HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Amazing!
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:50:05 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.183131.24783@PacBell.COM>, rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:
>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>> STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Stan Horwitz) writes:
> 
>>> Our economy is in a dither thanks to Reagan spending so much and
>>
>>	Nope.  The economy during Reagan's two terms was wonderful.  We pulled
>>out of the stagflation of the 70s into the largest peacetime expansion ever.
> 
> I keep hearing this piece of happytalk.  And all I can remember
> about Reagan's two terms is the arrival of hordes of homeless
> people on our streets (street people used to be few and far
> between, and almost loved as eccentric "characters"), the
> decline of federal, state and municipal services (remember when
> libraries were open all day, six days a week?), the decline of

	Our still are.  Oops.  Seven days a week.  Sorry.

> our healthcare and educational systems, the crumbling of our
> public buildings, parks, bridges, highways.  And I remember
> statistics like the USA's infant mortality rate far exceeding
> the rest of the industrialized world, literacy and math skills
> lagging behind, the chilling news that we imprison a higher
> proportion of our citizens than *any* other country, that more
> African American men are behind bars than in universities...

	Which has nothing to do with whether the economy is booming, but with
*where* the money is going.  There is a very big difference.

> Bush stands up and tells us we're the envy of the world.  Not
> all the world.  Not anymore.

	I don't think Bush has been a good president.  My objection is to
phrases like "Reagan-Bush" and "the last 12 years".  George Bush is no Ronald
Reagan.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:20:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1bcvq0INN6mc@news.aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>  
> Answers are more likely to seem to change when someone is telling the truth
> then when they are lying. When someone is lying, he or she reherses the lie.
> Thus the lie can be repeated with great accuracy.
 
     I guess this explains the remarkable consistency and repeatability
in the responses given by Clinton in the first debate.

> When someone is telling the truth they don't have to reherse.  Instead
> they tend to trust their memory.

     Perot looked unrehearsed in the debate -- maybe *he* was more
truthful than Clinton.  (The polls say that Bush lost the debate,
so I will not include him in this analysis.)

     C. Perttunen

DISCLAIMER: In no way should this post be construed as one questioning
            the patriotism of Gov. Clinton.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:30:45 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1bjv4dINN315@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.154457.4793@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <Bw3BKC.FsD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
>>> 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.
...
>>	TIME will lose this one.  (In the ad I saw) TIME is clearly shown, thus
>>no conflict over where the picture came from.
...
> Yup, you're right there IS NO DOUBT about where the picture came from...problem
> is that under copyright laws, you must obtain the permission of the owner of
> the copyright to use copyrighted materials. The cover of TIME (logo, apperance, etc)
> and the picture are all covered under the copyright laws...too bad Bush/Quayle
> et.al. forgot to obtain permission to use the material...but then again, that
> doesn't surprise me...

	You forget fair use and editorial use.  But that doesn't surprise me.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: STATEMENT BY ADMIRAL WILLIAM CROWE
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:14:34 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 OCTOBER 13, 1992

                STATEMENT BY ADMIRAL WILLIAM CROWE


   Given the latest news that the Bush Administration is going to get
 rid of their top economic advisors, I can understand that Marlin
 Fitzwater has become an expert on White House firings.

   However, his suggestion that my endorsement of Governor Clinton
 stems from my being "fired" from my position as Chairman of the Joint
 Chiefs of Staff is dead wrong.

   The facts are that, as my second two-year term was coming to a
 close in 1989, President Bush personally asked me to stay on as
 Chairman.  I was deeply honored to have this vote of confidence from
 the President.  However, I decided that 47 years in uniform was quite
 enough for any man, and I declined the President's offer.

   Marlin Fitzwater was the President's spokesman when all this was
 happening.  The President's efforts to have me stay on were widely
 reported in the press.  I can only conclude that Mr. Fitzwater's
 misstatement of the truth of this situation was deliberate.

   It is precisely this pattern of campaign deception that convinces
 me that my support for Governor Clinton is the right decision for me
 and for the country.

                            -30-30-30-
From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:30:44 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct12.021840.3193@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <29153@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
>>                   Statement of SEN. AL GORE
>>        On the first debate among the presidential candidates
>
>Obviously written before the debate even took place.

Actually, a rough transcript of what he told Tom Brokaw right after
the debate.  And judging from the CNN/Gallup poll of debate listeners,
Gore was roughly correct.  Unfortunately, CNN didn't ask for opinions
of Lehrer.  If you think it takes more than ten minutes to think of
those paragraphs, _your_ brain must be turned down pretty far.
-- 
Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10094 alt.politics.bush:8915 alt.politics.elections:16482
From: ads3@PO.CWRU.edu (Andrew Shults)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush: "steering America"  (NOT)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:17:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: b62204.student.cwru.edu

In article <1bes9iINNljh@fido.asd.sgi.com> root@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Super-User) writes:
>Bush thinks we should "stay on course"..

>So he fires the people who have been doing the driving..
>
>	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- White House Chief of Staff James Baker, [...]
>	has asked all members of the Cabinet and other high administration 
>	officials to sign letters of resignation immediately after the 
>	Nov. 3 election.
>
>Sorry George, but when a team has a bad season, you don't 
>fire the team -- it just needs a better coach.

     Actually, it's standard practice to have all Cabinet officials submit
letters of resignation.  They are kept on file to be used as needed.  When
a President wants to fire someone, he just pulls out that old letter of
resignation they signed when they were appointed.

   ---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


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:34:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.005048.10487@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
}
}there are a lot of things i don't agree with the Bush man on, but
}one of them is not the economy. if you take time to actually
}look up the numbers, the economy really -isn't- doing that bad.

This is the "anti-declinist" line, and its faults are worth elaborating some.

Most of us probably realize that the 1970s were the most inflationary period
in U.S. history.  How many of us realize that the 1980s are the second most
inflationary?  Inflation rates have been right about 4% since 1982, according
to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  However, since this is a measure of
the effect (price increase) rather than the cause (money supply increase),
even this understates the case.

Most economically literate people know that inflation is perhaps the worst
thing for an economy.

Many of the numbers are good.  Between 1982 and 1990, GNP rose 31%.  19 million
net new jobs were added.  Exports went up by over 90%.  Productivity zoomed.

But these figures don't look so good when integrated with what's been
happening microeconomically.  Most of the new jobs have been from the entry
of women into the workforce who previously would have been homemakers.  The
main reason businesses improved the productivity of manufacturing workers
so much was so that they could employ less of the overpriced union labor,
which is why the U.S. has so litle manufacturing workers compared to, say,
Germany.

There's also a very revealing trend that's been occurring: real private-
sector wages per worker are down, while they're up in the public sector.

The anti-declinist line is that these problems are merely cyclical.  They
are, in fact, structural.  The current recession was precipitated by the
1990 budget compromise in which Bush broke his promise of no new taxes
(which Bob Woodward reports he didn't even want to make at all) by saddling
us with one of the biggest tax increases in history.

Bush has been the reregulation president.  According to Policy Review, the
publication of the Reaganite Heritage Foundation, the Federal Register has
average over 600 thousand pages per year of brand spanking new regulations,
about 4 times as many pages as it was under Reagan.  Federal spending is up
about 40% since Bush took office.

Economically, taxes, regulations, and spending are destructive, yet in these
areas Bush has been worse than Dukakis would have been.  At least if Dukakis
had been elected, the Republicans would have fought the Democrats, not
themselves, as they have under the Bush Administration.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9095 alt.politics.bush:8200
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Texas polls
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:42:55 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

Todays poll in Tx

Bush     40%
Clinton  35%
Perot    14%




-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Did you notice....?
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:17:43 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <01GPOC0ACOC8GJKXA2@UMAECS>, VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:
> 	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?

	You've fallen victim to the classic "just ignore inflation" numbers
game.  Carter's term saw an increase in GNP, but also massive inflation.  When
you factor in inflation, Reagan is best, then Kennedy, ... Carter is worst. 
Bush is in the middle.

	If you want more specifics, pick up a copy of "The Seven Fat Years" by
Bob Bartley.  (Free Press).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Who do I trust? CLINTON
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:10:49 GMT
Distribution: usa


For those of you who are voting for Bush, that's your right.

If you are doing so because you like his plans better, I
don't happen to agree with you, but at least you are making 
your decision for a decent reason.  I do have a question for
you: If his plan for the future is so wonderful, why are
we in the mess we are in today?  Don't give me that "Congress is at
fault, but next time will be different" BS.  Congress won't
be a different mix of parties next year, just different names.

BUT, if you are voting for Bush because of the trust issue, you are
fooling yourself.  When did he earn that trust?  He lied about taxes.
He lied about Iran Contra.  He used to call Reaganomics "voodoo
economics" and now he sticks by the failed trickle-down
until the end.  He used to be pro-choice.  He may have even 
pulled a Watergate-like stunt with the State Department releasing
Clinton's private international travel files (I admit his 
involvement in it is unclear - but it sure is suspicious).

Who do you trust?  I could believe you don't trust any politicians -
that is justifiable.  But I have trouble believing anyone
can trust George Bush.

I trust Bill Clinton.  His job won't be an easy one.  This mess
wasn't created in a day and it won't be solved in one.  But I 
think he is our only chance for a real solution.

CLINTON/GORE '92 and '96
GORE/? 2000 and 2004
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: tjg2946@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Debate results
Reply-To: tjg2946@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:06:48 GMT

You are incorrect...
	Japan is doing pretty lousy with their economy.  An apartment
which would costs too much in Japan 3 years ago would be a cheap one now.
	Germany's economy is also lousy cuz of East Germany unification.

Our economy is probably the best economy to go to right now.  In fact,
everyone in Europe is getting all the dollars instead of marks.
From: PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (Peter Laws)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Date: 8 Oct 1992 13:00:00 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

You Republican Bozoes! It's Komrade Klinton, not Comrade Clinton!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:00:45 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.010800.4709@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>  George Bush kept the American people waiting for nothing. Anyone who
>>  hoped this debate would give them a reason to vote for Bush and
>>  Quayle is going to sleep tonight planning to vote for Bill Clinton
>>  and Al Gore. And, for good reason. Bill Clinton reached out to the
>>  American people with a plan for change and economic recovery, with a
>>  reason for hope and a genuine commitment to putting people first.
>
>	A plan?  Spenddddddddddd.   Taxxxxxxxxxx.  Been there, done that.  It
>doesn't work.
>

"Spenddddddddddd.   Taxxxxxxxxxx"
Sounds like the blueprint for Bush's first four years in office.  Where exactly
does one of the biggest tax and spender in this country's history get of 
saying on national TV "I disagree with the tax and spend philosophy..."?  You 
say "Spenddddddddddd.   Taxxxxxxxxxx" doesn't work, yet you seem to be 
supporting Bush in your article.  Are you under some delusion that Bush is a 
fiscal conservative?

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10659 talk.politics.misc:52049 alt.politics.bush:9316
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 15 Oct 1992 16:56:33 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <Bw4z9r.467@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>In 1980, when the highest tax bracket was 70%, the top 10% of income 
>earners in the US payed 46% of federal income taxes. The top bracket
>was later reduced to 50%, and then to 28%. In 1990, the top 10% of
>income earners in the US payed 53% of taxes.

>	The point here? Lowering taxes does NOT necc lead to less revenue.
>In fact, in many instances it leads to INCREASED revenue. Why? Those who
>were in the 70% bracket before did more to make money when the tax rates
>were dropped, because they could keep more of it. Sure, the rich made a
>bona fide killing in the 80's, but they also payed more taxes? They also
>hired more people!! The reason that Reagan's two terms had the lowest
>misery index for the last 40 years is because of the tax cuts that he
>initiated. The economy is stifled by taxes. 
>	Things were going well under Bush too, until he and congress decided
>to raise taxes on the American people. Then everything went to hell. Bush
>is not the be-all end-all of presidents, but he is a hell of a lot better than
>Clinton. Raising taxes is only gonna make things worse.

1. You posted absolutely *nothing* to show that revenue increased. That
would require dollar totals, not percentages. Federal Funds (i.e. NOT
trust funds like Soc Sec) revenue were LOWER in '83 than '82, and in '84
they were lower than '82 in constant dollars. Revenue took a big hit,
one of the sources of the current deficit.

2. Imagine the following hypothetical (the numbers are bogus)
in 1980 the "rich" earned 60% of the total national income and paid 46%
of the taxes.
In 1990 the "rich" earned 99.99999% of the total national income and
paid 53% of the taxes.

Absolutely nothing in your posting precludes this. In fact, the rich's
share of the national income rose MORE than their share of income tax
paid (although not by as much as my exapmle).
This is orthogonal to your "conclusion" that revenue went up, but
it shows that out of larger context your numbers are meaningless.

3. Again (and again) George Bush raised taxes in 1990 because the unpaid
debt of the Reagan administration was finally catching up. He was facing
a $500 BILLION deficit. Things were not going "well" with respect to the
deficit at all. It was rising OUT OF CONTROL because of the insane
BORROW AND SPEND FREE LUNCH of the Reagan Administration: the free lunch
you want to eat again. George Bush has welshed on the budget agrreement
but he has never dared to tell us what spending cuts he would make in
lieu of taxes if he had it to do over again.

andy

Don't be fooled.
Vote Clinton/Gore.
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: community based boot camps
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:22:21 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct5.215001.6764@crd.ge.com> ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>On several occaisions, I have heard Governor Clinton speak about
>"community based boot camps" for non-violent drug offenders. What
>exactly does this mean?...

If you'd listened to the nightly national 1/2 hour news shows on any of the
major networks during the past 5 years you would have heard of them.  Clin-
ton's idea is neither original nor untried.  Arkansas is not the only state
to have them.  They have been successful enough in several states to merit
their very own 10-second sound bites more than once on the evening news.
What's radical about Clinton's proposal is that he suggests that states with-
out them ought to try them -- and, of course, that Bush has paid no more at-
tention to what's going on in the country he claims to govern than you have.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Where a man's mind is, there is his treasure."    - Clement of Alexandria |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:27:57 GMT

In article <Bw0tE9.9yK@news.udel.edu> barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich) writes:
>
>I was pleased to hear his "as soon as I get elected" portion.  It
>suggests to me real commitment to solving the problems.  I also like
>that he (unlike any other candidate in recent history) will owe nothing
>to anyone (except those who voted for him).  I've heard so many people
>in my lifetime say they'd prefer to see a candidate who would not owe
>favors while in office.  Now they have one and they are not (YET)
>supporting him.  It's like they just want to find something to blame
>others in office for, but retract when they want to get someone they
>want in office.   Oh, well.  So much for consistency.  
>

Not only that but Perot is already stinking rich.  It should prove
pretty certain he won't be easily bribed or otherwise tempted.

Perot also demonstrated exactly what type of attitude it takes to
get rich.  That, I found, was the most impressive and positive 
thing about the man.

Since I'm a [disgruntled] Canadian, could someone vote for Perot
for me?  :-)


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh