HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Vote for Clinton!
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:52:21 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct14.033526.19944@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!
>
>  If he wins, then the GOP will be spanked for putting up such a lousy Prez
>  as Bush, and they'll come up with someone better in '96. The bonus is that
>  a Clinton presidency will make us fondly recall our current economic woes, 
>  as his policies will put the economy into a Carterish state. 
>
>  Basically, ya kill two birds with one stone -- Bush is kicked out, and the
>  Dems won't have control of the White House for decades to come after the
>  Clinton disaster.
>
>  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!

Hmm...

There's an amusing cartoon in the 9/21/92 issue of The New Republic:

Frame 1:
	BUSH using some contraption.

Frame 2:
	BUSH sits up as someone else (MAN) walks in.

BUSH: I've pushed all the buttons and pulled all the levers.  When
      is the economy going to _improve_?

Frame 3:
	MAN reads from a piece of paper.

MAN: Currect forecast is early next year.

Frame 4:
	BUSH imagines a newspaper headline: "Clinton Inaugurated
	Yesterday -- Economy Improving Already"

BUSH: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO....

Subframe:

BUSH: Where's the accelerator?  No!  Where's the brake?

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:50:31 GMT

In article b@engin.umich.edu, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.174531.7539@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
|> 
>|> all deficits/debts are monetized, because we will always have some
>|> inflation.  but, govt. can increase the spending velocity.  This 
>|> swirls the pot instead of really adding more soup.  
>|> 
>
>I don't agree that all deficits/debts are monetized.  Borrowing money
>from people does not increase the supply of money any more than taking
>the money in the form of taxation increases the supply of money.
>If I run a deficit of $100 billion, and the $100 comes from investors,
>this means that the investors have given the government $100 billion.
>To eliminate the deficit, taxes would have to be raised $100 billion.
>This would mean that taxpayers have given the government $100 billion.
>How does one increase the money supply but not the other?

by monetized i mean eroded by inflation.  we just pay interest and 
not principle.  thus we keep an infinite length mortgate and just let
inflation erode that principle down to nothing.  
>
>The point is that interest rates (long and short term) are dropping
>not rising, even though our deficits are increasing.  If deficits have
>such a detrimental effect on interest rates, why are they dropping?
>

lower demand for capital because of the economy.  classic supply
and demand for money.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Re: Election predictions
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:03:45 GMT

In <9655@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:


>If Bush doesn't win re-election.  Anything Baker does on any of those 
>things is wasted motion anyway.  Clinton will bring in his own team
>and proceed to mold each of them in his image.  If you really want to
>keep Baker as secretary of state, the best way to do that would be
>to re-elect Bush.
Of course, if we re-elect Bush, we get Baker as Domestic Policy Czar.  I
have a funny feeling Baker was as surprised by that announcement as the
rest of us.  Interestingly, he was supposed to give a speech on his
domestic policy (today, I believe it was), but the White House canceled
it.
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:41:48 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <Oct.8.08.18.57.1992.4961@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
} In article <1992Oct8.012625.13596@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
} 
} > Well, certainly God is as entitled to his opinions on the subject as
} > is the next guy, but until and unless he comes up with a more rational
} > and compelling argument than "Because I say so" there isn't really any
} > reason I can see to follow his guidelines.
} 
} Except, of course, that God's opinions will carry somewhat greater
} weight on Judgement Day than will William D. Starr's.

Why?  Why would God give us free will, if He/She/It did not value our
own opinions?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:12:02 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

I'm looking for info here.  I heard a passing comment made by some one on 
a news-discussion panel about Perot's economic plan.  The commentator 
implied that Perot's plan would remove the tax deduction for interest on 
mortgage payments.

Any Perot supporters (or opposers) have any info on this?

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51442 alt.politics.elections:16509
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:01:55 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct12.212458.5626@csrd.uiuc.edu>, saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
> 
> [here someone else that I have accidentally erased]
>>> independent of who is President and what he does.  A Clinton/Gore win
>>> in 1992 will lead to
>>> 
>>>      Clinton/Gore in 1996
>>> 
>>>      Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)
>>> 
>>>      Gore/Braun in 2004
>>> 
>>Wrong, Bush will get it this year, VERY, VERY close and then Kemp in '96.
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Please post the data that you base your prediction on [of a close Bush 
> victory]! Does this mean that all those polls are wrong? Do all of those
> who are polled lie (actually, do both rep's and dem's lie)? I can understand
> a 4 % difference but in many states the difference is 10 % (very much
> above a sample error).
> 
> I and many others are waiting to hear from you!
> 
> Sirpa Saarinen
> saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu


This is almost too easy. I base the prediction on the past. The polls will
change dramatically in the last week or two, if you don't believe me, as
Carter in '80. I think Clinton peaked too soon and Perot will be more of a
factor then most believe. There have been so many instances of polls being
wrong in the past, that I can't take them all that seriously. Examples:
Roosevelt vs. Landon, Truman vs. Dewey, this years elections in England,
'90 N. Carolina senate race, Ferraro's 20 point lead 2 weeks before the NY
primary. How many more do you want. It is a fact that people make up there
minds for good about 1 to 2 weeks before the election!! Also I believe 
Clintons support is very soft, I remember about 3 to 4 months ago, Ron
Brown was running through the halls of congress looking for someone to run
against Clinton. Now the top Demo's have no choice and they are all backing
Clinton.


The bottom line is I maybe wrong about a Bush election (I thing I am right),
but it certainly will not be a landslide as I have read many times on this
news group.

No matter the result, I only have to wait 4 more years for a Kemp presidency.

Ken
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:50:16 GMT

In article <PA146008.360.718475885@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.023151.18526@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>As pointed out, ad nauseum, they might have rejected the inclusion of such
>>a limitation for any number of reasons including that they considered them
>>unnecessary or that they wished to leave the matter to the states (where
>>it is currently being resolved) or, more likely, they just didn't consider it
>>appropriate or a good idea. To infer they they considered it somehow contrary
>>to other provisions in the Constitution is an incredible leap of logic.
>>
>>To continue the analogy, if someone had proposed a prohibition on child
>>molestation and it was voted down, unanimously because everyone considered it
>>to be a state, and not a national issue (as it is), then this would have
>>make such laws unconstitutional?
>
>     I believe you're missing a point.  Child molestation laws are not dealt
>with in the Constitution, but eligibility to Congress is.  What requirements 
>a Congressmen must meet are set out in the Constitution.  Term limitations
>would add another criteria ("has not served more than two/three/four 
>previous terms"), and you can't do that without amending the Constitution.

No, I am afraid it is you that is missing the point. Whatever merit
such an occupation of the issue argument might have with respect to
criteria (and note that no arguments have been put forward that the
Constitution was intended to fully occupy this issue), it is not even
remotely related to the term limitations being proposed in the umpteen
states in November.

Let me quote:

  The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and 
  Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature
  thereof;...
     -- Article I, Section 4, US Constitution (Unabridged Edition)

What the proposed limitations say, in effect, is that no representative who
has outlived his permitted term in office, may have his name appear on the
printed voting card. Thus, these limitations are on the MANNER of elections;
a representatave can always run as a write in like the rest of us.

In order to find such a term limit unconstitutional, the court will have to
find that Republicrats and Demopublicans have a Constitutional Right! to
have their name appear on the ballot while other parties, not to mention
ordinary tax payers like you and me, do not.

Whatever merit your "criteria" arguments may have, they are irrelevant. (Of
course, if we are talking about a "living" constitution, constitutionality
is merely a majority of Supreme Court opinion.)

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51257 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6721 alt.politics.clinton:9979 alt.politics.bush:8817
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:23:33 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct12.212452.12926@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

MW:If the family leave policy were the only difference between the US and
MW:Germany, you might have a point.  As it is I claim that other advanteges
MW:they have over us allow them to bear the burden of family leave and
MW:still compete.  

>Such as?

Cultural homogeniety.  Much lower crime rates.  Non-existent capital gains
taxes.  To name a few.
-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (re: 2nd Debate)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:31:00 GMT

b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>He's a Party-Pawn plain and simple. And he won't dare upset the 
>incumbents by putting his own ASS on the line.
>
>Goodbye MR. Clinton. 

Are you leaving the country?

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:10:10 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>to keep local cable companies a monopoly.  The bill included
>an interesting section on rebroadcast but then ruined the notion
>by requiring cable companies to carry local stations (an idea
>which has been ruled unconstitutional).  Local cable companies
>are now presented with the need to negotiate an appropriate fee
>from local broadcasters without the ability to not carry the
>local broadcast if they don't agree to the fee.  What idiocy!
>Of course, nothing Congress does surprises me.

Cable companies won't have to negotiate with local broadcast stations.
The section that requires negotiation says that things under section 614
are exceptions, and section 614 is where the requirement to carry
local stations is located.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Stop preaching and try personal Responsibility (Was: Choice for life)
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 07:05:14 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In article <1992Oct6.064229.23498@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu
writes:
>And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.

Is this because no MOTAS would have you?  Or is it (gasp) your *choice*?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Time "Letters to the Editor" fax number
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:17:50 GMT


Incidentally, Time Customer Service suggested that I send
a fax or letter to "Letters to the Editor" -- 1-212-522-0601.

Also incidentally, earlier in the campaign I called Bill CLinton's
800 number to find that it had been disconnected.  I had to go to
some trouble to do this, but finally tracked it down by calling
a non-800-number in Little Rock.  Apparently there had been
a deluge of phone calls threatening the life of Hilary and their
daughter and BilL Clinton which appeared to be made by about 20
"pro-life" activists as often and continuously as they could make
them.  I see that the number is now back in service, but now there
is  a long wait until someone answers -- either they really are
busy or this is a 'cooling off' period....



===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton question
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:07:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.220017.14370@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <farenebt.718646924@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>>I dunno about you but I'd have SERIOUS questions about
>>anyone who turned down a Rhodes Scholarship to the most
>>prestigious university in the world so that he could
>>kill some soldiers in Vietnam.
>
>Well, first off, given that Clinton apparently spent little time
>studying I hardly think he would have missed much.
>
>Secondly, I hardly find it surprising that you would find it difficult
>to understand someone who cares enough about his country to fight in
>its wars, or, for that matter, someone with enough personal honor that
>they would not use their privileged position to avoid fighting in a
>war in which the less well-connected were frced to serve.

There was a letter in today's NY Times from an Air Force vetern, a
Clinton contemporary.  He noted that the best graduates from the
service academies (West Point, Annapolis, etc) would compete for the
Rhodes, and would avoid serving in Vietnam.  These students were
advised to do this by their commanders: it was seen as being more
useful to the country.

Caring about one's country does NOT mean one has to fight in every war
we get into.  What happened to honorable dissent?


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.elections
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:18:09 GMT

Summary: Randall Terry on Clinton

In article <1992Oct8.213039.5726@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.203748.6703@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)   writes...
> >In article <56.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
> >>Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
> >>followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
> >>Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
> >>demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
> >>of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
> >>come clean with the American people?"
> > 
> >Wow!  Good question!  Come to think of it:  Bill Clinton,
> >where were you on July 30, 1976, the day my stereo 
> >was stolen?  Come Clean!!
> > 
> I think we're on to something here. Could it be that Bill Clinton is 
> really the anit-christ (or a liberal, the same thing).
> 
> >| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
> > 
> -Garrett

perhaps you're kidding, but Randall Terry (of operation resuce)
has pretty much said the same thing.  He said a vote for
Clinton was a sin against God.   so far  they suggested he's 
a liberal, an intellectual, a traitor, - so can "anti_christ" be
far behind.  I expect Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to express
an opinion on this before the election.

marc colten


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:53:44 GMT

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>Okay, let's grant gas companies monopolies in various cities so that they can
>>charge whatever price they want to for a gallon of gas.
>
>     Let's not "grant" them anything.  You see, that was the point.  What
>the local government did *was* grant them a monopoly, which the federal 
>government then decided had to be regulated.
>     If the monopoly was the problem, why didn't the federal government just
>tell the local governments they couldn't grant those monopolies?

In many urban areas, cable must run underground.  How do you *NOT* have a
monopoly in such a situation?  Should the city allow anyone who wants to
start a cable company to tear up the streets and disrupt traffic to put
in their own cable?  Also, competition would not be effective in most
cases because many of the cable companies also own or control the sources
of programming, and won't let competing delivery systems buy rights to
use the programming.

You also have your history wrong.  The local governments granted the cable
companies *regulated* monopolies, which the federal government *unregulated*,
leading to the situation that the Cable Act is trying to fix.

--Tim Smith
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dornan a Conservative? (was moscow)
Date: 9 Oct 92 06:18:00 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <ld6knlINN1cl@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
: Michael Friedman) writes:
: |> Michael Polen) writes:
: |> 
: |> 
: |> >We are certainly getting a lot of milage out of an admittedly
: |> >speculative comment made by Robert Dornan, a congressman
: |> >that is to the right of Falwell.  
: |> 
: |> Mind explaining what makes you think Dornan is right of Falwell?
: |> After all, Falwell is pretty much a single issue kook and his exact
: |> position on the left-right line is kind of hard to pin down.
: 
: I'll buy that.  He is actually at, or to the left of, Buchanon and
: matches Falwell on religious issues.  He is Rush L. with political
: office. 
: 
: As to why do I think this?  More than a year watching his
: show, his voting record, his campaign speeches, his appearances on
: night-line and other shows supporting homophobic, fundamentalist
: agendas, this crap about Clinton's visiting Moscow indicating
: KGB ties, etc.

That his views are akin to Rush's is substantiated by the fact
that he substitutes for Rush when Rush is on vacation, at
least some of the time.

He would certainly agree that he is very conservative; he
would consider that a compliment.
-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com