HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:01:31 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University

In article <ART.92Sep13181129@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.191230.23082@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>
>	   Rush may not be interested in running for office, but he's
>   sure interested in becoming a Republican party insider. There's big
>   rewards available for someone who can be a daily 3 hour commercial
>   for the Republican party.
>
>There are?  Care to enumerate these rewards?  If you do don't forget the
>supporting documentation.  Of course here's another one of those liberal
>claims of nefariousness that will remain undocumented, but somehow
>survive as truth.
>
>Given the kind of money Rush must make what other rewards could he want?
>

Most people don't go into government or politics for the sake of
money.  Note that most legislators are lawyers, and can make oodles
more money in the private sector.  The rewards of politics tend to be
the thrills of brawling, strategy sessions, deal making, etc.  Look at
_The United States of Ambition_ by Alan Ehrenhalt.  He considers many
professional politicians, their motives, histories, ambitions.


--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: UMCC
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 08:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.153616.533@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>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

There are quite a number of people who are bashing Bush because of the
magnitude of federal help that is in Florida. Not everyone believe s that it
is genuine. There's some feeling that it is motivated by this being an
election year.
>
>>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?
>
Now now, don't pretend you don't understand what I'm talking about. Usually
the federal government picks up only 75% of the cost of disaster recovery,
leaving the remainder to state and local government. The feds picked up 100%
of Hugo, and will pick up 100% of the Florida effort. If he didn't, florida
would likely go bankrupt :-)

>
>-- 
>                               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


------------------////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\------------------
| Patrick Draper           Disclaimer:  I can't control my fingers,        |
| draper@umcc.ais.org                   I can't control my toes! - Ramones |
| University of Michigan                                                   |
| Computer Club                We are a nation of laws, not people         |
------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4290 alt.politics.clinton:4284 alt.politics.elections:12569
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:40:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.023458.8796@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.095535.6402@iscsvax.uni.edu>
>fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>> What does the Vice President do the next day?  Ignore it?  Say, "well, 
>> we're over-looking the issues here?"
>>
>> NO!!!!!!
>>
>> He's still spending time on it!
>
>Leave it to our boy Dannikins to pick a fight with a fictional
>character - and LOSE!

Well, Bush took on the Simpsons (even worse, they're animated), and
lost.


--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4645 alt.politics.clinton:4797 alt.politics.perot:1423 rec.humor:28280 talk.bizarre:29618 talk.politics.misc:44634
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:55:23 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
|> 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?
|> 
One more time, and slowly.  No one in congress wrote a bad check.  The 
congressional bank had an overdraft protection program, supported by
it's members.  You can get the same thing from your bank, although they
will probably charge you interest.

The Congressional bank was set up just for this reason.  It allowed 
congressmen new to washington to draw against upcoming pay to set up
their washingon households.

I am not saying it was not abused.  I am just saying they broke no
laws, spent none of our money, violated no bank rules, etc.

If you want to bash congress, use facts, not bull-shit.
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5012 alt.politics.clinton:5284
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:58:42 GMT
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <1992Sep11.175342.11514@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>In a *very* tasteful piece of journalism on Nightline last night, Ted
>Koppel talked with Senators Sam Nunn and James (?) Danforth about the
>country's possibly most important problem: the deficit. 
>
>[...] Here,
>according to my memory and understanding, are the two plans:
>
>Clinton: erase the deficit by raising taxes to generate more revenue.
>The objection was raised that Clinton's proposed new spending more
>than outweighs his projected tax increase, the net result being a
>*larger* deficit, not a smaller one.
>
>Bush: erase the deficit by limiting the growth of entitlement programs
>(with the exception of Social Security) to changes in the consumer
>price index. The objection was raised that this prevents the deficit
>from growing further, but doesn't do much to reduce it -- especially
>given that Bush wants to lower taxes slightly, which will (at least in
>the short run) *lower* revenue.

Another objection is that while Clinton enjoys bipartisan trust that he can and
will raise taxes :-), there is not the slightest indication that Bush is even
willing, much less able, to cut *actual* spending (As opposed to talk about
cutting 200 billion here and there).

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "I think I should tell you that I am enjoying my involuntary
    retirement, and I know and hope that President Bush will share
    the same pleasure after January." -- Jimmy Carter
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4240 alt.politics.clinton:4233 talk.politics.misc:44016
From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:13:21 GMT

In article <MICHAEL.92Sep9155203@adriaan.bu.edu> michael@adriaan.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin) writes:
>In article <JASON.92Sep9113133@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
>
>P.S. Bashing a Democratic Congress doesn't count. Neither Bush Nor
>Reagan ever submitted a balanced budget.
>
>Chaplin. 

Well folks, time to get a clue.  It is *not* the responsibility of the
president, regardless of party affiliation, to submit a budget to the
congress.  The constitution gave congress the power to decide to spend
money for the federal government, not the president.  The president is only
supposed to act as an administrator of the executive branch in this
respect.  He can make suggestions to congress, but cannot force it to do
anything.  It is only in the current century that presidents have been
submitting budgets to congress, and it was congress that wanted this to
occur.  It was largely a way of trying to foil FDR's programs and policies
by "giving him enough rope to hang himself".

Let's put the responsibility back where it belongs, in the hands of congress,
and let's see what happens.

Tim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: mcbeeb@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Brian Mcbee)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: Tree huggers, Bud-chugging-hairy-backed-red-necked-conservatives
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 16:40:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.015340.10556@athena.mit.edu> yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.101456.27348@sinix.UUCP>, ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone) writes:
>|> 
>|> So, what is exactly do with we do with a 15 year GIRL that intentionally
>|> gets pregnant?
>
>
>You can't do anything-- it's too late!  It's too late by the time they're
>fifteen or even by the time they're thirteen; there's even a rash of *pre*-teen
>*intentional* pregnancies in parts of the country now, mostly with girls who feel
>that having a baby is the only way to improve their lives or to bring meaning
>into it.
>
>How can our education system have failed us to the point where intermediate
>school-aged kids feel they have no future to look foward to?
>
>I dunno.  Go ask our Education President....
>
>
>Yuna Huh
>
>"Eighty percent of air pollution comes from plants and trees."  --Ronald Reagan

I suspect it doesn't have anything to do with our education system (at least
not the simple way that you paint it above.)  From the poor girl's vantage
point, I'm sure she is making a rational decision.  Kids aren't as stupid
as adults sometimes make them out to be.  From our middle class vantage it
obviously looks like a *terrible* decision, but she doesn't see it from our
viewpoint.  She looks around her, and the most likely path to success she
sees for men is to become a hustler of some sort (drug dealer, pimp, etc)
and the path to success for women is to become a welfare mother.  She hasn't
been installed with the middle class values of responsibility to support 
herself, etc.  For her, there is essentially no downside to having a bunch
of kids and living off the welfare system.

The only solution I can see is to get rid of publicly funded welfare and
let the private charities take care of those in need.  If the 13-15 year
old girl couldn't see how she was going to eat--she wouldn't get pregnant,
or she would likely abort it or give it up for adoption.

The modern welfare system, put into place for the very best of reasons, to
provide for those who were incapable of providing for themselves, has become
a very destructive force to the morals of the lower-classes.  Where a 
generation or two ago it was accepted among the poor that everyone had
the responsibility of self-support, that basic morality of our culture
has been dealt a terrible blow.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:02:12 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

: I suggest you read some non-American newspapers about collateral
: damage...the claims about how smart a fair number of the American bombs were
: are about as true as the incubator scam perpertrated by Hill and
: Knowlton for the Kuwaiti Royal family.

I can't help but wonder about these claims that there was little collateral
damage, when there were so many reports about "friendly fire" casualties.
What?  All the collateral damage was on our side of the lines?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"C'mon boys, don't bother me.
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 I'm debating Danny Quayle.
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 The boy's retarded."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Sen. Birch Bayh
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:46:06 GMT

In <NEERI.92Sep11165255@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher):
>In <BuD7sq.K08@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>  Fans of Clinton/Gore high-taxes/government-investment/government-mandated
>>  worker-retraining/national-health-insurance would learn something by 
>>  looking at western Europe:  The average EC unemployment rate is currently
>>  9.5%.  At it's recent *low* in the 80's it got down to 8.3%!   In the 
>>  US, in what is one of the worst recessions in recent history it's "only" 
>>  7.8%.  (source: Business Week, current issue)  

>Not all of Western Europe is high-taxes/government-investment
>government-mandated-worker-retraining/national-health-insurance. And Sweden,
>the country which probably fits these criteria best, had unemployment between
>1.4% and 2.8% through 1985-1990.

Not that I want to disagree with your point, Matthias, but I think I
should point out the problem with comparing unemployment rates in
different countries; that is, that each country calculates unemployment
rates differently.

Further, this "high taxes" comment is unsupportable.  Even calling
Clinton/Gore policies "higher tax" would be weak, given that they have
proposed higher taxes on those making over $200k, lower taxes on others.

The statement could just as easily be written: fans of Bush/Quayle
high-tax/defense pork-barrelling/big-government police-state...
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:56:45 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <farenebt.716582810@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>They must try and find some middle ground. Neither side believes in
>>SOME restrictions. For them, it's either all (gun control) or nothing
>>(NRA). 

>Farenell demonstrates once again that he has difficulty posting without
>misrepresenting someone's views.

SPEAKING OF 'Misrepresenting someone's view', you "convienently" edited
out the part where I blasted HCI-types too. That certainly goes a long
way in painting me as an HCI anti-gun freak.

>The NRA HAS NEVER advocated NO gun control.  Farenell even knows this;
>we've discussed SPECIFIC NRA proposals.

Perhaps I should have specifically stated that my comment was hyperbole.

BRI
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5101 alt.politics.clinton:5389 alt.politics.elections:13112
From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Selling arms or just donating the cash? (was Re: Clinton gaffe...)
Summary: does it matter if I give you a gun or give you the money to buy it?
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:19:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>[...jking] there is no "friendly" fire.  Same deadly fire !, be it from 
>>the US army or from Saddam's republican guard, and the republican white 
>>house (of George Bush and Ron Reagan) should find some responsibilities 
>>for these casulties, for they armed Saddam in the first place.
>>
>That last sentence appears, in its convoluted way, to suggest that the US
>armed Saddam, another classic and foolish error. The vast bulk of Iraq's
>arms, including all his fighters, bombers and most of all, his artillery
>and rockets were Soviet in origin. 

A nit: didn't he also have Silkworms and Exocets?  And didn't he buy
some of his artillery from South Africa?

Not a nit:  isn't it true that Saddam managed to score a whole lot of
cash from the US in the form of agricultural credits that he apparently
didn't use just to buy wheat?  And isn't it also true that we did this
for him when he didn't have particularly steady cash flow?

In the end, does it really matter if the bombs were sold to him by the
US or whether we just gave him money to buy the bombs, while we as
much as told him that we didn't care that he was buying the bombs?

>And artillery (including rockets) is what
>causes the greatest number of casulties in modern warfare.

As I'm sure they can tell you in Sarajevo right now.  But I'd like to
point out that you can also do an awful lot of damage with
conventional carpet bombing as well; it's just that we happen to be
one of the few countries that can do this.  Right now, anyway.
 
>Perhaps a part of the blame can be placed at the feet of those 
>who practiced accomodation of the USSR for years, letting it continue 
>to expand and to arm despots like Saddam.

I've discussed this one before, and I don't have anything new to say
except this: which major power sided with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War to
the extent that it allowed Iraq to bomb Iranian tankers but escorted
Kuwaiti re-flagged US tankers out of the Persian Gulf?  And which despot
was in power in Iraq at that point?

jking
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: approval ratings
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:54:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.025554.25053@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <BuJqMC.FJC@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>>i saw a report which appeared to indicate that the
>>approval rating of an encumbent president running for reelection
>>is an excellent estimator for November's general election.
>>since Bush's current approval rating was 39% the last time
>>i heard it, then he is in trouble.
>>what is his current approval rating?
>>how do Bush supporters interpret this situation?
>
>What report?  Please cite.

sorry. NY Times about a month ago. that's all i know.
but the report is for an incumbent's approval rating,
not a challenger. if you dont like the job a sitting
president is doing, why vote for him? is it possible
to check Carter's and Ford's approval rating and %vote.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 11:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.051213.865@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.024744.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>
>>  Why is the school, esp. Public schools the one doing the sex ed, and not
>>the family where the primary education should be.   

[ stuff deleteed ]

>Why don't I ever hear this argument used against drivers ed? After all
>if we didn't teach our kids to drive they wouldn't have accident.... RIGHT..
>

Children are physically capable of driving a car at age 10 or less.
What do you think would happen if we were to start teaching driver's ed at
age 10 and left the keys to the family car easily accessible?

>>   Leave the role of the primary sex educator to the family, and not
>>government.
>
>That simply hasn't worked, I think there are something like 1 million
>teen pregnancies a year. "Family values" hasn't stopped kids from having
>sex, but education can atleast give them the knowledge to do it safely.
>

Sure - and the massive introduction of valueless technical sex education
has been a great success.  In fact, the more sex education we've had in the
schools, the worse the problems of teenage sex have gotten.

"Family values" hasn't worked for two main reasons.  1) The public - i.e.,
government run - schools have been systematically waging war against family
values.  This is one of the two major reasons for parents pulling their
children out of public schools and putting them into private and religious
schools.  Parents even send their kids to schools of a different religion
from their own - e.g.: black Southern Baptists sending their kids to Catholic
schools.  And the kids thrive there, not only because the schools are better
academically, but because those schools are much better morally than the
public schools.

And 2) the "media elite", mainly through television and the movies, have -
not coincidentally - been waging the exact same war against "family values".
And they have been winning big time to the severe detriment of society as a
whole.

How can a family sustain its values when they are continually undermined
everywhere they turn?
-- 
The Democrat U.S. Congress - Evil Empire II (TM)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4309 alt.politics.clinton:4309 talk.politics.misc:44099 alt.politics.elections:12585