HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if...
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:08:55 GMT
Organization: Penn State University


In article <1992Oct14.162909.6653@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) says:
>
>In article <1992Oct14.140052.22484@cs.wm.edu> jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
>writes:
>>I don't like what I see my tax dollars being spent on...
>>
>>The ONE thing I DON'T see is my tax dollars going toward anything
>>that will help improve the condition of the average person.
>
>What?!?!? If you'd like, I'll compose a list of dozens of programs
>funded by your tax dollar that helps the average person.
>
>>I would LIKE to see my tax dollars going to reduce the cost of health care
>>for everyone and to insure EVERYONE has access to preventive and
>>reactive health care.
>
>Agreed! Let's drop the cost of health care by dropping the threat of
>medical litigation... oops, sorry. For a moment, I forgot that Clinton
>supports the trial laywers and their movement to ensure that we spend
>our dollars in the hospital instead of the court.

OOPS, guess again.  Even Bush's own figures put the total cost of malpractice
at 20 billion.  Reduce it to zero and you've hardly even put a dent in the
rate of growth of health care costs.  OOOPS, Bill Clinton's health care
package also includes changes in malpractice law which will reduce these
costs.  Unlike George Bush, Clinton believes that it is more
important to make sure that every child gets health insurance before
you make sure that every doctor (average net income over $110,000) gets
malpractice insurance.  Who has their priorities screwed up??? Finally,
OOOOOOOOPS, guess which state has some of the lowest malpractice
premiums in the U.S. and some of the most progressive malpractice laws??
Bill Clinton's Arkansas, my friend.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:48:24 -0600

In article <1992Oct7.050633.24061@netcom.com>  writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.004516.27017@eng.ufl.edu> jason@hal.eel.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>>>Of course.  The deficit before Reagan was right around this year's defense
>>>budget.  The deficit as we know it today WAS the fault of the Reagan/Bush era
>>>borrow-and-spend policies. 
>>
>>WHAT?????????  Are you crazy?  Where did you get that?
>>
>>
> Well, I was wrong... the debt was about 3 times this years defence budget,
>or around 1/4 of what the debt is now.  So Reagan and Bush are only responsible
>for the national debt quadrupling.
>Source:  United We Stand, Perot's book.  His source was listed as OMB.
>
>
>-Howard
>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
>Do what keeps thou from wilting shall be the loophole in the law.
>

And on top of that, Bush has increased gov't spending by $200 billion each
YEAR he has been in office!!! The jerk.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:53:32 GMT

ktitus@uoft02.utoledo.edu wrote:
: 
: It was the people of his own state of Arkansas who came up with the nickname
: of Slick Bill originally. Scary.
: 
Was this before or after they re-elected him?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.153105.2791@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>>Having a low paying job is certainly a helluva lot better than not having
>>a job at all.
>
>  Not under the Democrats.  You'll make more staying unemployed, working
>under the table, and collecting unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. 
>than holding a minimum wage job.

Ah, but Clinton argues for Welfare reform and all that nonsense, if
you haven't noticed.

>
>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
>conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    

The Shrub as Vader?  Nah.  Though I'm sure that with modern audio
technology, they can dub James Earl Jones's voice for Herb Bush's.
Dan Quayle is too happy looking to be a Skywalker.

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
From: JJB133@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: VP Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:19:34 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

mike writes about Adm. Stockdale...

>him.  I think he makes a bad public impression, but likely
>has a pretty good mind.

The Roman Emperor Claudius had the same problem.   He had a bad stammer
and a club foot and was dismissed at first as an imbecile.   His lack
of public speaking ability hid a razor-sharp mind and wit.    Claudius
was a fine and sober administrator who cleaned a lot of the corruption
and debt left by his predecessor, Caligula.  He even managed to expand
the Empire before his death with the conquest of much of Britain.

  If the stammering, club footed Emperor Claudius took part in the
debates, he too would be dismissed as being "daffy" by the pundits.
As always those who can neither do nor teach make a living through
punditry.

