HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: RE: Whatever happened to ...
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 15:29:44 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:

> 
> In a previous article, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) wrote:
> > 
> >  Seriously, I'd forget about watching any Presidential debates this year.
> >Instead it would be much more interesting to watch Hillary Clinton debate
> >Tipper Gore on the question of 'Should children have the right to sue their
> >parents for cutting off access to obscene records?'.
> > 
> I thought Tipper Gore lobbied for labelling of records, not for "cutting
> off access."
> 
> But I agree that such a debate would be more interesting. HC and TG can 
> probably articulate an argument much more coherently than GHWB.
> 
> -				|   "A guy with a hard-on is not
> Bart "Webb" Tilney		|    my idea of art."
> Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    			- John Mellencamp

Besides, Bush is spending so much time bashing Hillary that his campaign 
for First Lady wouldn't be complete without a face-to-face showdown.


>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4347 alt.politics.clinton:4364 alt.rush-limbaugh:4352 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5155
From: bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:26:54 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Sep7.162920.28073@umbc3.umbc.edu>, by alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex):
> In article <mykes.0dfl@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> 
> 	[re: maybe GHWB called the governer and offered aid, and was refused]
> 
>>Alex, sounds like you were eavesdropping on the phone call.  How the heck do you
>>know Bush didn't make the offer?  How do you know he wasn't anticipating a yes?
>>YOU would paint him to look distracted...  it serves your agenda nicely.  And
>>reinforcing what _SOME_ people think.
> 
> 	Mike, do you think before you write? If Bush had made an offer of
> federal aid, and the offer was refused, I'm sure that we would have heard 
> about it by now. Bushs own comments "He [the governer] could have called
> me sooner" indicate that no converstation ever happened.
> 
Alex, do you listen?  The offer was made, on national tv no less.  To now
say that it didn't happen is a lie and the kind of revising of history that
hopefully will allow people to see your kind of agenda for what it really is:
lies and tripe.

> 	[re: the federal bailout after HUGO]
> 
>>He did, at the expense of the economy and hence his image...
> 
> 	Lessee, first Lyndon Johnson killed the economy, or was it Carter,
> then it was the deadlock congress, and now it's Hugo. Where will the buck 
> stop next?
> 
There is no doubt Hugo adversely affected the economy if you tie it to the
federal debt.  However, if people like Johnson, Carter, and, yes, FDR hadn't
screwed it up so bad in the first place, we easily would have been able to
swallow the cost.

Bill Nolte
This does not represent the opinions of my employer, but the world would
be a lot better off if it did.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<CINDY.92Sep13201431@solan10.solan.unit.no>
	<1992Sep13.232522.16117@anasazi.com>
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:23:54

John Moore writes:
>25% is an enormously high interest rate! It is certainly indicative
>of some sort of problem.

You'll notice i said all is not wonderful with the Swedish economy.
However, many European countries have been having headaches with
interest rates lately.  The German central bank is purposely keeping
intrest rates quite high to keep the Mark strong.  This means other
countries in the European Monetary Fund, which uses the Mark as its
base currency, have had to chose between high interest rates and
high inflation.  Fortunately, the Germans have FINALLY decided to
give te rest of us a break and drop their interest rate.  I heard
on the radio this afternoon that Swedish (and Norwegian) interest
rates had "dropped considerably" already today on that news, but 
the announcer didn't give any numbers.  It's amazing, when you
know the context of European economics, how things begin to make
sense, isn't it?

> And, having to intervene with something
>as rude as a 75% interest rate indicates some sort of problem with
>the currency,

If you had read what i wrote, you would have seen that there was
indeed a problem with the currency.  However, as much as you would
like to say it is an internal problem, the primary reason is 
_external_ problems.  Sweden didn't make the Mark that (artificially)
strong, which caused high interest rates in the countries belonging
to the EMF, which caused Finland to withdraw, which....

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4852 alt.politics.clinton:5075 talk.politics.misc:45053
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:00:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Sep12.175304.12348@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <farenebt.716237970@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>If Hillary believed that he had an affair, more than likely, they would
>>not still be married.

>This is Farenell's opinion; Ms. Clinton hasn't said either way.

>It would be nice if people would stop attributing convenient values to
>others.

 It would also be very, very surprising!

>-andy

>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Larry J


-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
From: nfs@tyrolia (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:20:42 GMT

In article <FiFqqB5w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>> I would like to hear three opinions
>> Clinton holds that are in the minority view in this country.  He seems like
>> the ultimate poll watcher to me.

>Ok, how about these.
>
>1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions.  He's not abortion on demand.  While not
>a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.

Not so.  Clinton said he would sign the FOCA, before Congress approved
amendments allowing states to set restrictions like parental
notification; i.e. he was willing to sign a bill outlawing all state
restrictions on abortion.  I would argue from that position that he
favors abortion on demand.  The only question then is whether his is a
majority view (which I believe it to be).

>2.  He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.

Clinton isn't going to raise YOUR taxes, he's going to raise RICH
people's taxes.  That is pretty clearly a majority view.  The catch
is, of course, that everyone is going to be rich when Clinton is in
office, at least for tax purposes.

>3.  He wants to reduce defense spending more than Bush.  Not popular among
>both the 'strong national defense' crowd and among all of those General
>Dynamics and Lockheed workers in critical states like CA and TX.

I strongly doubt that a majority of the electorate believes in "strong
national defense" when that means keeping a large standing army to
deter a defunct rival.  The majority thinks it's time that the peace
dividend gets paid out; there are certainly no lack of domestic
problems at which money can be thrown, and at which people expect it
to be thrown.

>The point to this is really not whether or not Clinton holds unpopular or
>minority views, but do his majority views constitute pandering? ...

You haven't come up with any minority views yet.  Keep trying.

Norbert
-- Due to brain-dead posting software, email should be addressed to --
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Get ready ('cause here I come)
Date: 8 Sep 1992 14:55:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:

>
>>Bill Clinton is not the perfect candidate but George Bush is a 
>>proven failure.  Bill Clinton will probaably not do anything 
>>effective about the deficit, but George Bush will definitely not.
>
>Probably? PROBABLY? How in the world do you even have a hope that Clinton
>will balance the budget, tax the rich, cut defense, boost existing
>entitlement programs, create a new health care program, increase funding
>for AIDS research, and pour money into the Washington bureaucracy
>simaltaneously? P.J. O'Rourke was right: Santa Claus is a Democrat!
>

By the process of elimination. George Bush has proved he cannot do
anything with a Democratic-controlled Congress. The Congress is not
going to change this election. He expressed no interest in doing
anything until his political butt was on the line. He has promised
us real action, after we re-elect him. Specifics to be made public
later. George Bush is now traveling around the country making Santa
Claus look like a piker. Don't worry. I wasn't being facetious. 
George Bush said he would do whatever it takes to get re-elected
and he meant it literally. It will work too. I'll vote against him
and you can vote for him, but four years from now he'll be back
whining about how nothing is his fault, Congress wouldn't pass his
bills. Why do you look forward to four more years of gridlock?
-- 
Ben Hansen
bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: This Republican says: Bush is a babbling idiot!
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:36:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep9.004902.12754@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ariel.A.Vitali@dartmouth.edu (Ariel A. Vitali) writes:

> Number 23, a
> certain basketball player in baggy shorts.  Here's one you may not
> know.  Number 38.  That's how long the same party, the same crowd has
> been running the United States House of Representatives , 38 years. 
> Ask Millie, our dog, and she'll tell you that's 266 in a dog life."
> 
> WHAT?!?!?  Vote this guy out - Please!!

Seriously, this might be easily explained, if it's the halcion talking.
Didn't his doctor take him off it? Or is he still on it?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:21:25 GMT

In article <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>
>Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
>wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
>disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
>never heard the term religious left?

I've never heard this term, but I've sure heard of the Berrigans.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:10:52 GMT

bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:

>For example:
>    Who raised taxes more often?  There should be only one answer.  There
>    should be one number associated with GHWB, and one number associated
>    with BC.  Is GHWB > BC or vice versa?

>So would someone please tell me the "real(tm) truth"?

The reality is that what you believe has much to do with the truth.  Taxes
is a good example.  There are many routine increases in user fees (e.g. auto
license fees, or national park admission fees), adjustments due to errors in
legislation, etc.  If you count all these as "tax increases",
then the number is one value; if you don't, it's another.

There are also many people involved in tax increases, so the President is
only one player.  If he signs a bill which funds thirty programs that are
essential to the ongoing operation of government (e.g. State Department
budget authority, money to allow the mints to continue to operate, etc.) and
attached to that bill is an increase in taxes, did he just sign a tax 
increase -- or did he accept that to get the other things?

The number of times so-and-so signed bills which increase taxes is a very
crass way of measuring their ability as a governor, or a President.  Look
instead at their vision for the country, their general philosophy of 
government, their general track record of accomplishments.  These are easier to
get a sense of the candidate from.

On taxes, the truth was probably hit closest by Walter Mondale when he said
in 1984, "Let's tell the truth.  Ronald Reagan will raise your taxes, and so
will I.  He won't tell you, I just did."  Reagan went on to raise a variety
of taxes as President, just as Mondale said he would.  Mondale was rewarded
for his honesty by losing 48 states.  The reality is that both George Bush
and Bill Clinton will raise taxes.  One lies about it, the other doesn't.
That tells you something right there, doesn't it?


-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:11:52 GMT

Kids no longer have to worry about being incinerated in their sleep...
(except in LA)
Kids don't have to undergo "Duck and Cover" drills, a feeble training
preparation for nuclear war which was ineffective and unnecessary.

NOW they have to undergo the same action, w/o drills, whenever gunfire
goes off.  The ratio of actual danger to drills is a _lot_ higher.
 
Thank you Bush for making America safe!

-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:43:02 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
.eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>>No argument here, either - look what one actor did, in the role of his
>>>life as President of the United States of America.
>>I don't think Ronald Reagan ever testified to a Congressional panel on
>>the plight of the cowboy in today's society, asking for more money to go
>>to the endangered cowboys of America.
>
>Substitute Cold Warrior for cowboy, and yes he certainly did - to the
>tune of $2 trillion WE are now in the red for!
I can't remember when Reagan testified to Congress about defense
spending. (I mean testify, not give a State of the Union.) Could you help me?

>> I like some of his gaffes. I particularly love his "What a terrible thing
>> it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true it is."
>> Granted, some of the things he says completely cracks me up.
>
>Not me. I prefer intelligent humor.
I like political humor, especially when it comes from politicians.
It gives me solace to know sometimes government can be as stupid as it thinks
it is.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4466 talk.politics.misc:44335 alt.politics.clinton:4525 alt.politics.democrats.d:30
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:22:33 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep5.153736.6743@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>Wot no Quayle vs Gore debate!

>I've been looking forward to that for four years now.

Wow, you knew four years ago that Gore was going to be the democrats VP
candidate.  So now your also claiming prescience.

>Phill Hallam-Baker


-- 
--Mark
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 21:14:25 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

jacksonk@nova.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:

> In article <PquHqB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> > [argument about who's responsibility the slow response to Andrew was ]
> >States
> >rights are a myth perpetuated by Republicans and racists (when the two are n
> >the same).
>
> Ahh, so you would get rid of the 10th amendment and just have Uncle Sugar
> do everything?  (Or should I say, Big Brother.)  Just how do you consider
> something defined in the constitution a "myth"?  In addition, how do you
> tie something as fundamental as that to any party or group?  Sure, the Reps
> would like to increase states rights, i.e. quit expanding the horrible
> bureaucracy of the federal government and start delegating more
> responsibility to the state and local governments where the bureaucracy
> tends to be a bit smaller and less cumbersome, and therefore more
> responsive to the needs of the public.  Sure, there are racists who call
> for similar measures to keep the federal government from interfering in
> their policies, but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept -- just the
> area of civil rights.

The 55 mph speed limit.  Restrictions on education programs in states.  The 21
year old drinking age.  These are but three examples of how federal bucks have
reduced the concept of states' rights to a myth.  It may be defined in the
constitution, but the dangling of federal money in front of the noses of state
legislatures has already invalidated the 10th amendment.

Tell me, if what you say about the GOP wanting to reduce bureaucracy is true,
why do we not see any concrete proposals from the Bush administration to do
this?

>
> As for tying together Reps and racists, sure there's a contingent of
> racists in the Rep party, but I'd say that the Dems have the majority of
> racists -- in the form of reverse-racists.
> --

Agreed, there are intolerants in the Democratic party also.  However, when you
come from David Duke's home town, you see Republican racism at its worst on a
regular basis...



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4253 alt.politics.clinton:4243 alt.rush-limbaugh:4314 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5137
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:23:13 GMT
Organization: Amiga makes it possible
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

In article <1992Sep5.153616.533@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> In article <Bu2pwL.Fox@ais.org> draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper) writes:
>
> 	[re: bush waiting for the governers call]
>
> >Those who slam Bush for sending troops to Florida, saying it is all for
> >personal gain, would not allow Bush to get away with a flagrant violation of
> >the Constitution.
>
> 	I don't think that people are slamming bush for sending troops to
> florida, at least I haven't heard theat sentimate. People are slamming bush
> for not responding fast enough. As for the constitution, bush was talking to
> the governer on monday, and could have said: "Hey, governer dude, I got some
> troops. You want 'em?". Anticipating a yes, Bush could have landed the first
> troops monday night, and become a national hero. As it was, he looks distracted
> and uninterested in domestic affairs, reinforcing what people already think.
>

Alex, sounds like you were eavesdropping on the phone call.  How the heck do you
know Bush didn't make the offer?  How do you know he wasn't anticipating a yes?
YOU would paint him to look distracted...  it serves your agenda nicely.  And
reinforcing what _SOME_ people think.

> >And there are also those who forget that Bush picked up 100% of the cost of
> >the Hugo disaster recovery effort as well, and that was certaily no election
> >year.
>
> 	Did he? I thought that the taxpayers picked up the tab on that one,
> working in accord with existing policy. Should George get a medal for doing
> what he's paid to do?
>

He did, at the expense of the economy and hence his image...

>
> --
>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
> The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that
> encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice
> witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh