HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Just a question....
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:18:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.233646.9496@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>(Saurav Chatterjee) writes:
>>(Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>>  I don't see why you would view this as lame.  Under Bush,
>>>we have climbed to hold 22% of the world's exports, up from 14%
>>>in 1987. 
>>
>>I think it is important what we export. If we export corn and
>>the Japanese export cars, vcr, and other high tech products, who
>>comes out ahead? 
>
>  While I appreciate your concern, we actually both come out
>ahead under your scenario.  That is the essence of trade.
>
>  However, your scenario is also based upon an incorrect assumption.
>Our manufacturing sector is responsible for a great deal of the increased
>exports.
>
>
>Percent Increases in US exports by type (From 1986-1991)
>
>category                       percent increase
>______________________________________________
>
>Iron and Steel                    322%
>Furniture                         296%
>Clothing                          260%
>Cigarettes                        239%
>Toys,games, and sport goods       233%
>Plastics                          144%
>General Industrial Machinery      142%
>Paper and Paperboard              131%
>Pharmaceuticals                   126%
>Telecoms equipment                122%
>Electrical machinery              122%
>Aircrafts and parts               118%
>...
>
>  (I'll leave the rest of the table off, but you can find it in the January
>18th, 1992 issue of _The Economist_.)
>
	I've got a feeling this table's a little misleading. Did Iron and
Steel exports go up from $10million to $42.2 million (my numbers, used
as an example), giving it a percent increase of 322%, but Tobacco increase
from 10 Billion ot 33 Billion? Those numbers are just pulled out of the
air, but It'd be nice to see a similar table with "dollar increase" in
exports per catagory, which is probably more meaningful, and give an idea
of which industries have benefited most in the time period.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:16:21 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <2A6DBD57.8050@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Anthony Koumis writes
>> Carl Edman writes:
>> >You are absolutely right. George Bush is the only candidate who has made a  
>> >serious attempt at ending budget deficits, which Bill Clinton and Henry
>> >Perot opposed. People who want budget deficits and supported Henry Perot for
>> >that reason definitely should switch to Bill Clinton who has already
>> >promised more budget deficits.
>> 
>> Proof that if you say it long enough people will believe
>> it.  Bush has mouthed support for balanced budgets for
>> years but never  proposed one.  His balanced budget
>> amendment was aploy to embarass the Democrats.  Reagan
>> and Bush presided over huge increase in deficits.   It is so
>> huge now, I doubt it could be eliminated in one year except
>> by a total shut down of every gov't expenditure except
>> debt paying.  Bush is a liar and balanced budget arte
>> another one of his lip service issues.
>
>Can you name a single political initiative ever taken by any politician at any  
>time any where which was not motivated by political motives ? There is  
>absolutely nothing wrong with that, and those who recoil in horror from that  
>thought merely vainly try to hide the fact that they can't make good  
>substantiative arguments against the BBA. The fact remains that this was the  
>only initiative in decades which if based actually would have done something  
>about the deficit. The fact also remains that Clinton and Perot opposed it and  
>so showed their true colors on this question. 
>
>Your final argument about the size of the deficit is either a lie or a sign of  
>ignorance. I suggest you look up the sizes of the federal budgets over the last  
>few years and of the budget deficit. They've been posted repeatedly to his  
>group and others. They might help you see clearer on this issue.
>
>	Carl Edman






Obviously, things are motivated by politics.  My point that you missed is that
Bush says he is for a balanced budget and for cutting the deficit but has never
done anything about it.  He was VP under Ronnie which started the huge deficit
increase, and as president ignored the issue until very recently.  He
never submitted a balanced budget.  And now suddenly come election year
after Perot made a big stink about the deficit, George suddenly
introduces a BBA.  THis was just a ploy to show his supposed real
support for it.   If he really supported a Balanced budget he would have
done something long ago.  Instead, he only gave it lip service when
it suddenly looked good.  He is a liar (among other things).




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Time/CNN poll 18th July
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:58:16 GMT

In article <14vmd8INNdh6@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>
>What would be more interesting would be to see statewide polls!  It is
>electoral votes that will determine the election.  For example, one
>of the CNN talking heads today said that Clinton was ahead in Orange
>County (CA)!  If this is true, then as long as Clinton doesn't wrap
>aluminum foil around his head and start muttering about doppelgangers
>from Dogon, the contest is over.

Was something like this published in a recent NYT or Newsweek?
The state-by-state poll, not the Dagon thing :-)

>
>It's a safe bet that Bush will try to use the military to get back in
>the race if he has not regained a lead by Labor Day.  His epicenic
>veneer hides the animus of a true bully.