James J. Berthelot
Worthington campus
Penn State
Scranton, Pa           Usual disclaimer shields...ON!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush for Prez NOT!
Date: 15 Oct 92 06:08:00 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct12.204707.22053@infonode.ingr.com> dianne@dianne.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Dianne Ferrans ) writes:

>
>1. He slaughtered 100s of thousands in Iraq for oil.

I have seen no credible evidence giving numbers.  Besides,
it wasn't for oil, but to protect our interests in the
region.  It's just a coincidence that those interests
include oil.

>2. He slaughtered thousands in Panama after his drug running 
>   cohort no longer served his purposes.

Horse hockey!  I doubt more than 100 were killed in Panama.
It is ludicrous to suggest Noriega was a "drug running cohort"
and you could be sued for libel.

>3. He supported and armed Saddam Hussein and Manual Noriega 
>   along with other wretched dictators to support U.S. interest.

True, and *at the time* it was a good idea.  One's friends
sometimes become one's enemies.

>4. He and Reagan slaughtered 100s of thousands of peasants in 
>   Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua during the 1980s.

Huh?  I just don't understand this one...

>5. He and Reagan looted the poor, workers and middle-class to 
>   enrich the already wealthy.

What do you call lowering the middle-class tax rate 15%??

>6. 70% of his campaign is financed by big corporations.

Name another  major candidate for whom this is not true.  (Perot
group *A CORPORATION* is paying for Ross's campaign)

>7. He wants Constitutional amendments to abolish abortion and to 
>   allow prayer in schools.

OK, I personally disagree with an amendment to abolish abortion.
*ALLOWING* prayer in schools (WITHOUT making it to be made
mandatory) doesn't sound like that bad an idea to me.

>8. He and his part cater to the country's most vicious 
>   homophobes, racists, religious fanatics and woman-haters.

I'm sure you don't really mean this.  Who nominated the only
female Supreme Court justice?  Who nominated the second black?

>9. He is a millionaire.

Does this make him an awful person?  I can't think of any
reason it should.

>10. He wants business as usual for the Empire.

BFD.  So does Clinton.  Perot doesn't have a clue.
Reagan/Bush policies resulted in every dollar of
income I've ever received.  If Carter, Mondale, or Dukakis
had won I'd probably now be on welfare.  I'm not rich,
but hope to be within a few years -- if the Democrats
don't find some creative way to take it all away from
me before then...


David Shackelford
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:58:21 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct7.030501.7674@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.232616.29823@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.043049.11014@news.columbia.edu > egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>Oh, one more thing: leaving it solely for the President to decide who
>the enemy is may be a tad dangerous, no?  Concentration of power and
>all that.  War is a serious business, and should be open to public
>debate, not the whim of the Executive branch.

It is the responsibility of the President and the executive branch
to determine that the threat exists.  Other segments of society
should indeed have input into the decision, but the decision rests
ultimately with the commander-in-chief.  If Congress declared war
and the President didn't agree, he could fail to give the order and
the military would be restricted from action.

>And let me amend my argument slightly: war is amoral, neither
>just nor unjust.  We should consider the morality of the policy
>driving the war.

I don't think war is amoral in the general case.  Self-preservation
(and preservation of family, clan, country etc) is a valid moral
basis for human action.  I joined the military knowing that I might
be sent to war.  I did not want a war to happen (I'm not crazy),
but I was ready to defend my country if necessary.  I was nearly  
sent to the Persian Gulf but didn't try to protest the war or
get out of my obligation.

>Granted that there should be discipline and a clear chain of command
>for the military to function effectively, but shouldn't soldiers be
>able to express their views? 

I was allowed to express my views in the military.  This didn't mean
I was free to disobey orders.  Anyway, I was not referring to military
discipline when I claimed Clinton broke the law.  The documents
relating to deferment eligibility almost certainly have the standard
statement that the individual signing is telling the truth to the
best of his ability.  I do not believe that he intended to remain
in ROTC (his deferment reason).  Stating that he would complete
the program and failing to do so either was illegal or should have
been. 

> In the end, you consider his resistance to the war an illict
> act of protest.

I consider his resistance just short of treason.  Same goes for
the marine who got so much publicity for refusing to get on the
plane during desert shield.

David Shackelford
Patriotic American
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8544 alt.politics.elections:15998
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:37:07 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <1992Oct08.220015.27318@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

> > *    One sign of Bush's desperation is his moving to a direct attack
> > on Clinton's opposition to the Vietnam war.
> 
> You don't find it a possible conflict of interest for an anti-war type
> to be in control of the world's largest military power?

It's certainly preferable to having a *pro-war* type in control!!



Yes, folks, it's the old "If you ain't with us, you're agin us" ploy.
"Anti-War" in the milieu we're talking about was clearly "anti-Vietnam-War,"
not necessarily opposition to all wars under all circumstances.
There probably are pure anti-war people, and even may be pure pro-war
types; it's always been my worry that the latter would tend to go into
the military, and might even rise to positions of influence.  

A president, being responsible for the long-term survival and
well-being of the country, should be extremely leery of going to
war.  Bush, in my opinion, is far to the pro-war side of the scale.


-- 
Bob Munck
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrats & Hippocracy
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:55:35 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <14130.2ad2510d@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>In article <BvqEJ8.8zt@agora.rain.com>, robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>>   What is hippocracy?
>> 
>
>As I understand it, it means 'Rule by Hippos'. Hippocracy is particularly
>prevalant in the rain forests of the Congo, but I may be mistaken.

But if we consider the greek roots of the work, doesn't "hippo" mean
"horse"?  Rule by horses, then.  Well, at least they move faster.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
From: michaell@snake12.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - Important
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:51:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /usr/lib/news/rn/organization

In article <Oct.8.10.37.01.1992.3076@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>
>
>I know that the trip wasn't made up, but Bob Nornan, himself, when
>questioned further on his allegations, admitted that he had no 
>basis for his claims that Clinton met with the KGB.  He defended 
>himself by saying that it might have happened.

I think this attempt by the Republicans, from George Bush to Nornan, and
whoever else, is the sorriest thing I've ever seen.  Couldn't make enough 
people buy into Slick Willie?  Go for Red Willie?  This is pathetic.

>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>problem is Clinton doesn't trust the public, though he wants the public to
>>trust him as President.  For someone who has practically no foreign policy
>>experience, isn't it a moronic move of his NOT to list this great
>>educational opportunity in his resume?  Unless, of course, he doesn't trust
>
>Maybe he didn't think it was so great.  Maybe he didn't think anything
>happened that was worth bragging about so he didn't bring it up.  So
>what?  Whats he supposed to do, get up and say "I spent 40 days touring
>Eastern Europe.  Nothing really exciting happened there, but I just 
>thought you'd like to know"  Whats the point?

And if he had used some 20 year old trip as "foreign policy experience",
I think most of us, including Clinton-fans like myself, to laugh at him.
Actually, I suppose he does, cause George did mention about Clinton's massive
importance to the weapons build up (via Grain Exports) in Iraq. :-)
I'll be so glad to see George retire in January.......

Another reason why this Red Willie thing is obnoxious -- would someone who
is writing a letter about "political viability" do anything like meet with
the KGB in Moscow to become their "dupe".  Hell no.  You'd have to be 
really idiot to buy that.....which explains why the Republicans are trying
it.   They think we're all idiots.

They'll learn Nov 3.

Michael Lee
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: cable tv
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:11:22 GMT

Jeff.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9601 alt.politics.clinton:11134
From: machman@stein.u.washington.edu (the machman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Who is the moderator for the debate finale on Monday?
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:05:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

bh437292@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Basil Hamdan) writes:

>In article <blah blah>, inde788@Jane.UH.EDU (Ashish Parikh) writes:
>|>  I am wondering about the moderator and panel of reporters on
>|>  Monday's debate? On VP debate and 2nd Presidential debate we
>|>  had ABC News reporters as the moderators.  Who selects them?
>|>  are CNN, NBC, CBS People not interested? 
>
>NBC has stated that they will not participate in the debate
>because the networks were not allowed to chose the format,
>sort of arrogance I guess.

False.  They chose not to participate because the campaigns got to
choose what journalists participated in the debates (instead of the
independent commission), as described below.

>The participating journalist were chosen by the Bush
>and Clinton camp when they finally sat down to negociate.
>The way it was done was that each camp submitted a
>list of 10 reporters they would like to have, then
>the other camp was allowed cross out any name that they
>did not find agreeable from the other camp's list.
>Then an equal number of reporters was chosen from the two lists.


-- 
 /'''   The Machman        machman@u.washington.edu        david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nordquist@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Organization: Washington State University
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:33:07 -0800

In article <BvK8qz.L23@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> 
>>In article <1afrioINNnuf@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct1.133331.2763@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>>>Let's get down to cases -- Norfolk Public Schools.  The public schools
>>>>are for poor people.  Nobody of any means send their kids to public schools.
>>>>The public schools suck.
> 
>>>	2)  Under the present system, only people with money could send their
>>>		children to private schools.
>>>	3)  With School Choice, the "poor" could send their kids to private
>>>		schools.
> 
>>Hmmm. Last I saw, a Bush voucher was worth about $1000. But private
>>school tuition (secular) runs at least $6000. I don't see the poor
>>scraping up the other 7K. Sure, a few people on the margin will be able
>>to use private school for the first time. The public schools fo the poor
>>will become more of a dumping ground. The middle-class is supposed to
>>fall in love with Bush for what amounts to a $1K tax cut.
> 
> Correction.  The public schools *ARE* a dumping ground.   The well-off 
> will always be able to privately school their children.  Why shouldn't
> the less well-off get some of their own money back so they at least have
> a shot at doing the same thing?  It's time families get a hand-up, not 
> a hand-out :)  Empower them by giving them control over their own child's
> destiny - don't just tell them they are only allowed to queue up at certain
> low-class shops for their educational allotment.  The Soviet nomenklatura
> would undoubtedly have said "Sure, a few of the marginal citizens will be
> able to buy meat for the first time, but the poorest will be even worse off.
> Better if they get no chance at all in our private shops.  Let's just give
> them vouchers for the public stores they already use.  We must continue
> to work at IMPROVING those public stores!!"  Capitalism, Soviet-style.
> Don't change the system, don't even think about changing the system, just
> work for seventy years to IMPROVE the system. 
> 
> A little competition will go a very long way toward destroying the government
> education stores.  And that can be nothing but good for the country.
> 
>>andy
> 
> Steve Kellmeyer
> -- 
> 
> Steve Kellmeyer 
> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Exactly! Maybe some of our children can learn things like integrity,
responsibility, good character, goal setting, and other positive attributes.  I
never learned those characteristics in a public school.




Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9166 alt.politics.elections:16805
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:52:20 GMT
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Oct13.151057.59671@cc.usu.edu> fajack@cc.usu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.182621.20464@midway.uchicago.edu>, shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>
>> But clearly Larry, a more aggressive military strategy on our part 
>> (greater and more effective use of air power on the North) could have
>> seriously hurt the  North and their Viet Cong puppets.  China and 
>> Vietnam had been long time foes of each other and it was doubtful that
>	           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	China and North Vietnam were never long time foes during the 60's and  
>70's. It was only after unification of Vietnam that they don't see eyes to eyes.
>
>Jack Teh
>
Jack, the disagreements that emerged after the war were just the offshoots
of long time disagreements between the two countries.  I'm sorry I don't
have some citations at hand, but I will go back and find some and post them.

Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago

>
>> she would have intervened.  
>> 
>
>
>> Roger Shouse
>> The University of Chicago
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:45:04 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Distribution: usa
 <1992Oct8.165332.11213@unislc.uucp> <39240@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>

In article <39240@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) says:
>jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske) writes:
>>Me too.  Can you believe that this county elected Uncle Ronny twice, and
>>Bush once (never to be twice)?

>Sure, the majority of the country is wrong, misguided, and gullible.
>And of course, you are in the right!

So you therefore believe that Jimmy Carter was an excellent choice for
president, the best possible option at the time?

(Just asking. FYI, I like Carter. It's just that I hear this "oh, you think
Reagan was a bad choice? So you believe the American people were STUPID to
choose him?" line from Reagan apologists a lot. I've always wanted to see
what happens when you turn it around...)

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