "nicotine" and "tobacco" I found nothing.  Searching on
>"addict*" I find his "energy" position paper refers to "Instead of coddling
>special interests whose fortunes depend on Americas addiction to
>foreign oil..." and "crime-drugs" refers to "Drug treatment on demand"
>for addicts and "Drug education in schools"  to prevent addiction.
>However, tobacco is not mentioned in either place.

You should have tried "cigarette".  :-)   

[from Gore's biography, c148.txt]

      Gore's health care record includes groundbreaking legislation
 that has created the first national organ donor network to match
 organ donors and recipients.  It is Gore's legislation that
 strengthened the warning labels on cigarettes and that for the first
 time placed warning labels on alcoholic beverages, to help warn
 pregnant women of the dangers of drinking alcohol during pregnancy.

[from CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICAN FAMILIES, c72.txt]
(talking about Gore's record)

*    Led the successful fight for warning labels on
     alcohol beverages that provide consumers --
     particularly pregnant women -- with critical
     information.

*    Wrote and steered to passage the Cigarette
     Labeling Act to require stronger warning
     labels.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer                                       Notice 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com       Due to budgetary constraints the light at 
aschaffe@netcom.com                 the end of the tunnel is being turned off.
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:00:08 GMT


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?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8307 alt.politics.bush:7596 alt.politics.elections:15029
From: to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Oligino)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:06:37 GMT
	<1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu>
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>> 
>> How can we look up to a President who is even afraid
>> of Bryant Gumbel?!?
>> However, now that this list is public, I would expect
>> the Bush campaign to agree to some kind of interview 
>> with one of these people soon. If I were on the list
>> I would be calling today. 
>> 
> How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country? How
>can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends, family, a
>priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his wife? How
>can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
>American work place? How can we look up to a President who has experimented
>with drugs... particularly in an age when drugs controls our streets, and
>murders children? You've choosen an interesting thread. Now let's see how many
>other flaws we can find in "Billary" Clinton. 
>Here endith the lesson.
>		
>		 --VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)   
 
Where exactly did you address the question of Bush being a coward?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8505 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4925 alt.politics.bush:7740
From: lana@magenta.corp.sgi.com (Lana Mountford)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: George's lie of the day (was: Qyl more charitable?)
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:25:22 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <5OCT199216251680@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>, dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman) writes:

[ .. stuff in previous post about Clinton's alleged cowardice deleted .. ]
|> 
|> This cowardice must have been a contagious disease as Dick Cheney, the
|> secretary of defense caught it and Pat Buchannan, mr republican, begged
|> out of serving because of a bum knee.  Amazing how Pat is an avid
|> jogger these days.
|> 
|> I wish I had caught it instead of spending two tours in Vietnam.

This whole thing is much ado about nothing, in my humble opinion.
Fewer than 10% of *THOSE MALES OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE* served on
active duty during the entire Vietnam period (which, I *believe* was
measured from 1964-1975).  The rest avoided active duty military 
service via legal means (deferments, national guard, etc.) or illegal 
means (by fleeing the country, refusing to report, etc.).

Frankly, I'm not bothered by anyone of either party who took advantage
of the legal mechanisms in place at the time.  That's what they were
there for.  What *does* bother me are those (primarily Repligoons) who
were so careful to make sure their kith and kin took advantage of the
deferments and loopholes who are now criticizing someone else for
doing essentially the same thing.  Face it, Clinton managed to get
deferments and then ended up with a high lottery number.  So what?
My kid brother did the same thing, had #328, and didn't have to go,
either.  I don't think anyone considers him a "coward."  

I can think of a whole lot of other things I'm more concerned about
this election.  Remember, if Bush/Quayle get re-elected, a functionally
illiterate snob is *still* only a heartbeat away from the #1 job.
-- 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|    /)                      | Lana Mountford    
|   / /  __    ___    __     |   
|__(_/__(__)\__/  )__(__)\__ |  
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE right on target
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:28:14 GMT
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu




   If anyone saw the sketch about Clinton, was that on the money or what?
I mean if I hear one more man-on-the-street interview with Joe Blow from
Kokomo saying "Uh, duh, none of the candidates are addressing the issues"
I'm gonna PUKE!  Even the supposed pundits and self-made experts do this all
the time, they obviously spend too much time looking in the mirror and falling
in love then listening to the candidates.  I thought it was a great idea
for Clinton to do all the town meeting type things he does to by-pass
the inept press, but I swear even if people here a clear, concise unfiltered
answer to a specific question, they only hear what they want to.
The PERFECT example of this was the big meetings with Perot today.  After
the Clinton delegation finished their meeting with the Perot people, they
hold a news conference and it was so obvious that Perot really liked what the
Clinton delegation had to offer.  By contrast he was low key at the news
conference after the Bush delegation. Now he obviously listened and
payed attention.  But, then they started interviewing the Perot people,
who started making comments like, "both plans were the same", "same old
politicians", "made me not like them even more". Geez. Talk about Perot
creating a monster he can't control.  Sigh.

-Chris


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8091 tx.politics:5784
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:35:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <21648@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>Then I suggest we repudiate the debt.  Most of the money that was handed
>out was done so through fraud.  Our Congressman KNOW that they can't keep


I've seen other comments to the same effect and was wondering, 
has anyone thought of what might happen if we did default on the debt?
Who invests in T-bills and therefor would be hurting pretty bad?  Any
businesses, individuals saving for retirement...?

It might be easy to say, "Well, the same folks who invested in T-bills
are the older generations who were the ones who got us in this mess in
the first place.  So in their face!"  Well, ok, that might be a nice
sentiment but is it true for all those who would be hurt by this?

Assume that we just plain don't care what happens to the lenders if we
default.  Are there other ways that you or I will be affected?  One way
is that our country's credit rating will most likely be shot so I
imagine for quite some time we won't be able to borrow (or if we do, at
very high interest rates).  This might actually be a good idea though.
Any others?

Later,
Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:17:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep30.001015.6739@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jbaumgar@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James E Baumgardner) writes:
>
>Guys, please.  This is a political forum, not a forum for "social life 
>comparisons."  Insults can be thrown in many other places, not here on 
>InterNet.

      You haven't been here very long, have you?

				-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7478 talk.politics.misc:48199 alt.rush-limbaugh:6006 alt.politics.bush:6912
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:46:01 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep26.070856.17952@news2.cis.umn.edu> bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Monthian Buntan) writes:

MB:I have one more point about Iraq.
MB:The Bush administration failed to tell the whole
MB:truth to the American people why they went to war with Iraq.
MB:The whole truth that started from 1890 until Sadam invaded
MB:what used to be part of Iraq but taken away by greedy western emperialist.

there is at least as much evidence if not more that Kuwait was never a part
of Iraq.
-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: monitn@lib103.its.rpi.edu (Nicholas Monitto)
Subject: Re: CSPAN Schedule?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:42:16 GMT

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:
>>Does anyone know how to find out C-SPAN's schedule from
>>day to day. They will occasionally post a schedule for part
>>of that day, but it doesn't seem to be at any consistent
>>time of day. Is there a number to call for schedule info. 

>They flash a schedule at the bottom of the screen at about 15 minutes and
>45 minutes past the hour, at least at night after the legislative session
>is over. They do have a number you can call (I don't have it) that has a
>touchtone-controlled schedule gizmo, but the number is not toll-free.

...as an odd sidebar, the Washington Post Weekly edition includes a half-page
ad in each issue highlighting the expected special programs to be aired on
C-SPAN in the coming week. If you have access to the WPW (as I do) it can be
useful...

>---
>Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com

  Nick (monitn@rpi.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: Clinton on 24-Hour Waiting Period
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 08:08:37 GMT
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <38891@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes...
>cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>I thought Clinton was against the 24-hour waiting period (in
>>theory, of course) based on his reaction to the Supreme
>>Court decision for that statute.  Has this always been his
>>position?  Just wondering...
> 
>>     C. Perttunen
> 
>As with all clinton positions, it depends on when the question is
>asked, and who the audience is. He slithers down both
>sides of almost all issues. As an example, here is a
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, right.  Even the issues you raise below aren't accurate. 
I hate this crap Republicans try to put on Clinton. The truth
is Clinton is just like any other politician, he likes to please as many people
as possible.  There are many, many, many issues where he comes down solidly
on one side or another of course. (although, I don't know why I'm wasting 
my time trying to tell you this.)

> 
>Fuel efficiency standards - Was for 40 MPG federal standards, but
>then backed off so as not to upset the UAW.
> 

He hasn't backed off it, he's just not shouting it out loud at every 
stump speech.  That's called good politics.

>NAFTA - was for it a few months ago, but to keep the 
>protectionist Gephart wing of the party in check, now
>says 'gotta study the agreement.'

He has ALWAYS said that he supports NAFTA in principle, but he wanted
to check the fine print of Bush's version.  Since the treaty was released
to be read a couple of weeks ago, Clinton has just come out saying after
studying the agreement he supports Bush's version of NAFTA.

> 
>Defense spending - Has stated that he will cut military
>spending more and faster than Bush, but then pledges to
>build more unwanted (by the Pentagon) SeaWolf subs to get
>union votes during a campaign stop in Connecticut (where
>the SeaWolf is built).

So what?  The SeaWolf subs are part of his defense budget, i.e. his 
stated cuts for the military do not include them.  Besides, one George
Herbert Hoover Bush pledged more than a few pork projects the last few weeks,
most of them going against what he has stated in the past. It's good
campaigning on both sides, every politician in history has done the 
same thing.

> 
>Gulf war - Was against it, in principle, but after Congressional
>action (and public opinion) supporting the war, said he would 
>support it.

This all goes back to his statement that "I would have voted with the
majority in congress, but I can understand the views of the minority."
Big deal, I feel exactly the same way.

>I'm sure more active clinton detractors can list more,
>but this is just a quick list from memory.

I doubt that they could list many more, you covered all the basic 
republican propaganda ones.

-Chris

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ehrlich@cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich)
Subject: Getting e-mail to Clinton and/or Gore
Organization: Computer Science Department, Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:20:15 GMT

Does anyone have an e-mail address for Bill Clinton and/or Al Gore?

Thanks!
--
Dan Ehrlich - Sr. Systems Programmer - Penn State Computer Science
"Universities should be safe havens where ruthless examination of
 realities will not be distorted by the aim to please or inhibited
 by the risk of displeasure." - Kingman Brewster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:31:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>
>     In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>     saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>     Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>     two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>     to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>     of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>     1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>     for federal poverty programs.
>
>It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>dwarfs his private generosity.
>
>     C. Perttunen

 
   By replying to your post I already gave it some value, which doesn't
really have any.   If this is all you have, it's really a sorry case for 
you.  Are you a pupil in the Childcare Center of University of Louisville ?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: coppin@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Subject: Did Gore vote to support USAID?
Reply-To: coppin@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:01:25 GMT

Last nite on ABC's Night-Line, Lynn Martin (secy of labor) kept *telling*
Al Gore that HE voted to support USAID, and Gore kept saying something
which sounded like "No, I did not." 

Here's my question: Why would Ms. Martin do that to Gore? (Not my real
question, but you can see it coming from, well, Tennessee:

IS GORE LYING?
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Vote for Perot=A Vote for Bush
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:46:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Stupendous Man writes:

>
>> All I can possibly do is ask people to recognize that their vote
>> for Perot will not accomplish what they think it will accomplish.
>> Yak...here I'll parrot Quayle: if you can't vote for Clinton,
>> vote for both Bush and the Republican Representative/Senator on
>> your ballot. Single party accountability will be the only way
>> to break the cycle of ridiculous politics-as-usual
>> in Washington. As charismatic as you find Perot, you should 
>> recognize that without a poitical party to support him, he
>> will be paralyzed in the White House. If you want change, 
>> give one party power. And vote them out if they fail.
>
>	What a stupid reason to vote for Clinton!  Or not vote for Perot!  If
>Clinton and Bush were lizards, and you were afraid that the "wrong" lizard
>would rule over humans, should you vote for the lesser of two lizards?
>	Vote for the person who most closely matches your ideals and beliefs.
>
Unfortunately, I can't vote for Him as he doesn't meet the residency
requirements. That leaves me w/ political realities. Power doesn't
come down from the top....even Hitler had a political machine in place...
and Perot is party-less: there are NO votes in Congress which
he could use party loyalties and disciplines to constrain. He would
have 535 enemies. The Libertarian whackballs/idealists have not only
a candidate for president, they run candidates for every office
they can. They are not just in it for the gratification of spouting
off platitudes, they want power to change the way things are done 
in this country. Perot is in it -- as far as I can see -- to have
his ego stroked. Had he been a serious candidate he would have
tried to get someone else elected to a seat in Congress. Instead,
since July he has played strip-tease. 

My point is that change will come when accountability comes w/
power. People blamed Jimmy and the Democrats for the stagflation
of the late 70s and threw him out. Reagan was able to make the
changes he did because he had the votes. He didn't come into
office armed with only his sentiment moistened dewlaps and an Idea.
He also had Senators and Representatives. Perot has only
his aw-shucks manner and his billions. My point is vote for 
Perot and change and you get Bush and four more years of greed
lock (tm). Better to have Bush and a Republican Congress which
could be held accountable.  Personally, I'd rather have Clinton
and a Democratic Congress, but the Republicans held in check
by accountability would be better than 4 more years of finger
pointing. 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
From: Clinton-HQ@mail.clinton-gore.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: [75300.3115@compuserve.com: Thanks from Little Rock]
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:58:50 GMT

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:33 EDT
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
To: Clinton Team <clinton-org@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Thanks from Little Rock

Volunteers,

Jeff Eller asked me to pass this along.

"FYI to the team:  David Kuznet...chief speech writer and mastermind
of the  Notre Dame Speech says the info he gets from e-mail is great!
Keep it up!"

Please do keep it up.  And please do let people know that what we send in
gets used and is valued!

Regards,
Jock


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou