HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:06:10 GMT

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:

>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.

    Once again, I have to ask, who the hell else are they going to vote for?

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

    Obviously not, looking at the polls.  Popular perception is that he's only
for raising taxes among the upper 2% who aren't paying enough now.

--
    Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
One of the richest men in the world made his billions selling a toy "operating
system" that is more accurately described as a glorified bootstrap loader.
                                                  -- Phil Karn
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye)
Subject: Re: "I can even forgive Bush for Dan Quayle, but not for this."
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:39:42 GMT

In article <a6rnv8h.hrlaser@netcom.com> hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser) writes:
>>
>>But really now, you can't be serious that the MEDIA should get the `gold
>>medal'!  What the hell do they do? 
>
>                                          Which makes me wonder if
>the reporters or camera crews ever actually DO hand a starving kid
>
>Harv
>
Like, and we voted for these guys to fix all these problems, and, like,
all they do is take pictures and rag on the President.  Like, somebody
should vote these media out of office like they should do to those liberals
and stuff like that.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: forbush@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: opinions 
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:03:09 GMT

I am currently living in Germany, although my German is 
not the greatest. Last night I heard on the news that Bush
said the following:

"I have opinions. I have strong opinions.
But sometimes I disagree with them."

Did I translate this correctly? Did Bush really say this,
or did Quayle say it?

--
Mike Forbush
forbush@panofsky.desy.de
 
 America is great, because America is free.
       -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:13:11 GMT

Give it up Branley.  You coudln't be more wrong on this issue.  Everytime the
blame goes back to Chiles you somehow twist it around and try to blame it on
Bush.  Your rantings are getting very boring.

Jeff.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Leaving this group...
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:42:22 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

Just wanted to say 'good-bye,' sort of.  Keeping up with this group along with
alt.politics.clinton and alt.politics.elections is becoming an exercise in
redundancy.  So, sorry if I haven't responded to anything that hasn't been
cross-posted to one of those two, but I'm cutting out of this one.  It's been
fun, but time-consuming.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:26:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.192329.28707@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>Let's try the obvious experiment.  We'll let the experts from Canada
>run health care in NYC, DC, Chicago, and/or LA.  They get to pay for
>it using whatever money they can extract from the region covered,
>which won't kick in for health care costs for other regions.  (If the
>Canadian system doesn't allow tax deductions for medical payments,
>they disappear in the region, but if the system uses taxes, so can
>they.  In other words, they can set up the same paying system.)  We're
>promised savings, so let's see the system pay for itself in the US.
>Note that the experts don't get to change the malpractice system
>and have to do it with the populations in those regions.
>
>Since those regions have more people than many of the countries that
>are so successful, they're obviously big enough.
>

Such an experiment exists in the United States...a crude type of pay-or
play is in place in Hawaii.  Better health outcomes and lower costs
are the result.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Congress above the law (Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:47:44 GMT

In article <BuDMDr.Bx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:

>
>gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story) writes:
>: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>
>: >If the thought he [Bush] was above the law, he'd have said "Piss on this
>: >stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts
>: >himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
>: >the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the
>: >results of due process.)
>:
>: Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
>
>Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
>write bad checks?

     As far as the House bank went, no Rep. *ever* wrote a bad check.
Every check written was covered by other people's money.  What the
Congressmen did was get free over-draft protection, a service that
most people would have to pay for at their own banks.
     Congress likes to play by different rules, but they generally
do play within *their* rules, at least technically.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5038 alt.politics.elections:13065 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3701 talk.politics.guns:20917 talk.politics.misc:45329
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:17:32 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep2.202410.1569@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) said:
>In article <1992Sep1.161349.24795@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>>Yes, and those that work the best look just like the well-known stereotype
>>of the "traditional family." Families without fathers (for whatever reason)
>>or families without mothers (for whatever reason) or families with
>>step-parents are simply not as successful in raising happy and successful
>>children. This isn't some sort of half-baked morality argument... it
>>is a pragmatic one.
>
>And according to the Republicans, the things to do about it are to make
>no-fault divorce illegal (implied by William Benett's speech at the
>convention anyway, who listed it as one of the causes), ban abortions,
>and institute a school voucher system.  Pragmatism at work, I see.
>
>I suppose another thing we could do is to confiscate the children of
>single parents and put them in some kind of government regulated
>homes.

Don't forget Keith, you'd have to shoot these women else the sluts will
just go out and get knocked up again.  Either that or strap them down and
force them to watch Donna Reed reruns.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Life, problems
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 18:37:48 GMT


	I think from reading this net I have discerned the two major
philosophies which prevail.

	One philosophy states that, as long as there is freedom and
life, a person can eventually overcome and solve their problems.
This is the platform of the Right-wing groups. Governmental policies
which restrict freedom are frowned upon.  Interpersonal actions
which result in death or enslavement are also frowned upon.  Thus,
the Republican party is pro-life, believing that a child born into
a poor family has the chance of improving his state, and is also
anti-drugs, believing that addiction to drugs is a form of enslavement,
which was fought against by Republicans in the Civil War.  The
'right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are tantamount.
Right-wingers would rather that extra policies which the government
might undertake be done by States, since if the policy was a bad decision,
one can move or alter the state's law without having to worry about having
developed a massive unhealthy dependency upon that policy. Thus Democracy
is seen as fallible, and rightly so.
	The other philosophy, that of the left-wingers, traces itself
back to Alexander Hamilton. This philosophy asserts that through Democracy,
great things can be done to improve the living conditions.  In that
sense, its is similar to the philosophy of Rousseau and the French
Revolutionaries.  In this philosophy, the 'joy of life' is tantamount.
They would prefer to allow a person who would be to never exist given the
great discomfort which would be presented to the person or its family.
Thus, things which would make society 'ugly' or 'painful,' etc., would
be removed.  Enslavement has been and remains, in altered form, a
recognized stand of the left-wing.  The southern U.S., with yes,
its racist rednecks, is in fact dominated by the Democratic party.
	So, if you are a left-winger, be ye radical or moderate left,
and you believe in the joy of life, then you will vote for that leftist
candidate who has the best chance of winning the race and allowing
leftist policies to be legislated.
	And, if you are a right-winger, whether a moderate Republican
or a Libertarian, if wise, you would also recognize the very real
threat to your faith in the ability of mankind to solve its problems,
and would likewise vote for the candidate who has got the surest chance
of winning the presidential race to at least prevent a left-winger from
getting in power.

				J. Wagner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:47:35 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:
>
>[lots of stuff deleted...]
>
>>
>>    I don't mind if a politician, even Clinton, changes his mind
>> occasionally as long as he can convince me that he is sincere.  As far as
>> sacrificing for his personal beliefs, the 'liberal' media has declared that
>> a majority of the public, even the Republican party, is pro-choice, so how
>> can remaining pro-life help Bush?  If he changed his mind again, I think
>> I'd question his sincerity {:^) .  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.

   Pro-choice with restrictions is a view held by the majority of people in
this country.

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

   Again, a majority of eligible voters are in favor of raising taxes on
upper income folks.

>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.

  A majority of voters are willing to cut defense more if it means more in
their pocket through either some other government program or lower taxes.

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

  I think Clinton is one of the biggest panderers to come around in years.
A real leader would espouse the twin unpopular views that the rich should
pay more for and the rest of us should get less from government.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:28:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep3.222632.2793@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

[Previous dialog and ad hominem rebuttal deleted.]

>
>If the thought he [Bush] was above the law, he'd have said "Piss on this
>stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts 
>himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
>the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the 
>results of due process.)

Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?

[One paragraph deleted]
>
>Try for a *real* example now: you know, one where he totally
>ignores the law and does whatever the hell he wants anyway.
>
I agree with you criteria, and invite you to apply them to Congress.  
Let me add that when Congress passes a law which excludes them from its
provisions, I consider it sneaky and reprehensible, but not "above the law."

[Remainder deleted.]

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: Tree huggers, Bud-chugging-hairy-backed-red-necked-conservatives
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:17:37 GMT

ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:

>Wait a minute.  Your not really saying that sex ed is pointless are you?
>There is a lot to be learned about birth control, I can't believe that
>15 year old girls, who are not mentally retarded actually _want_ to
>have children.  

You haven't been around much.  You should try doing volunteer work in youth
programs.  It might expand your horizons just a little.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:16:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.124824.4843@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>  Just a comment to all those who want to blame Reagan, Bush, and the
>>Republicans for every problem in the country.  One big cause of our
>>economic problems which I don't hear being mentioned is credit cards.

...

>4)  While I'm sure that people overused credit cards during the 80s 
>expansion, they also overused other forms of credit as well.  
>Actually, this is not terribly surprising and was largely a worldwide
>phenomenon.  When people are in an expansion as successful as the 80s,
>they tend to borrow against future earnings as if those earnings will
>continue to increase at their current rate.  In other words, if
>a person goes from earning $20k to $30k over 5 years, the tend to
>borrow as if they are going to go to $45k over the next 5 years. 
>Since household incomes increased rapidly during the 80s expansion,
>people borrowed more expecting the trend to continue.

It seems like the government was following the same philosophy in their
spending.

...

>>tried to stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates, but most people
>>are so deep in debt from the eighties that they can't take advantage of it.
>>What scares me now is the sudden wave of big companies (GM, GE, ATT, etc.)
>>putting out their own 'brand' of credit cards, trying to squeeze the last
>>drops of blood from a credit hungry society.  I suppose that it might help
>>increase consumer spending and get us out of the recession, but I fear it
>>may put your average consumer into an even deeper debt hole.
>
>  I think this fear is unfounded.  As you point out, people are 
>refusing to borrow.  As I pointed out, debt levels as a percent of
>after tax income have been decreasing as they do during recessions
>and (apparently) slow growth periods.  People are unlikely to borrow
>more just because more credit cards enter the market.  What people
>_are_ likely to do is switch their debt to more competitive cards
>with lower interest rates.

That's what I did.  {:^)

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4803 alt.politics.clinton:5018 alt.politics.elections:12903
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 ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:40:31 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:

> [NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS (almost) HUMOR.  This has been a warning for the
> humor-impaired.]

Gotta watch those liberal-speak terms like humor-impaired.  <g>.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:56:40 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:


>Websters dictionary only defines it as "having more than one
>sexual partner."  Websters electronic dictionary defines it as "not limited
>to one sexual partner."  Neither definition even implies that the two or
>more relations occur in the same time frame.  By Webster's definition,
>if you have sexual intercourse before marriage with someone other than
>your spouse, you are promiscuous.  So what.

Note that by Webster's definition, a person who is widowed then 
remarries is promiscuous.

						--  Michal

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:47:46
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<188issINNnhk@early-bird.think.com>
	<1992Sep5.025834.11343@news.columbia.edu>
	<1992Sep5.153736.6743@dscomsf.desy.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: hallam@zeus02.desy.de's message of Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:37:36 GMT

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

   Wot no Quayle vs Gore debate!

Speaking of which, I'd love to hear Lloyd Bentsen or some other senior
Democrat tell Bush "Mr. President, you're no Harry Truman."

Actually, I think that Quayle's public speaking has improved
considerably since that debate, even though he isn't saying any more
than he did four years ago.

BTW, it's about time someone called Bush on the "tax and spend" issue,
particularly after the blatant handouts of the past week (the grain
export subsidy and the sale of aircraft to Taiwan).
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:38:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.055553.4593@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>What do you and people making over $200,000 a year have in common?
>
>
>
>You'll all be paying more in taxes during a Clinton administration!
>
>Tonight on CNN's Crossfire Robert Novak asked senior Clinton campaign
>advisor Frank Greer point blank THREE times "Will Bill Clinton guarantee
>people making under $200,000 a year that they will not have their taxes
>raised during a Clinton administration?"  He ducked the question THREE
>times when all it required was a simple yes or no.  What's the Clinton
>campaign trying to hide?  Better hold on to your wallet, there's some
>'slick' fingers trying to grab it!
>
 
    In case you don't know, the wallets of a lot people, (A MAJORITY OF
PEOPLE, if I am going to use your terminglogy), have been taken away by
Bush and Reagan.  

   More rambling:    I don't know which eutopia heavan you live in, but ask
some people around Cleveland, Parma, Lorain,  maybe you are not that 
"republican" (may I call it stupid, sorry, I really want to say this to you)
to know that there is reality and real world and real life just so near 
you.  Your brain (or lack of it) may be in an imagined eutopia where "majoriy
of people are well employed, enjoy better life, and blah blah blah...", 
but I dare you to look around your physical being and I am pretty sure you
will see something rather different from your imagination.
   Sir, These are tough times, tougher times than before, to most people.

>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       "I'm not a Bush supporter, I just can't         | These pontifications
>             can't stand Clinton." - me                |      are my own!    


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton