HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: === NEWS FLASH: Clinton Denies All Charges ===
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:33:08 GMT
Organization: FYL, Seattle, WA

In article <1992Apr11.170851.8827@athena.mit.edu> dks@athena.mit.edu (dks) writes:
>
>While your extrapolation "from numerous recent news reports" must be judged
>by a different standard, its _verisimilitude_ would have been improved if you
>had spelt Hillary Clinton's name correctly.

Yes, once again the media has attacked me unnecessarily.  It is clear
that this misspelling of my wife's name has been caused by Brown
agents in the media. And we must analyze how his flat tax proposal
will increase the tax burdon on anyone who was considering voting for
him in their primary.  And, further, this plot against me ...

-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@cpac.washington.edu or fyl@fylz.wa.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:39:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.175520.21422@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.104905.1543@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Apr13.071317.19709@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, 
>>c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) said:
>>
>>> Perhaps it is Congress that should get down to business.  Bush
>>> gave his state of the Union address back in January.  He set the
>>> March 20 deadline..  well, where has the Congress been?
>>
>>I think that mostly they've been standing around, staring at George
>>Bush as if he was some strange visitor from another planet and
>>wondering from where he got the weird idea that the Chief Executive
>>has the authority to set deadlines for the Legislative branch.
>
> ...
>What exactly are you saying?  That the President doesn't have the right to
>tell Congress to act in the State of the Union Address? ...

Yes, I think that may be what he's saying.  Anyway, _I_ am.  Ever hear
about separation of powers?  Do people from different departments in
your company/school (I didn't check) go around telling you what to do?

Bush may be the head of the armed forces, but it's not his job to tell
the Congress "You have to enact such-and-such a law by this time."
This is usually called dictatorship.

NB: I'm not calling Bush a dictator.

God, I love jumping into these things ...
From: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Vote for Hitler, Stalin or Marrou
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:48:20 GMT
Reply-To: ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

Keywords:  Tough Decision

> Article <6483@shodha.enet.dec.com> From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)

> So, does that mean that you'll wait until the day before the election and
> check the polls, then vote for whoever is in the lead so it's "your
> {wo}man" that's elected?  Does it mean that you'll blindly vote for
> whatever candidate, no matter what their views, based on party
> affiliation?  If your choices were Hitler, Stalin, or Andre Marrou would
> you vote for Hitler or Stalin because they represented the two major
> parties?

Gee thats a tough one .....

Thats like choosing which of the four plagues are your favorite.

In this case the best vote would be "None of the Above";  I would
feel very guilty about electing any of them.

-- 
Glenn Host - Senior Systems Analyst (ghost@ra.nrl.navy.mil)
NRL Code 5800, 4555 Overlook Ave.; Washington, DC 20375   (202) 767-2046
12307 Tigers Eye Court ; Reston, VA 22091                 (703) 620-1141 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tphili@eos.ncsu.edu (TEEBU  PHILIP)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,dartmouth.politics
Subject: Re: Tsongas` chances
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:43:36 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr9.175946.27829@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner) writes:
|> In <1992Apr6.153804.29968@news.larc.nasa.gov> luis@icase.edu (Luis Gomes) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> New York was suprise for me. I expected Brown to do a lot better than he
|> did. In the end Tsongas isn't coming back because Brown embarrassed
|> Clinton but because Tsongas embarrassed Brown. I think the reason Brown
|> may have done so badly is because he and Tsongas are still splitting up
|> the anti-Clinton vote. 

I am not real suprised by the NY primary ... Could you have imagined Jerry
Brown getting a majority in any state ... even California?  I can't.  With
Tsongas not campaigning, that left only one - Slick Willie.

|> To be honest, I'm not sure if he is still trying for a win in '92 or
|> laying the groundwork for an 'I told you so' campaign in '96. Either way
|> his chances for the nomination (IMO) aren't that great.

Tsongas has a tslim to no chance of winning in '96, for there is no way he
would win 1 tsouthern primary, much less a tsouthern tstate in the general
election.  I'm sorry about the extra t's, I had to do it.

|> clout put together he might get offered a Veep position or maybe a cabinet
|> post type of offer but I hope and pray that Tsongas has more pride than
|> George Bush did in 1980.

From what I've seen of Tsongas, he is a man of integrity and especially
pride.  Monkeys would have to fly out of the Slickster's butt before
Tsongas took the Veep.  Sorry, just cant help myself.


|> If Tsongas loses the nomination and Clinton wins I expect Clinton to lose
|> horribly and then we get to suffer for 4 more years.

IMHO, it would have to take another Black Monday on the stock market for
George Bush to lose this year.  With an already slimy Dem. presidential
nominee, all Bush has to do is link him to Congress and especially the
House Bank & Post Office.

Clinton's attack on Bush as the do-nothing president will be just as 'muddy'.
I am really tired of these issueless presidential campaigns.

Tsongas could have effectively run against Washington, but then again there
is no way the party hacks in Washington would ever let him get the nomination.
Tsongas would have still lost, but his campaign would have been fun to see for
he stuck to issues.  Even though I dont agree with many of his policies, he
raised the level of debate and the tenor of the campaign in the begining.
I probably would have voted for him, if he got to the NC primary on May 5, just
because the opposition was SOOOOOOO weak.


Teebu Philip
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:649 talk.politics.misc:17555
From: philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Summary: Perot's leadership strategy
Keywords: strong leader?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:27:07 GMT
Followup-To: t.p.misc
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR

In article <1992Apr9.010141.5817@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour) writes:
>
>>Well, the dopey American public is well on its way to making the U.S. a
>>first rate third world country.  And there aren't too many third world
>>countries with stable governments.  We NEED a strong leader since we
>>obviously can't do it ourselves.
>
Then I am not confident that Perot is the person you want.  Perot has a
clear vision of what he intends to do with his presidency and it obviously
isn't taking care of the country for you.  If you find Perot personality
endearing that is one thing, but rest assured that Perot is about turning
you and every other owner of this country into informed and interested
participants.  The country is in too much trouble to leave it in the hands
of one man.

>Speak for yourself, bud.
>
>I don't WANT or need a paternalistic government runing my life any
>more.
>
>   don

That's for sure.  Allowing the government to operate without the oversight
of the rightful owners has gotten us all in a lot of trouble.  It's time
we take back the government.  The incumbents have gone too far.  Apparently
the party politicos forgot the most important checks and balances, US!
-- 
They did not call it the career politician office, they did not call it the
public relations office, they did not call it the wealthy elite office;
no, when the drafters of our Constitution set down in words the foundations of
our great country they spoke to the voters of the 1992 Presidential election.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: A few questions for President Bush
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:05:59 GMT

>
>4. Your team has been at the helm for 12 years now. The S&L
>   problem was born, bred and is now being bust within these
>   12 years. How is it that the eagle-eyed Republican 
>   Administration which prides itself on saving expenses
>   let this assume such monstrous proportions? If you were
>   not aware of it, what have you been doing, playing golf
>   with Ronnie and Danny?

   I would not begin to claim that Reagan was innocent on this one,
but he did try to put a stop to it when it was "only" a $15 billion
dollar problem as was blocked by congressmen who were receiving
large sums of money from the S&L lobby.

  If I recall correctly, my source is "What Went Wrong With America."
Perhaps someone else can add to this.


Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: How to modify my kill files (yes, really!)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:40:40 GMT

Just as a note, how do I keep certain authors out of my reader?  Call
me an ostrich, but if I see one more post about "Just look to the Libs
for new ideas" and "such-and-such are closet Libertarians" I'm gonna
puke.  And who wants that?

Of course, I'm not suggesting that everyone should strike the
Libertarians from their reading.  After all, they got 11 votes in NH
:-).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 07:32:34 GMT

tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:

>gliesche> The LP strives to apply a consistent philosophy to social and
>gliesche> political problems - not just a mish-mash of whatever works for
>gliesche> the current month.

>Or, to put it another way, the LP strains to blindly apply their dogmatic
>principles to everything, no matter how little sense it makes in many
>situations.

Little sense?  You mean when it differs from your own basic
principles.  The difference being that we state ours.


>I much prefer a candidate who is not welded to some idiotic dogma, but is
>willing to consider innovative solutions to problems based on a case by
>case analysis of the real world problem and an analysis of the proposed
>solutions.

Yes, willing to say whatever it takes to be relected.  And how tell
are you going to get an analysis of the proposed solutions that isn't
affected at all by your philosophy?  And assuming they can get one,
are they going to implement it even if it runs counter to that?  It's
the difference between stated and unstated principles again, except
that you can never predict exactly whether they're going to choose to
violate someone else's rights in any given situation.

>I also prefer a candidate who will be willing to do a little
>"outcomes research" on existing programs and stop the ones that aren't
>working and cancel any future programs which don't work out as expected.

And a libertarian is precluded from this?


>The doubt about Ross Perot leaves open the hope that he may be such a
>candidate. 

True.  The less detail you're willing to go into about what you stand
for, the more people will support you.  Tsongas learned that the hard way.

-- 
If you're feeling good, don't worry; you'll get over it.
From: tami@niktow.canisius.edu (Tami Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Summary: Why is it bad to want to be president?
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:14:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208

In article <1992Apr11.170556.11265@udel.edu>, lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
> 
> Now, to be fair, I will tell you why I don't like Clinton. He seems
> to have had his sights on the Presidency since he was in college.
> All his political alliances, his actions, and even his friendships
> seem to be calculated at helping his eventual run for the White House.
> However, since I don't live in Arkansas, I don't know if Clinton is
> like Bush in that he wants the Presidency just to say he had it, or
> if he really has an idea of where he wants the country to go. If
> the choice comes down to Bush and Clinton, a have to pick "possible
> vision" over "no vision". However, Perot defintely bears looking into.
> 

Why is it considered bad to want to be president?  It seems to
me that there used to be a saying that anybody could
grow up to be president, and that was something to aspire to.
It's hard for me to imagine someone being good at a job
they don't want and/or don't like.

Probably all presidential candidates at least start out with
the idea that they can make a difference.  I think the problem
with Bush is that when he became Reagan's VP, he gave up
his own ideas (he never cared for Reagan's 'voo-doo economics')
and when he became president he felt he had to carry on 
the Reagan legacy instead of his own.   

Maybe Clinton won't be able to make a difference, but it
seems that he *wants* to and that he *believes* he can.
I would argue that wanting and believing are 
necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for being
a good president.

I think Bush wants to be president, but does not believe
he can make a difference.  That's why he is making
so many obviously politically motiviated moves - he
wants to win but has no particular agenda to pursue
so does whatever he thinks will aid him politically.

I think Perot wants to be president because he 
thinks he can make a difference.
-- 

Name: Tami L. Crawford           | Computer Science Dept
Email: tami@canisius.edu         | Canisius College
Phone: (716) 888-2433            | Buffalo, NY 14208
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Regulations
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:11:49 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Apr12.182123.15725@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.120224.10993@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>|> One last point, Jason's argument seems premised on the fact that
>|> gov't have evil intentions and that in a free competitive market
>|> (the model of which does not exist) no problems of cartels and lack
>|> of information etc. will happen.  IF govet is evil why is big
>|> business so trustworthy?
>
>Business has profit as its sole motivation. Profit is gained by giving people
>goods and sevices in exchange for money. People will only agree to such an
>exchange if they are convince that it is in their best interests. Therefore, in
>order for a business to make profit, it must do things that people think are good
>for them.
>
>The motivations of government are power and popularity.

John Kenneth Galbraith makes a strong argument against this
in his new book, _The Culture of Contentment_.  Should I start
citing?
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: The Journal & Brown's Tax
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<1992Apr3.005744.27953@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<1992Apr6.215234.6361@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<PMETZGER.92Apr8100529@snark.shearson.com>
	<Apr.9.11.31.40.1992.2405@math.rutgers.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:27:14 GMT

In article <Apr.9.11.31.40.1992.2405@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

   pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

   > Again, I'm not a supporter of Brown, but the Journal had an angry
   > editorial slamming Clinton for misrepresenting their views. The
   > Journal supports the idea of a flat tax.

   It is possible to support a flat tax without liking Brown's proposal.
   In particular, a flat tax should have a high standard deduction and
   the VAT should exclude necessities like food, clothing, education,
[rest deleted]

I don't think you read my message. Repeating.

I am no supporter of Brown or of his plans; I'm just noting that the
Wall Street Journal was very angry that Clinton out and out lied and
said that they opposed Brown's flat tax plan, which they never said.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government governs best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Stop beating the Horse (was RE: regulations)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:23:10 GMT

In article <sauiaINN11m@agate.berkeley.edu>, jorourke@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
|> It's dead.  
|> Let's go on to other things in life. 

I'm going to do something very unusually for me and agree. I'll be responding to
all future posts by e-mail.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Flat Tax
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:31:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

> Again, I'm not a supporter of Brown, but the Journal had an angry
> editorial slamming Clinton for misrepresenting their views. The
> Journal supports the idea of a flat tax.

It is possible to support a flat tax without liking Brown's proposal.
In particular, a flat tax should have a high standard deduction and
the VAT should exclude necessities like food, clothing, education,
medicine, shelter, etc.  Also, Brown has been all over the board with
his VAT proposal.  In each new press release, we see a different
incarnation of the VAT.  It's hard to defend a proposal that doesn't
seem to exist in a coherent form yet.

--Scott
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:33:15 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Rich and Fair Share
Distribution: usa

>What an irrelevent figure!  If the top few percent got their assets by
>sending goons with guns and clubs to take the money from the other 97-99%
><then you might have a case.  But that isn't what happens.  These "evil"
>rich people aren't generally increasing their wealth by means of force or
>fraud, although in the cases where they are they should be called to task
>for it.  What you are really saying is that people should be punished for
>success, whether honestly or fraudulently obtained.  You essentially
>equate Ivan Boesky and Sam Walton and claim that since both are in the
>top 1% they should be punished via taxation. 
>Hal Berenson	

Much More of the above deleted.

My only point is that the policies enacted by the regan/Bush
administrations allowed the Very rich in this country to increase their
wealth enormously.I believe that the policies should be changed to take
back some of what was-given- to these people.They could not have gained
so much with out the changes ushered in by the republicans and I see
nothing wrong restructuring the taxes codes so that the seperation of
the very rich and very poor is not further extended.
   I believe that people making a lot of money should pay more taxes.
Read alot of money as anything over 250,000 dollars in TAXABLE income.
So that even after they have deducted and Tax sheletered every thing
they can it is clear that they are making a lot of money. A surchage on
all Taxable income above 1 milion and a increase in inheritance and Gift
taxes for large amounts should also be in place.

   If the present trend in the seperation of the classes continues the
results will be a poorer and less safe country for everyone.
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: PAC's Lets have a real democracy
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:10:48 GMT
	<EduuKVe00h5yQx1FM8@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<1992Apr15.001430.28554@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1992Apr15.212438.654@chinet.chi.il.us>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
In-reply-to: pat@chinet.chi.il.us's message of 15 Apr 92 21:24:38 GMT

pat>   Does anyone out there know the ins and outs of the current campaign
pat> finance reform Bill?

pat>   I've heard Democrats claim it's great and Republicans claim it favors 
pat> incumbents too much.  (If I were idealistic I would hope the Repulbicans
pat> were saying they want another bill that doesn't favor incumbents.  Our
pat> current system certainly "favors incumbents.")

pat>   Anyone know the "real" (not political) effects?

There are no "real" effects. The current bill is just like the last bill.
It is a sham passed by the House (but not the Senate) just prior to the
break in the session before the election. All the Congresscritters can now
go home and talk about this wonderful bill they passed, then fool around
with it until after the election, at which time it will die in the
conference committe or some other equally convenient hole.

This has happened to campaign reform bills before, and you would think the
people would figure it out eventually...
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
From: cedman@714-725-3177.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Flat Tax lowers taxes on poor
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:46:40 GMT
Distribution: usa

Daniel M. Rosenberg writes
> Brown's flat tax proposal includes a value-added tax.
> That means that lower-income consumers -- who spend most
> of their disposable income instead of investing it by
> necessity on things like food and clothes -- will be taxed
> on all of it. Meanwhile, the rich get to avoid the
> value-added tax on the money they don't save. 
[ You certainly mean they avoid the "VAT" on money which
they _do_ save ?] 

There may be good arguments against a flat tax but this argument  
doesn't get less silly by constant repetition. In the long run people  
of all incomes tend to spend exactly as much as they earn. True -  
wealthy people earn more and tend to spend less on food. On the other  
hand, they tend to spend a lot more money on yachts and BMWs on which  
they would pay the same "VAT" (which it is debatable that Mr. Browns  
proposal is). People who earn more than they spend at one point in time  
and instead save their money (not necessarily something which ought to  
be discouraged) do not intend to save that money for ever. Instead they  
will spend it later on and pay the "VAT" not only on the original sum  
but also on the interest they earned. The difference between paying the  
"VAT" up front on saved money and paying it later on is purely nominal.

	carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections