HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Top 10 questions to ask Bush on Larry King
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:08:04 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs

Bush is going to reappear on Larry King Live Wed. WITH PHONE CALLS:

so i thought we should compile the top ten questions we would
love to ask him Wednesday night:

1. Any truth to the rumor that you plan on replacing Dan Quayle with
   Howard Stern?

any others? sorry, i gotta get back to work...

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: damning statistics
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:22:32 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
NNTP-Posting-Host: maine.ce.utk.edu

In article <EekuXCq00WBMM7xeVS@andrew.cmu.edu> Andrew E Johnson <aj1j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>I am looking for a series of statistics
>that are most damning of the Bush administration. 

     You want them all, or only the top 500?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Polls, endorsements, deba
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:22:23 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <717406666.4@iphase.fidonet.org> Tom.Cavender@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Cavender) writes:
>-> The CEO's noted the inability of George Bush to lead as their biggest
>-> reaason for the joint endorsement. (OUCH!)
>
>Get ready for an even bigger >>OUCH!<<
>
>According to the New York Times today (9-18-92), none other than Arthur Laffer, dubbed by some "the father of supply-side economics", has said that Bush has been a disaster economically and he is going to vote for Clinton.

80-character screen width, please.  Thanks.

Don't forget the endorsement from Admiral Crowe, one of the big military
guys from the Reagan years.  And Schwarzkopf's comment that Administration
war hawks were pushing for a ground war before he felt he was ready.


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tbc@col.hp.com (Tim Chambers)
Subject: FOR TRADE: Bush 800- for Clinton 800-
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:02:23 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division (PL 17)

I saw an ad by Bush giving a toll-free number to call to request his plan.  I
called and have since received it.  Then about a week ago I saw a similar ad
by Clinton.  I called and apparently wrote it down wrong -- I got the Holiday
Inn customer service line!  (So it's NOT 800-272-9273.)

Bush's number is 800-368-1200.  Anyone know Clinton's?
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Question Bush Will Not Answer
Date: 5 Oct 1992 15:29:46 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:


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

Wrong.  Larry King asked him about it this Sunday.

Bush didn't answer.  But he was asked.

Stratocaster
-- 
	   Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
      strat@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
				   
Don't believe what the Moral Majority says. Remember that they are neither.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: United We Stand And Deliver
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:20:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.164820.29884@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Why don't we reduce the pain by reducing the size of government?
>I see not reason to suffer any more pain in order to pay non-productive
>people to reduce my freedoms.

  Well, a huge voting block is receiving these government transfers.
They and their powerful lobbies make cutting politically difficult.
Personally, I rather like the idea of the "Lead...or Leave" and
"Concord Coalition" campaigns that were created "to provide a 
constituency for the hard choices." (as Paul Tsongas said.)  The latter
is run by Tsongas, Rudman, and Peterson and "Lead...or Leave" is associated
with Tsongas and Rudman.

  I can provide more information and contact phone numbers 
for the interested.

>
>
>Sarcasm missed. Targeted government investment means exactly the
>same as government knows best, and is willing to steal to implement
>what it knows. I have no reason to believe that the current decision
>making system in government is going to outperform that in private
>industry, where people are spending THEIR OWN money, rather than
>money extorted at gunpoint from someone else.


  I like the way Robert Bartley put it in "The Seven Fat Years: and
how to do it again." (Regarding central "industrial planning".)

  He said, "So, a short quiz: Rank in order the most likely recipient
     of capital from an industrial planning bureaucracy:

     A) Steve Job's garage [what was to become Apple computers.]
     B) IBM
     C) A company in the district of the most powerful congressman.

       Welcome to the real world, and so much for that idea.  In fact,
     college dropout Jobs got his stake with $57,600 from Arthur Rock,
     a famed venture capitalist.  Rock also invested in Intel Corporation,
     the leading silicon chip maker, and a profusion of smaller ventures."



Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: popat@image.mit.edu (Kris Popat)
Subject: Re: Waste of time!
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:15:14 GMT


In article <afarquha.2.0@cs1.uct.ac.za>,
afarquha@cs1.uct.ac.za (A J Farquharson) whines:

> To us here in South Africa it seems as though the American elections are a 
> waste of time.

When your country becomes a democracy, you'll be in a better position
to criticize the American political process.  In the mean time, keep
your vapid glimpses to yourself.

Kris Popat
MIT Rm. E15-391  Cambridge, MA  02139
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jkollin@hardy.u.washington.edu (joel s. kollin)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:02:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.190346.2694@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>Subject says it all - this number was announced by Perot
>last night on CNN. He asked people to call it if they want
>him to run for President. Over 500,000 calls were logged
>in the first 30 minutes and over a million calls by this 
>morning.
>
>If you plan to call, call before Thursday.
>

>Joe


What number do I call if I DON'T want him to run (at least in the
current situation, where he might throw key states to Bush as the
margins get tighter.)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: None
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:03:46 GMT


Subject says it all - this number was announced by Perot
last night on CNN. He asked people to call it if they want
him to run for President. Over 500,000 calls were logged
in the first 30 minutes and over a million calls by this 
morning.

If you plan to call, call before Thursday.

If you are undecided, read his book UNITED WE STAND, a current
bestseller on the NY Times Bestseller list. It also has been posted
in alt.politics.elections.

Joe
joec@morgan.com

Usual disclaimers...


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:34:06 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:

: 	Small question:  How can someone NOT know that having a baby is a
: natural consequence of sex?  I mean, this is not exactly unknown information;
: I suppose it's possible someone wouldn't know this, but REALLY REALL REALLY
: unlikely.

A lot of the fifth, sixth, and seventh graders at one of my old schools
didn't know that having a baby was a possible consequence of sex...until
after they got pregnant.

Yes, I think that _most_ people know that little fact of life, but I'm
willing to bet a million zlotys that most people on USENET  are aware
of just how many people DON'T know.

I still am shocked whenever I hear a story from a friend at The Med (public
hospital in Memphis) about the most recent woman who went in to the
emergency room complaining of severe stomach cramps, and gave birth
a few hours later to a bouncing baby whatever.

And the religious right (*gag*) wants to reduce the amount of sex ed taught
in public school systems?

--
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.elections
From: scottm@intime.intime.com (Scott Michel)
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Organization: -- J/24 -- Racers Home for Programmers
Distribution: comp.unix.admin comp.unix.bsd
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:05:10 GMT

ssurgui@ucdacm.denver.colorado.edu (Scott Surguine) writes:
   In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu>  
   shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
   > In article <28SEP92.22145685@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu  
   writes:

   In Response To A Post RE: Mike Royko's Sunday Column The ever Brilliantly
   Intuitive Roger Shouse States...

   > What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
   > _bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
   > is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
   > difference, but still it's an important one.

   FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   WOW!!!!!  WHAT WISDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[... truncated ...]
Was it just our site, or did the previous article get posted three times
by the same person? If so, did Royko think that some of us "wouldn't get
it." [usual drippy remark made by a non-Republican when they've got
something to say, but haven't yet communicated it yet.]

In addition, what was there about the reply that was a flame? I didn't
see seething emotional content there.

Ah, I forgot. Non-Republicans are easily frustrated and simply live off
their emotions. Silly me. Time to get in touch with the group think
again. (NOT!)

-scottm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: United We Stand And Deliver
Keywords: politics masses economics wealth
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:44:49 GMT

philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore) writes:
>john@anasazi.com writes:
>>
>>It used to be that the wealthy were those who lived an extravagant
>>lifestyle (or could afford to). Now we are defining the wealthy as anyone
>>who is moderately successful in a profession? I suppose this is what
>>the "balance the budget on the back's of the wealthy" naturally leads to:
>>anyone over "average" by some sense is wealthy. How convenient... as soon
>>as we label someone wealthy, then we are morally justified in extracting
>>their money.
>>
>>Sigh.... the politics of envy really suck.
>
>
>What other kind of politics is there.  Historically the role of democratic
>politics has been to check the otherwise uninhibited growth of elite power.
>The fact that the Reagan/Bush doctrine has created so many people that
>consider moderately successful people as wealthy should give you some idea
>about how the politics of this country is going to be carried out for the 
>next generation.  The only way the shrinking middle class has any hope of
>survival at this point is to ally with the new poor to extract the money
>from the ultra-rich who have benefitted from the last twelve years of theft.
>The numbers are here somewhere but off the top of my head I think the top
>5% of the population now controls 40% of the wealth.  And the top 2% controls
>20% of the wealth.  The income distribution in the rest of the world 
>moved toward equity while the US erased the middle class.  This does not
>bode well for civility as the LA riots indicate.

  This is just not true.  It is true that there is a slight growing income
gap related to education levels.  It is also true that this is a
worldwide phenomenon as returns to education become greater in a
worldwide, information based economy.  This income gap has been a
continuing trend since the early 70s.  I've posted data/articles on this
in the past, you may want to look them up.  If not, I can e-mail such
to you. 

  Also, the numbers you provide are (i) slightly incorrect, (ii) not put
in historical context to give them significance, and (iii) do not account
for income mobility.  Studies by (among others) the Urban Institute show
that if you hold the quintiles constant, the bottom 20% showed a 77% 
real increase in income while the top 20% showed a 5% real increase in
income from 1977 to 1989.  Also, of those in the bottom 20%, 65% of them
had moved up two quintiles from 1977 to 1989.  Only 14% were still in
the bottom 20%.  Or, (to quote someone else), "There is no class in the
class warfare."  Income mobility in the US is still quite strong.  



Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Clinton on Training
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:36:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.220507.17565@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>  What do netters think of Clinton's 1.5% payroll tax to pay for
>"training" and further education.  I'm not a big fan of it for the same reason
>I'm not a big fan of any new payroll taxes.  Also, I think "forcing" the
>American workers to "invest" 1.5% of their money in training is
>a bit parental.   It may be a good idea in general, but I don't like
>the idea of government forcing the issue.  I think these decisions are
>much better made on an individual level.

I agree absolutely.  This program, like just about all of them, will
fail miserably.  Anyone care to wager what percentage of the money
extorted from us will be spent on the supporting bureaucracy?



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: WHY IS ABORTION NOT A WOMEN'S ISSUE ?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 20:23:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <8227@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, khanh@crowe.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen) writes:
|> 
|> Abortion is not a women's issue. Therefore, only men have the right to 
|> decide whether abortions should be legalized.
|> Why ?
|> 
|> Consider the following situation:
|> Two heavy weight boxers are competing for the world championship. But after
|> a very long fight, neither of them is knocked out. So who will decide the 
|> outcome of the fight ? Of course we can not give one of the two fighters
|> the right to decide. This right should be given to neutral judges. 
|> 
|> Abortion, like this situation, is a conflict of interest between two parties.
|> In this case, the first boxer is the (potential) mother, and the second boxer
|> is her fetus. The mother wants an abortion: she may be unprepared for a child,
|> or she may be still in school, or maybe she simply does'n want to be ridiculed
|> as a single mother. The fetus, on the other hand, has its own interest. The
|> fetus can's say. It even can't think. But we can safely assume that every
|> organism has an innate desire to survive. Therefore, abortion is not in the
|> interest of the fetus. In this conflict of multual-exclusive interests, it is
|> unfair to give either party the right to the final decision. Like the above
|> example of the boxers, the final decision should be given to the outsiders
|> who have no interest in the outcome of their decisions. That's why only men
|> should have the right to vote on abortion issues. Women tend to be sympathetic
|> only to other women, and their votes will of course be biased against the 
|> fetus's interest.
|> Futhermore, to insure the highest fairness possible, only young men who have
|> never married can vote on this issue. Otherwise, family commitment will 
|> influence the votes of married men. Married men are not free to express their
|> own opinions in this sensitive issue.
|> 
|> 
|> Kan Nuel.
|> 

In fact let's take it one step further, because obviously people who
*weren't* aborted are going to be biased on the pro-life side.  So abortion 
then becomes an issue to be decided by people that were never born!!

:):):)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 00:32:39 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1aie0oINNj6u@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:

|> 
|> He can certainly run if he wants to.  What I object to is the claim
|> that all these phone calls indicate wide spread support and a mandate
|> from his people to run.  There may be wide spread support but this
|> poll of his is totally useless for determining what the support is.
|> If he really wanted to know what the level of support was he would
|> have conducted a real poll of UWSA or even the entire country.  What
|> it looks like is he wanted a mandate to run so he created one.
|> 

Perot was later asked on radio why he didn't provide a number
for those who didn't want him to run.

His response:  If they don't want me to run they can write
me a letter.  Why should I pay for their phone call if
they don't want me to run?

It sounds like "I'll listen to you as long as you
tell me what I want to hear".

The entire business was stage-managed phoniness,
from the tiresome metadiscussion on the Larry
King show, to the hired "volunteers" who clapped
and refrained from clapping on cue, to the bogus
"poll", to the glib comments on radio.

This emperor has no clothes.  


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,sci.med,talk.bizarre
From: doug@ramona.com (Double Agent)
Subject: Doctor Comments on Shrinking Bush Penis
Organization: Ramona Engineering
Date: 06 Oct 92 02:20:55 GMT

Washington, DC (AP) - Dr. James Gilroy, personal physician to President
George Bush, denied today that there was anything unusual about Bush's
apparently shrinking penis. Bush's penis was measured at 33 millimeters
long, down from its greatest known length of 90 millimeters, recorded just
after Bush's 1991 State of the Union address. According to Gilroy, "Penis
length is continuously variable--particularly with differing states of
sexual arousal--and shouldn't be taken as an indication of a pathological
condition."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Perot's Re-Entry: What's the Possible Electoral Effect?
Keywords: Texas
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:18:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.183723.28169@reed.edu> philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore) writes:
>  Remember the Republic of Texas is
>the only state that was a sovereign nation before becoming a state.  We

	What about Hawaii? Granted, it was a territory for decades before
being a state, but before that, it was a sovereign nation.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:03:55 GMT

In article <BvGGtH.8uM@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
writes:

|>In article <1992Oct1.153202.11376@seas.gwu.edu> korman@seas.gwu.edu (John
|>Korman) writes:
|>>In article <BvEq2I.B3p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
|>writes:
|>>>
|>>>  Pretty interesting: paid "volunteers", $4 million spent in the
|>>>  month after he "withdrew" from the race, etc.  A former NY State
|>>>  coordinator for Perot refers to him as "H Ross Gepetto", pulling
|>>>  the strings from Texas.   
|>>>
|>>>  This whole non-campaign campaign sounds like a slick, well funded
|>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>>>  first class con-job.   
|>>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>>
|>>Yeah, but not as slick as the ones by the Clinton and Bush camps.
|>
|>
|>  I disagree.  Consider:  here on Usenet there are a few posters
|>  who are Clinton or Bush supporters but their support is always 
|>  heavily qualified.  They say things like, sure, they're both
|>  clueless, moronic dweebs, with fewer scruples than used-car
|>  salesmen, and less brains than a loaf of bread, and B.O. as
|>  well, but this one is so bad that I'll hold my nose and vote
|>  for that one.
|>
|>  But from Perot supporters you get postings with superlatives,
|>  misty-eyed idealism and a chorus of _The Battle Hymn of The
|>  Republic_ in the background.   These people are smitten with
|>  a sort of political equivalent of puppy love.  If the Bush
|>  and Clinton camps were that slick I'd expect to see the same
|>  sort of naive nonsense from their supporters.    So I submit
|>  that Perot is a slicker huckster than the others.

Which somehow gets us back to the question of how Pye and Strattocaster made
such a fool of themselves last time round.

Anyone posting an article which suggested that Perot was quite probably a
complete con artist or that his lack of policies disqualified him from
consideration was met by a fusilade of vehement abuse from Pye and
Strattocaster. 

Stratocaster in particular was a nasty piece of work. I suspect that his return
to the net could only be under a psudonym. He deliberately doctored a post that
I made, editing it to make it appear racist (the original post had a sarcastic
line of the type "Oh of course it's OK to do business with jews and blacks so
long as you don't have to meet them at your club", the context made it *very*
clear that this was sarcastic). Pye supported him in this.

I have had run ins with sparts (Militant tendency, ISO, WRCP, SWSS etc) and
various fascist groups (Freedom Org. Monday club etc). I have *never*
encountered such blind idol worship in those groups as I have seen the
Perotistas show.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker