HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Did you notice....?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 16:44:30 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	Last night Mr Perot was in his 30 minutes campaign commercial (or
program).  He presented a chart showing  the GNP.  Guess who led the list
in last 20 years...   The rubber stamp president!  The one who had ruling
Democratic Congress and "just signed" all the  bills.  Jimmy Carter's era
was the best.  After Carter, Regan days were not bad. Bush?  Oh! Not even
close.  Mr Perot said (paraphased)  'It was trickle-down economy.  But it
didn't trickle'.  The best three GNP in the last four decades were during
Kenndy, Johnson and Carter terms.  True!  Whenever a Democratic President
and Democratic Congress were together the GNP was at the top.

	Can someone give more info with the actual figures?

Thanks,

V: 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10961 talk.politics.misc:52420 alt.politics.bush:9474
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:02:03 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct14.171119.20872@ryn.mro4.dec.com> walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh) writes:


>I've heard this "quota bill"..."not a quota bill" argument many times.  Does
>anyone have the text of these two bills on line or could post these bills or 
>relevant portions of these bills?  I heard when the original bill was vetoed 
>that it expressly forbid quotas.  Do any supporter of the veto have the 
>passages from the original bill that called for quotas and have the updated 
>passages from the passed bill?

I have also heard that the two bills were essentially the same.  The 
second time around, Bush was trying to curry favor with the civil rights
organizations in order to help get the Thomas nomination passed.  He
feared that another veto would rile several groups that he was busy trying
to placate.

Both bills had the this is not a quota bill language in it.  Unfortunately
the clause is meaningless.  Sort of like the Bakey (sp?) case [California
med student excluded because of quotas].  The courts ruled that quotas were
wrong, but preferences were ok.

The bill says that mere statistical aberations in the racial makeup of the
work force compared to the surrounding community would be sufficient 
evidence to convict on racial bias.  Unless the company could prove
that a substantial business necessity resulted in the disparity.
Of course nothing in the law prevents a losing plaintiff from refiling the
next year, claiming that the business situation had now changed.

Of course any business owner who does not want to be bankrupted by lawsuits
(even if he always wins them) will do the smart thing and hire to match
some arbitrary racial makeup.  A quota by any other name ...

Does some serious damage to the concept of innocent until proven guilty as
well.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Latest poll: one person polled, landslide for candidate X!
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:30:40 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct6.120827.4572@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	About these "polls" with less than 2000 people....
>
>	500 people = +- 10% error
>	1000 people = +- 5-6% error
>	2000 people = +- 3% error
>
>	Statistics in action.

But what if that one person were Nostradamus?

"Two candidates will campaign for election.  One will win....."



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush - Desperation, Depression, and Danger
Date: 13 Oct 1992 13:38:50 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1bdl10INN3gg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello) writes:

 >1.  Bush creates or exploits an international crisis.  I think that no
 >"Desert Storm II" is possible, given the time constraints, but a sudden
 >replay of the Panama invasion in some part of the world is likely.  We
 >may see a "pre-dawn vertical insertion" in Bagdhad, so that Saddam Hussein
 >("The Dictator", as Bush so cleverly named him) can be brought to justice.

Any military move at this point would be seen as a political move and
would surely backfire.

 >2.  Initiatives against the persons of Clinton and his people.
 >
 >  a.  The Frame-up.  It shouldn't be too hard to plant a big bag of heroin
 >  on Clinton or someone near him, there to be discovered by an alert DEA
 >  agent.  Frankly, the a-page-is-missing-from-Clinton's-passport-record
 >  miniscandal stunk to high heaven.  Prepare for more of the same.
 
Yes you can bet the rep. dirty-tricks machine is hard at work.

 >
 >  b.  Psych-ops.  Clinton, Gore, Hillary, and top functionaries are
 >  harrassed by the IRS, FBI, etc., in an effort to impede their effectivness.

The FBI has enough trouble today, to much in the public eye. 

 >  c.  Assassination.  God forbid, but remember, Bush is ex-CIA.  It would
 >  be so much easier for him if Clinton would drop over dead, no traces, 
 >  no fingerprints, the medical examiner baffled.. .
 
God forbid, but this is one reason Albert Gore is our VP Choice. He
is a person that could in BC's words "Step into the job of President from
day one". 

 >I hope that Bush would have the grace and good sense to fade away quietly
 >rather than use scorched-earth tactics like these to preserve his power.
 >We shall see.
 
Remember you are talking about the "scandal name here"GATE party,
these folks have pulled so many undercover op's on the American people
it makes you wonder.

 

-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:26:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.033109.1691@anasazi.com>
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
 
>
>I believe that this trip, to the capital of the enemy, during a war,
>while part of a group protesting the war, needs to be fully explained.
>--
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
 
WOW!  Talk about a little distortion here!
 
1)  When have we *ever* fought against the Soviet Union?  They
supported the Vietnamese against our forces, but at no time were we at
war with them.  They may even have had military "advisors" firing air
defense weapons at our bombers (unsubstantiated).  If you mean they
were our "enemies" during the Cold War, you might have a weak case.  If
that is what you mean, then we should definitely prosecute every US
citizen who went to Moscow since 1945 as a traitor.
 
2)  During what war?  Neither the Cold War nor Vietnam were declared
wars.  Legelly, we took great pains to deny we were at war.
 
3)  Clinton travelled with a group of Rhodes Scholars during a winter
break.  As a group, they were merely tourists, not war protesters.
 
Your panic over Bush's poll numbers is beginning to show, John.  You
are getting as shrill as the Bush campaign.  Your truth quotient is
slipping badly.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:43:22 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

Well, it's official.

I just saw the article come across the clarinews feed here.  Time
magazine is suing the Bush campaign for copyright infringement (I
think) because of the overuse of Time's cover story on Clinton.

I would repost the article, but I'm not a Republican.  I try and
respect the copyright rights of others.  ;)

--
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
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush - Desperation, Depression, and Danger
Date: 13 Oct 1992 04:58:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



Time is running out for Bush.  As Judgment Day approaches and the Bush
juggernaut just sits there like a stripped '72 Dodge Dart, the Bushpeople
are doubtless feeling the pangs of hopelessness.  According to some
Republican insiders, Bush himself is getting out of touch with reality.
As the "bunker mentality" takes hold, we face the very real danger that
Bush will be persuaded to use the power of the Presidency to save himself.

In order to prepare the reading public for the worst, I would like to invite
discussion on the following scenerios:

1.  Bush creates or exploits an international crisis.  I think that no
"Desert Storm II" is possible, given the time constraints, but a sudden
replay of the Panama invasion in some part of the world is likely.  We
may see a "pre-dawn vertical insertion" in Bagdhad, so that Saddam Hussein
("The Dictator", as Bush so cleverly named him) can be brought to justice.

2.  Initiatives against the persons of Clinton and his people.

  a.  The Frame-up.  It shouldn't be too hard to plant a big bag of heroin
  on Clinton or someone near him, there to be discovered by an alert DEA
  agent.  Frankly, the a-page-is-missing-from-Clinton's-passport-record
  miniscandal stunk to high heaven.  Prepare for more of the same.

  b.  Psych-ops.  Clinton, Gore, Hillary, and top functionaries are
  harrassed by the IRS, FBI, etc., in an effort to impede their effectivness.

  c.  Assassination.  God forbid, but remember, Bush is ex-CIA.  It would
  be so much easier for him if Clinton would drop over dead, no traces,
  no fingerprints, the medical examiner baffled...

I hope that Bush would have the grace and good sense to fade away quietly
rather than use scorched-earth tactics like these to preserve his power.
We shall see.
-- 
Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
"The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9813 alt.politics.bush:8694 alt.politics.correct:5658
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:50:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct9.062031.17714@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.161243.18291@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>Why are homosexuals so heterophobic?

>Sure.  You give me one example when young gay men or lesbian women
>hang outside hetero bars and attack hetero couples calling them
>"fucking breeders" and I'll be willing to talk about heterophobia.
>Until then, you're just blowing hot air.  

Come on, do you really want to toss around annecdotes?  How about 
homosexual catholic priests who prey on young boys?  There's enough 
of rotten people on both sides to go around.  The fact is, that it 
is against the law for anyone to hang around outside bars and wait 
for someone to beat up.  If charges are not getting pressed, or 
perpetrators go free, then let's dean with the judicial system 
(IMO get most of the liberal, criminals rights types out of robes.)

By the way, should white people be encouraged to be blackophobic 
simply because I can list as many annecdotes about black people 
mugging white people as you would like to hear?

Ted

-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10851 alt.politics.elections:17221
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Clinton Tax Numbers
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:55:11
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu

Clinton says he's only going to raise taxes on families whose incomes
are in the upper 2% -- those making over $200,000.  Bush says Clinton
can't possibly raise his $150 billion by only taxing the upper 2%.

Since I trust neither, I decided to some rough back-of-the-envelope
calculations:

With the following assumptions:

Total Population: 250 million
Average Family Size: 4
Average Income for Families Making Over $200,000: $400,000
	(my guess is that this estimate is high)

So, total number of families: 250 million / 4 = 62.5 million

Top 2% of families: 62.5 million x 0.02 = 1.25 million

Total income of top 2%: 1.25 million x $400,000 = $500 billion

Net revenue increase for a 1% tax increase on the top 2%:
	$500 billion x 0.01 = $5 billion

Now, I realize that Clinton doesn't plan to raise the entire $150
billion from income tax increases, and I know he also plans $100
billion in tax cuts for those in lower/middle income brackets...

Still, if these figures are within the ballpark, a 2% increase in tax
rates will only raise $10 billion -- a 5% tax increase will only raise
$25 billion.  Raising half of the $150 billion from taxes on the
wealthy would require a 15% tax increase on this income bracket.  Does
Clinton plan to do this?

If anyone has any more accurate estimates for the figures above, I'd
be interested in seeing them.  In the calculations above, I assumed
that everyone was part of a family -- I'm also very interested in
finding out what Clinton's tax plans are for singles.  How much is he
going to raise *our* taxes and for what income levels?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:15:58 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:

: 	Second, he has no ego trip. If I were the billionaire, I would
: be doing the same thing TO IMPROVE THIS COUNTRY. You should be happy
: that someone out there CARES ABOUT YOU.

The impression I get is that he cares about his money, not about
people.

: 	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.

: 	Vote PEROT. THE OTHERS ARE JUST SLIMY POLITICIANS.

Marrou and the "fourth party" candidates are slimy politicians?

--
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
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:38:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.161243.18291@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Why are homosexuals so heterophobic?

Look in a mirror.

Tom

-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: swami1@troy.uucp (22535-swaminathan)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:55:54 GMT

In article <1bho65INN2ec@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>
But let's look at
>the Bush plan. Across the board tax cut. Capital gains tax cut.
>Indexing. Export subsidies. Hurricane relief, including rebuilding
>Homestead AFB. Claimed deficit reduction. Health care plan. Job
>training.
>
>Is there something missing?
>


You don't understand!

That is what trickle down does. There will be more tax revenue when
you reduce the taxes on the rich. Across the board tax cut? well,
the part of the cut given to the middle class is a waste; but it has
to be done for political purposes. But the tax cuts to the rich
incrteases tax revenue and reduces deficit.
Got it?
>Yes. Not one clue anywhere about how to pay for it. Not one!
>Bush's so-called spending cuts, besides being inadequate amount-wise,
>include things like cuts in grain subsidies which he has retracted
>during the campaign.
>That's even worse than Clinton!
>
>andy


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Debate trivial nonsense 
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.134835.2593@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>
>Bush and Perot wore their watches on their right hand, which is the
>hand that lefties normally wear their watches on.
>
>Clinton wore his watch on his LEFT hand!  I was quite surprised by this.
>He did make up for it by using his left hand more than the others (the 
>pumping fist he used to punctuate his remarks).
>
>Anyone else have any trivial tidbits from the debate?
>
>patricia

Sure:

(1)  None of the candidates wore leisure suits.
(2)  It was the first presidential debate to include
the candidates of the two major parties and one
independent candidate to take place west of 
the Mississippi River this year.
(3)  The slice of apple pie I ate during
the debate was delicious.
(4)  Ann Compton's earrings nicely matched her dress.
(5)  My dog seemed espeically alert when Perot was speaking.
and ...
(6)  Nothing I heard caused me to change my vote.



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10973 alt.politics.elections:17292 alt.politics.bush:9483
From: mwaa+@andrew.cmu.edu (Matthew S. Weiss)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: PDII - strike two on Bush
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:48:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Doctoral student, History, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Whoever is
>ahead in the polls come November 3rd, Bush or Perot, I'll vote for that
>man.  Anyone but Clinton.

Got news for you, my friend.  Neither Bush nor Perot will be ahead in
the polls come election day.  I guess you get to feel like a lot of us
have felt for the last twelve years--that the majority of our fellow
citizens are idiots who have no idea what's good for them.  Ah, too bad.
 You'll get used to it.  I just don't understand how you can be
convinced by one guy who says "I can't tell you how, but I'll fix
everything.  We'll hold a big meeting and I'll convince everyone to
cooperate" and another one who says "forgive me--I haven't gotten around
to fixing anything, but now I'm really ready to take on our problems"
while you remain phobic about a guy who hasn't needed an ammendment to
balance twelve budgets.  

Well, enjoy your time as an outside agitator.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9956 talk.politics.misc:51232
From: ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:20:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b62204.student.cwru.edu

In article <1bck2rINNe1r@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:

>>	The #4 reason to no elect you two clowns: we are not in a recession. 
>
>Not in a recession?  Oh, you are very mistaken.  

Nope, you're mistaken

>Remember the "OOPS" graph in Perot's slideshow?
>
>Or perhaps you didn't know that we're suffering from:
>
>	- the slowest economic growth since Herbert Hoover

If the economy is growing (or even staying stable), we are not in a
a recession.  A recession is defined as a period of time during which
GNP declines for two or more successive quarters.  Open up any
Macroeconomics textbook for confirmation of that.  We are, however, in
an extremely slow recovery.

   ---Andrew
[Part of A Jeopardy Game]  * Paul McHale for Congress *   //    Andrew Shults
Emma: "Let's try 'The Best Medicine' for $20, Alex."    //   ads3@po.cwru.edu
Alex: "And the answer is -- '[Congressman] Don Ritter's pledge to run a clean
       campaign focusing on the issues' (BZZZZ) Emma."
Emma: "What is ha ha ha ha?"-B. White, Columnist, Allentown [PA] Morning Call


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10940 talk.politics.misc:52390
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:21:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

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

>Right! This interest rate and inflation "through the roof" cliche is
>getting old. I wish they'd say exactly how Carter's policies caused
>inflation. It couldn't have been "tax-and-spend," because Reagan/Bush
>have set all records in those categories. 
>---
>Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com

Sorry Joe, but Regean cut taxes (although total tax revenue, and
percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy went up), he did not raise
taxes. He also continually asked for, (as does Clinton) a line item
veto to help control congressional spending.

As far as Carter's policies go, he forced out the inflation-wary Burns
as chairman of the Federal Reserve, and replaced him with a more
pliable appointee, who was willing to loosen the money supply as per
Carter's wishes. That was the cause of double digit inflation, not the
opec price increases. Watch Clinton do the same thing to finance his
'investment' programs (i.e. pork barrel) with cheaper dollars.


                                    Brad Cote'
                                    University of California, San Diego
                                    STARE Project

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10911 talk.politics.misc:52360