I don't think Bush is a bully of any sort.  If he is, he hides it
very well.  Check out the interview in the Atlantic (with that oh so
fun headline "Can Bush Think?").  He is, however, somewhat confused
as to his place in the world.

A military move would perhaps be seen as a paper ploy, and would
open up ungainly questions ("Why didn't you finish Iraq when you had
the chance?  Why did you call a cease fire for the sake of a nice round
number, when your military advisors disagreed?" or "Why are you getting
us into the quagmire of Yugoslavia?").  For military action to seem
pristine at this time, something like North Korea would have to oblige
Bush.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9062 misc.legal:14749 talk.politics.misc:35714
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Constitutional adjudication (was: Whether you like Clinton or not)
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:22:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <l6u2hjINN8jn@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu sez:
[Re the recent Supreme Court decision in _Casey_]

>They were trying to cover all bases, quite like politicians, by keeping
>abortion legal, but allowing states to all but illegalize it, and inviting a 
>barrage of lawsuits testing whether or not the three of them felt that 24 hrs.
>was an undue burden, but 24 hrs. and 1 second was not and what not. In effect,
>playing God with the issue of abortion. On the other hand, Blackmun
>and Stevens were against ALL strictures outright; and Scalia & Co.
>would have upheld any and all strictures ("Liberty finds no refuge in
>a jurisprudence of confusion either").

Wrong.

The lawsuits will come no matter how the Court rules.  Had the 24-hour
provision been struck down, we'd be treated to Louisiana and Pa.
enacting 18-hour bans, 12-hour bans, 6-hour bans etc.  Imaginative
state legislators can always suggest new ways to restrict access, ways
that will have to be examined in the court system.  FYI, Justice
Blackmun's concurrence demolishes Scalia's inane objection (repeated
here by you).

You're also wrong about the Blackmun/Stevens view.  I suggest you
read _Roe_ for a refresher on the restrictions applicable in the 2nd
and 3rd trimesters under that now-defunct framework.


>If they indeed believed that the right to an abortion was covered by
>the 14th Amendment's guarantee of liberty, then they should have
>struck down the law and all parts of it under the strict scrutiny
>standard applied to fundamental rights.  Otherwise, if it was NOT a
>Constitutionally guaranteed liberty, but one that the Court created
>because they felt it a good idea (at the time of Roe), then they
>should have thrown out Roe. A middle ground is fine for a politician,
>but not for a judge.

Perhaps you could be bothered learn at least a small amount about
constitutional interpretation.  You might start with the topic
"liberty interest", or perhaps "substantive due process".

Had you bothered to do so, you might have some clue that
"Constitutionally guaranteed liberty" != "fundamental right".  You
might also have some inkling that the strict scrutiny standard of
review does not apply to every liberty interest incorporated against
the states by the "substantive" aspect of the 14th amendment's due
process clause.

I suggest you take your constitutional cues in the future from a more
reliable source than The New Republic.

-- 
O net, thou art sick.  The invisible newbie that lies in the night in
the howling subject header has found out thy bed of followup joy, and
his dark secret cross-posting doth thy life destroy.  (Film at 11.)
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: dowzycki@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ken Dowzycki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: posting to this newsgroup
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:29:43 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


   If anyone can see this posting, please, please, contact me
either as a follow up or by e-mail.  I can't seen to get 
through to any newsgroups.

   This is being posted on July 29, 10:33 AM, EST.

   If you would be so kind to reply please include the date and
time you are reading this.  Thank you.

Email     dowzycki@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:08:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.232318.27914@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
#In article <1992Jul28.154614.12359@cbnewsi.cb.att.com#,
#hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
##In article <1992Jul28.115843.29130@mksol.dseg.ti.com# mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
###In article <1992Jul27.155053.14891@cbnewsi.cb.att.com# hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
####The last time there was a balanced budget was I believe 1969.
#
#Actually entitlements are already a problem.  I finally received my
#packet on t the Congressional Budget Tracking SYstem from the
#National Taxpayers Union which included a book of charts called (as
#best as I can recall from memory) "Entitlements and out aging
#population.  The charts are devastatingly clear that we are throwing
#more and more government money at those age 65 and older at the
#expense of those much younger.  It also show things like how we
#spend more on entitlements to seniors measured as % of GNP than just
#about all other countries int he world.  All in all, a *lot* of very
#interesting data looked at from many different angles.
#
#They never come out and say that older citizens are the ones who
#vote so politicians are trying their best to keep them happy, but
#that's sure the picture the numbers paint.
#
#BTW, the more I learn about NTU's CBTS the more impressed I am.
#It's a fine piece of work that seems to be making a lot of
#Congress-critters take a hard look at what legislation they're
#sponsoring.  And as soon as I've had time to play with the software
#(they send you their whole data base, not just reports) I'll have
#some more specific things to say.  I'm renewing my NTU membership
#(which I let lapse a long time ago when they got hung up on fighting
#for calling a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget
#amendment) so I can get the updates cheaper.  I think the price was
#$29.95 for members and $50 for non-members.
#
#/June

It might be worthwhile to quote some of the facts and figures on
the net.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: To Perot supporters
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:42:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation


I have a question to the Perot supporters.  Since Perot took himself out of the
race, instead of getting angry at Perot why don't you draft another candidate.

Who would you like to see as your alternative candidate.  My first thought was
Paul Tsongas, howeever he's committed to the Democrats.  Tom Luce is a close
friend of Perot and ran in the Texas Repulbican Primary for govenor in '90.

ChrisWa.
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: 3rd Party Force Plan???
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:06:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: jlohrmann@igc.org
>Lets call it the 3rd Party Force for now and divide into two
>sections, the 3rd Force for Clinton and the 3rd Force for Bush.
>Let the polls decide who is bigger or better.  Let us work to make
>these leaders be honest and support legislation and policy that
>empowers the people and creates real change in this country.

If you want a third force, the very last thing you should do is
to divide it into two sections supporting the first and second
forces. They will each get absorbed and disappear.

Better to work out a proper constitution to ensure your third
force is democratically organised. When it comes to fighting
elections, don't try and win as many votes as possible spread
over the country. Concentrate your efforts in one or two
fights. Work these areas hard for years in advance so that
people there know and trust you. If you get a few percentage of
the vote spread over the country, no-one will remember you. If
that few percentage is concentrated in a couple of areas and is
strong enough there to elect representatives, people will be
forced to take you into account.

Matthew Huntbach
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:55:19 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
	<1992Jul22.023420.17316@cbnews.cb.att.com>

>Nah, that would be too disruptive. Much better to re-run the Iraq war! Have
>you seen CNN tonight? Old familiar faces are everywhere: Pentagon
spokespeople,
>mideast experts, Saddam strutting around, militant Iraqis, Bush standing
>firm by UN resolutions and issuing ultimatums. CNN's expert reminds us that
>Hussein again seems out of touch with reality, he must be receiving bad
>advice. There you go again, Saddam, let us into that building or we send some
>of our troops back in (now at 3% of wartime peak).
> 
>Oh, and you know why Saddam is taunting us like this? According to CNN, he
>is taking advantage of President Bush's current political weakness.
>How could we have been so fickle? Time to rally behind the chief again,
>before somebody gets hurt.
> 
>I don't think the thyroid operation took.
>---
>Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com

If we do hit Iraq again and we see a surge in the presidents popularity
I give up on the voters in this country. All an air strike on Iraq
should do is point out how Bush has screwed up evry thing he's done with
respect to Iraq.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:20:32 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:


>I am almost ready to hope that he wins too. That way, it will be clear
>who to blame when the country goes to hell in a handbasket. As it is
>now, the Democrats in congress are able to hide behind George Bush
>and blame him for everything but tornados in Kansas.

I'm not so sure. By winning, Bill Clinton will have won a referendum on the
past 12 years being a failure, and when he throws this country into a depression
he will simply say that the country was now reaping what the Republicans
had sown for the past 12 years. It sounds far fetched, but when you have a
vindictive, spiteful media behind you, nothing is impossible. Hell, they've
managed to convince the American public that Ronald Reagan,
who brought 8 years of economic growth and won the cold war, wasn't that
good after all. Tell a lie long enough, and the people will start to believe it.

ACF

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: A Perot Scenario
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:01:15 GMT

In article <1640500016@igc.org> jlohrmann@igc.org writes:
>===========================================================================
>From: bruce@pages.com (Bruce Henderson)
>Subject: PEROT DROPS OUT, a possible twist
>Cc: bwebster@pages.com, wdc@apple.com,
>
> [...]
>
>Phase 3.
>
> [...]
>
>Give the American public time to look at Clinton and Bush again, let the get  
>fed up and disgusted again.  When they give up, they will say "crap! we need an  
>outsider, we need Ross Perot!".  Once again you will see a ground swell (maybe  
>sometime in September) to bring Ross Perot into the campaign whether he like it  
>or not.  But this time he will have prepared himself top do battle while the  
>heat is off.
>
>Perhaps Ross is only trying to buy us a little time.

The patron saint of Ross Perot, Larry King, theorized as much on
Letterman last night.  He also gave David a PERFECT opportunity to
announce his candidacy ... and Letterman passed it up!  I feel so
betrayed ...

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:02:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.165847.18870@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>In article <3494@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>
>>Change huh?  Let's see Democrats have controled Congress for the last 40 years,
>>we've had Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in the same time and your definition of 
>>change is Bill Clinton.
>
>This is inaccurate.  Congress consists of the House and Senate.  The
>Democrats only gained control of the Senate recently ... maybe Reagan's
>second term?  If Congress is split, you can't exactly say that Dems had
>control.  In fact you could make a good case for the opposite.

1986, I believe.

>
>Of course, if you have a short memory, or limited experience, I guess
>you might think that the Democrats were in control.  Oh, and how many
>times have they overridden the Presidential veto?

Further, you're assuming that the parties are somehow monoliths.
This is totally wrong: there are conservative Democrats as well
as liberal Republicans.  Not all Dems were thrilled about the
Civil Rights Act of 1965, or about LBJ's Vietnam policy.  Not
all Republicans were happy about Nixon's detente with the Soviets,
or even about Reagan's spending policies.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8994 alt.politics.clinton:442 alt.politics.bush:101
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Yacht taxes, was myth of the...
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:20:55 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:
>> In article <3920@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>> >     The example that is used in the recent luxury tax on yachts.
>> >Since the luxury tax was increased, those wealthy who wanted to purchase
>> >yachts became discouraged. Sales of yachts went down, and those
>> >companies that built the yachts laid off hundreds of workers.

>> This is a total crock.  The downturn in sales is a result of the
>> recession, not the tax.  The tax is just being blamed by the pleasure
>> boat industry so that they can get rid of it.  BTW I believe it only
>> applies to boats over $100,000.

>What makes it a "total crock"?

    Well:

    1) The pleasure boating industry was already suffering from overbuilding
in the '80s.  Yachts do not just disappear.  They stray on the used
boat market and hold down the prices charged for new hulls.

    2) The recession has incresed the number of repossesions, etc.,
further driving prices down.

    3) In the 80's the pleasure boat industry grew well beyond the size 
that a reasonable economy could support.  Many of these yards were marginal
operations to begin with.  They couldn't survive the end of the boom
years and went belly up.

   When the luxury tax on yachts was imposed you could buy a two year 
old, mint condition yacht for less than 40% of it's replacement *cost*.
(labor and materials only...) It is hard to sell new yachts in that 
environment.

>I'm still open to arguments for why anyone thinks exactly the same
>number of yachts will be sold whether they cost $100,000 or $110,000,
>but I'm very skeptical.

    The point was that the pleasure boating industry was headed for
a bust with or without a luxury tax.  (Hence, whoever thought of taxing
boats to raise revenues wasn't taking in the big picture... It can't
raise much money.)
    Oh, and the 10% tax is on the portion of the price ABOVE $100K. 
So a $100,000.00 boat would sell for $100,000.00 after taxes, not $110,000.00.
A $200K boat would sell for $210K, $300K for $320K, etc.
    How do you explain the sharp drop in sales of boats under $100k?  
Most small-boat yards have gone belly up too.

    And while we are on the subject, here's my $0.02: many of the people
buying $100K+ boats are live-aboards.  For these people the boat
isn't a luxury in addition to the big house, sports cars, etc.  It IS
the big house. These boaters arn't rich stock brokers, doctors or lawyers.  
They are middle class people with lifetime dreams.
    Taxing a primary residence as a luxury item is unfair.  Many of
these boaters have saved a lifetime for their at-sea retirements. Why 
is a floating retirement home taxed differently from a rolling retirement
home (e.g., Winnebago)?

Tim Smith
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:15:21 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger) writes:
>You may be a Libertarian Ron Dippold, but your actions cause me to
>turn my back to you. 

>Otherwise known as a "kill" file.


Oh no!  Metaphorical murder!  Alert the Nilges!
-- 
Darth Vader!  Only you would be so bold.
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: A clear choice
Date: 25 Jul 92  00:05:00 EST

    I am amazed at how (almost) anyone will vote for Bush/Quayle this November.

    Clinton is pro-choice.      Bush is not.
    Clinton has good education background.

    Bush said he is our education President? (that's all)

    Bush said "no new taxes" (also just lip service).
    Clinton, well, we do not know for certain yet.

    Clinton has Gore, he should make a solid VP.
    Bush has Quayle (proven village idiot)


    12 years of Reagan/Bush/Quayle has left the working
    class over-taxed & the elite given far too many
    advantages at the working class's expense.


            Maybe I see too simple but maybe more should.

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)