HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:08:59 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BuDJrn.5Jz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  Singapore.

>  Free market advocates have been saying for years that this was not 
>  possible; innovation and progress can only happen with the kind
>  of individual freedom the west offers.  Now that is IS happening,
>  free-market enthusiasts tell us that it's doomed to collapse; it's
>  just a temporary aberration.  *Maybe* it is.  But if this bit of
>  faith is misplaced then liberty-loving people are in trouble, be-
>  cause nothing succeeds like success.  As the rest of the world
>  sees the growing poverty, strife, and unemployment in US and EC
>  and compares this with the growing prosperity of the Pacific
>  Tigers, it becomes a cultural as well as an economic choice.
>  

>---peter

I just finished reading a blurb in the Sept. 14, 1992 issue of Business
Week about a study by economist John F. Helliwell of the University of
British Columbia and Harvard University.

In this study growth rates of 125 countries are compared each year for the
years 1976 to 1985.

Helliwell found a strong correletion between income and democracy.  That is
the higher the level of per capita income in a country, the more likely it
is to have a high degree of democracy.

When he looked at the question of whether democracy enhances economic
development and income growth or is itself promoted by such growth, however,
Helliwell found that income levels were clearly the dominant factor.
That is, as economies grow and incomes rise, nations tend to adopt
democratic reforms.

Though I'm no economist, but I am an avid news reader.  This tends to
confirm my own observations of recent history.

While not a precondition, wealth inevitably leads to democracy.

A benevolent dictatorship (or at least a benign one) seems to be the most
efficient way for the general wealth to be improved.

This requires that the dictator restrain himself from messing with the
economy and confine his predations to the political arena.

Start with mercantilism, segue into capitalism.  The rising middle class
then begins to demand political freedoms.  (They now have time and resources
to appreciate these freedoms.)

This is the critical juncture, our friend the dictator must be willing to
allow the reforms to go forward.

Chile, Taiwan, Korea, Mexico are examples where the mantle of power was
passed (relatively) peacefully.

Nicarauga (Somoza) and Iran are examples were the dictator fought back.

The Phillipines are sort of half way between, as was Nicarauga under the
Sandinistas.

We'll just have to see which way Singapore goes.




>  
> 
>   
>  
-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5447 alt.politics.bush:5149
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:58:21 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The debates about health care
 <1992Sep12.014253.17144@midway.uchicago.edu> <92256.090741DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Sep14.234947.22580@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Sep14.234947.22580@midway.uchicago.edu>, sug6@amber.uchicago.edu
(Patrick Sugent) says:

>  Hmm.  Is your 700,000 jobs comment a reference to my reading
>or the Thorpe paper estimates if Clinton's plan was implemented?
>I honestly don't recall the numbers from my reading.
>
>  Anyway, I'll get the Thorpe paper, but to be honest I'm not sure how
>he could have estimated job loss under either program.  To the best
>of my knowledge, Clinton hasn't provided enough specifics to make any
>such estimations and Bush has changed what there was of his plan
>quite recently.
>
>  Perhaps I don't quite understand your reference.  Are those numbers
>over 4 years given certain assumptions about both plans?  Is it Bush's
>"old" plan, his past 4 years "plan", or his "new" plan?  Are both
>of these numbers from the Thorpe paper?

The 700,000 jobs lost is the number the Bush campaign has been using in
their claim that Clinton's plan would cost jobs.  I don't have a reference
for their number, but I believe they cite some study by the Heritage
Foundation for that estimate.

Thorpe's estimates of job loss in the 1980s are done on the basis of
expected job creation if health care costs had been kept to a growth rate
of GNP, based upon estimates of how health care costs are shifted by
employers and labor demand elasticity.  I don't want to critique the whole
paper, but one immediate weakness of this approach is that it makes no
net adjustment for the fact that if health care spending had been kept
to GNP growth, employment in that sector would not have been growing at
such a rapid rate.

His estimates of the effects of the Bush proposal focus on the entitlement
caps and the tax cuts.  These are estimated to result in large cuts in
Medicare and Medicaid spending.  Thorpe assumes that, in the absence of
comprehensive sytem reform, these cuts will result in some cost-shifting
to employers which will reduce labor demand.

I hope this isn't too brief, but I have to run.  If you have any questions,
fire away.
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.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Opinion on CNN Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger..."
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:56:07 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> Short letter about CNN. CNN is more objective than any of the other
> major networks without a doubt, but it isn't the most objective
> lens through which the news is delivered. I do enjoy Crossfire, which
> I think is the best news commentary program ... when they had Braden
> vs. Buchanan. The benefit of CNN is that when news happens, it is
> reported practically instantaneously, raw, and without much handling.
> (Granted most of the news comes from the AP wire, but when it's a
> news FLASH/bulletin, the facts are usually reported straight-on.) The
> editing of the stories is more comprehensive because of the all-news
> format. There are more people in the CNN organization because of the
> all-news format, so you get a reporter corps less slanted than the
> other major networks.
>
> I do have a few problems with CNN, but it usually is an issue of the
> other miscellaneous stories they decide to disseminate and broadcast
> and the slants these stories take. But the "Campaign '92" coverage
> has been better than the other networks, but again it is by no means
> as objective as C-SPAN.
> --

You forgot to mention Capitol Gang.  It might not be objective, but it's sure
as hell balanced.  I agree with you on "Campaign '92."  I like it because it's
got Jack Germond, my favorite political commentator.




>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4212 tx.politics:4872
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1992 08:40:37 GMT
 <1992Sep03.223737.13040@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep03.223737.13040@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:

> In article <qMQBr*0W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >      explain how a President can get a totally HOSTILE House leadership to
> >do the right things?  The single most important goal of Speaker Foley and
> >friends for the past four years has been to get the President out of office!
> >How do you "lead" people like that?
> 
> 	Are you saying, then, that unless we can be sure a Republican
> Congress will become reality, that we shouldn't vote for Bush, since,
> after all, you say he can't lead our current pack? 

No, of course not.  Someone has to restrain Foley and Company.  One thing is
certain - Clinton won't!


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4608 talk.politics.misc:44411 alt.politics.bush:4526
From: harvey@cafws1.eng.uci.edu (Harvey Chen)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:47:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
>> station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
>> have expected them to.
>> 
>> Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
>> He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
>> he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
>> flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
>> for president!".
>> 
>> The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
>> I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
>> 
>> I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>> paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
>> go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
>> imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
>> you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
>> 
>> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
>> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
>> this knowledge?
>> 
>> Jim Del Vecchio
>> 
>> 
>
>Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
>grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
>
>Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
   ^^^
     Talk about fifth grade educations....please....:)

>irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
>some of the people most of the time.
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:36:33 GMT

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>In article <PETONIC.92Sep9185935@daisy.hal.com> petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep09.230151.21511@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>>>Well....yeah.  When did medical care become an inalienable right?
>>
>>Persuit of happiness, buddy.  Tough to do it if you're 6' under.
>>Unless, of course, you're Hindu.

>In my pursuit of happiness, I need a 486/50 w/32MB RAM and a 200MB
>hard disk, and SVGA.  Should the gov't be required to finance this
>for me also?  Right...

	I'm suprised nobody mentioned the obvious: the pursuit of
happiness you are guaranteed free to do.  Actually getting it is
not something the government, or anybody else, guarantees.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4509 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3462 alt.politics.bush:4452
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "I can even forgive Bush for Dan Quayle, but not for this."
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:34:13 GMT
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

:Today CNN reported Clinton was speaking about Patriot missiles flying down
:chimmneys and through doors.  It was pointed out afterwards that this was
:the cruise missile and not the Patriot.  Are we going to hear for the next
:57 days how a man who wants to be commander in chief can't even remember which
:of his weapons does what?  Probably not.

CBS this morning reported that is was Quayle who was pointing out that
it was cruise missles rather than Patriots that were flying down chimneys
and through doors.

Smartbombs, not cruise missles, not Patriots, were flying down chimneys and
through doors.  Maybe candidates on both sides could try a little harder
to get their facts straight?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"C'mon boys, don't bother me.
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 I'm debating Danny Quayle.
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 The boy's retarded."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Sen. Birch Bayh
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5525 alt.rush-limbaugh:4895
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:30:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <BuMK0G.5Io@news.larc.nasa.gov> goodrich@lynx.larc.nasa.gov (Mike Goodrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.214712.25792@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:
>|> 
>|> To put it very quickly, there is NOTHING which insures that the market
>|> will enforce a Corperation to be extremely efficient.  To survive, the 
>|> Corperation will ensure that it makes a profit, but profit and efficiency
>|> are not always the same thing.  
>
>NOT TRUE. Effeciency always affects profits, thereby constituting a natural
>feedback mechanism to pressure biz's towards greater effeciency. Ain't
>Capitalism the greatest ?!
>
>
>...mike


What you have stated is the theory behind our system. A good theory, no doubt.
However in the real world it doesn't always work that way--it should but
doesn't. The theory breaks down when a Corp. produces something that people
think they HAVE to have. Medical treatment and gasoline are the most obvious of
these. Don't forget that the price of a Co. stock will affect their profits.
Say Corp. X profits fall due to a slumping economy/inflation (or whatever)does 
Corp. X try to become more effecient when they know they can sell the same 
thing at a higher price. No way---they just up the price. Ever notice how
"competitors" prices go up and down together? Later some miracle occurs and 
the initial reason Corp. X's profits were down goes away. Does Corp.
X then lower their prices? No way ---they know we the consumer are used to 
paying the artifically high prices. And what do you suppose happens the next
time X's profits fall? I know that competition is supposed to stop this but do 
you REALLY think that Exxon will lower the price of a gallon of gas below 
Chevron's price when both Corps. know we WILL pay whatever they say? What's the
solution?? I don't know. Maybe an economy whiz out there can give some 
suggestions. 

Stan Knight
|Effeciency doesn't make profits, mo' money makes profits!|
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:57:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.233338.8242@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>>[stuff deleted]
>No. Bush just flat out LIED. He is as human as you me or Clinton.
>Look, Bush has no more credibility or less credibility than Clinton
>in my eyes. But this draft thing is RIDICULOUS. The important
>issue in this campaign is the ECONOMY. Who cares if Clinton
>dodged the draft or was even for or opposed to the war. That is 
>past. 

>
>Bush did something much more relevant to the major issue...the economy.
>He raised my taxes.

A history lesson:

In October 1990, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Bush
administration brokered a budget deal with small tax increases and some
(substantial) budget cuts. This deal failed to pass the House, when
conservative Republicans rebelled at a tax increase, and liberal
Democrats rebelled at spending cuts. After this failure,
the House Democrats rewrote the bill more to their liking. They
raised the tax increases, and watered down the spending caps.
The revised bill passed the House and Senate and was
signed by President Bush.

No. Bush and the Democrats in Congress *together* raised your taxes
to "fix" the deficit. The Democrats had a shot in 1990 to prove
they could craft a bill that would reduce the deficit.
The Democrats failed, and the deficit ballooned, while the
economy stumbled. We are living today with the consequences
of the Deomcrats' failure.

Did you oppose the 1990 Budget Deal and Tax Hike?
Was it a good idea in your opinion?
If it was, it is hypocritical to accuse Bush of signing the bill.
Are you comfortable with the fact that it was drafted by
the Democrats in Congress?

>He lied.

Breaking his promise was the price the Democrats demanded for
compromise on achieving budget "cuts".  Now, on the campaign trail,
we know why they made Bush pay this price. They did it so they
could use it as a political weapon, even while they supported the bill.
"Read my lips. The Democrats are hypocrits"
Al Gore voted for the tax hike bill - and now campaigns like he was against
it.  Are you going to reward the party that crafted this legislation,
that forced the tax increase, with the Presidency?

>anne

Pat
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4627 talk.politics.misc:44427 alt.politics.bush:4539
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:28:34 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <2AAE62CF.11063@news.service.uci.edu> harvey@cafws1.eng.uci.edu (Harvey Chen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.182041.13703@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
>>> station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
>>> have expected them to.
>>> 
>>> Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
>>> He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
>>> he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
>>> flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
>>> for president!".
>>> 
>>> The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
>>> I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
>>> 
>>> I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>>> paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
>>> go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
>>> imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
>>> you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
>>> 
>>> How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
>>> know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
>>> this knowledge?
>>> 
>>> Jim Del Vecchio
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>Oh yeah, I always trust my local beer-swizzling red-necks with fifth
>>grade educations to give me their in-depth political commentary :-).
>>
>>Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
>   ^^^
>     Talk about fifth grade educations....please....:)
                              ^^^^^^^^^^
 
	educationS ?     Please...    When you pick on someone's mistyping,
you ought to proofread your work really carefully.



>
>>irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
>>some of the people most of the time.
>>
>>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>
>
>
>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: kjc7435@ultb.isc.rit.edu (K.J. Cater )
Subject: Clinton and the Homeless
Originator: kjc7435@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:37:15 GMT

A few days ago I asked for information concerning Clinton's plans to
help the homeless if elected; I received a detailed and interesting
reply!! Whoever sent me the post, please keep me updated as to when this
"Housing and Homelessness Summit" is going to be held (as I would LOVE
to attend); also, is there any way I could become more directly involved
with his plans to "develop targeted strategies to help different
homeless populations"?  I commend Clinton for having seen the
truth--that there are different populatiopns within the homeless
subculture--but I consider myself a social worker in training who likes
to address reform/replace/inventing procedures in social welfare policy.
Please keep me informed.

Thanks very much,
Miss Kerry Cater.

"kjc7435@ritvax.isc.rit.edu".

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