HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:00:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.154755.23177@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>The 'front runners' on the Republican side are probably Kemp and Dole,
>>but I think you're going to see the Republicans suicide over the
>>Religious Right -- they can't win with them, and the Religious Right
>>will fight to make them try it anyway.

>I enjoyed the snafu at the Republican Governor's conference when 
>Governor Shit-for-brains of Mississippi asserted that the US is a "Christian 
>nation," and was taken to task by another Governor who said it was a
>"Judeo-Christian nation." Shit-for-brains countered that if he meant to

It was Gov. Carroll Campbell of South Carolina, not exactly a liberal, 
either.  If even *he* noticed the faux-pas, you'd think S-f-b would have
realized his error, but, no:

>add "Judeo," he would have. I just love it when bigots think that to
>say "Judeo-Christian" is the height of inclusiveness. But even this appears
>to be a big debating point in the Republican Party. They apparently have a
>long way to go.

>By the way, Shit-for-brains was skewered by Michael Kinsley on last night's
>Crossfire, when Kinsley asked him if the US was a "white" nation (85%
>white) or a "women's" nation. There was really no point in continuing
>the discussion after that.

Gee, you wouldn't happen to be referring to "Segregation Now!
Segregation Forever!" Gov Kirk Fordice of Mississippi who vowed to "Call
out the National Guard, if necessary" to prevent enforcement of a court
order requiring equalization of funding between Mississippi's black and
white campuses?

No, of course not.  No one Republican could be so bigotted, right?

And Republicans wonder why they have a hard time attracting minorities
to their party.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23866 talk.politics.misc:60282 tx.politics:7351
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Why the rep convention was such a loser (was: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:04:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Nov14.162150.21349@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:

>In article <1992Nov13.003406.3855@lucid.com> johng@lucid.com (John Gregory) writes:
>>The republican convention showed only that those who handled the convention had
>>a social agenda to put forward.  The rest of us just gasped.

>I tried to watch it but I could only listen to 10 seconds at a time before
>getting disgusted.


>>In the mean-time; Republicans, take the party back from the crackpots!

>Here's some advice for them.

>1. Take Richard Nixon's and Barry Goldwater's advice and ditch the 
>religious zealots.

>2. Recognize that "borrow and spend" is much more irresponsible than 
>"tax and spend".  Adopt a Perot-like plan to balance the budget in order
>to stop the upcoming disaster their voodoo will get blamed for.

>3. Reverse major defections in their coalition by switching from social facism
>to social libertarianism.  Try to get back young voters, working women, etc.

Gee, this starts to sound like my politics.  Wonder if they could
recruit Paul Tsongas to help them draw it up?  Of course, they're
going to have a hell of a time living down the feeling they've left a
lot of people with (insofar as social libertarianism goes).  They're
going to have to find some candidates who have a RECORD of that kind
of position to run, because people aren't going to believe it coming
from someone who is a 'convert'.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: lstewart@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (L. Stewart -- IS Office 1058)
Subject: Re: REAL CANADIAN HISTORY FOR AMERICANS
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:22:27 GMT

JP buddy, a small government may have existed in the colonial
usa at the time of jefferson but that hydra down south is about
as close to intimate as a cluster fuck in the middle of a monster 
truck show. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24175 talk.politics.misc:61011
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:58:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In <1992Nov19.070100.3115@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
>baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:

>[just about everything deleted...mostly about the bias of various magazines.]

>>The point of all this is that I don't think conservative complaints
>>about media bias are imagined.  However, Michael Pye's attack on TNR
>>on this score are misplaced.

>You've missed the point entirely.  Whether a particular magazine or 
>newspaper or whatever is biased or not is irrelevant.  

>The New Republic certainly has a right to print whatever they want.  I
>don't care what filler they use between the covers.  But if someone is
>going to start arguing a point based on "facts" they got from TNR, that's
>a different matter entirely.  In this case, it is essential that the 
>obvious and stated bias of the source be brought out front.  If the 
>source publically admits that what it prints might be a lie, and that it's 

Of course, the source never admitted any such thing.

>up to the reader to decide whether it's a lie or the truth, that 
>absolutely must be pointed out.  If you choose to believe what they print
>without thinking it through and checking it against other sources, fine.

>But I find it irresponsible to just sling these "facts" around as if 
>they were the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  They are not.
>Until and unless proven, they are nothing more than rumours.  Treating
>them as anything more is ignorance.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:34:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.145650.18420@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Doug, Saudi Arabia alread spends 12.8% of their total GNP on Defense
> (we spend 6.3%, Iraq spends a whopping 32%).  This does not sound to
> me like the Saudis are getting some kind of free ride.  And it's not
> like it isn't in our interests for their current government to
> continue in power, rather than becoming a vassal state for someplace
> like Iraq.
 
If we really believed all the bullshit we teach our kids in schools we
might actually press the Saudi Arabian government to move toward a
democracy.   But that's another subject.
 
SA's GDP is about twice what Iraq's is.  Therefore, by increasing their
spending to around 16% they should be able to keep up with Iraq (and
that's not even taking into account all the Iraq weapons lost in the war).
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:26:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.180832.9937@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <92320.112633U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> >Last I checked, the US did not enter WWII until the 40's.
> 
> And wouldn't have entered at all under Libertarians.

  This is just nonsense, pure and simple. What part of 
self-defense don't you understand? 

> >>And the US would have some dictatorial fool like Huey Long as pres..
> >>
> >And how would this come about?
> 
> Because the Libs would've counted on the free market to get the country
> out of the depression, it wouldn't have, and there would've been a
> revolution.

  Has it occurred to you that the Great Depression wouldn't have
happened under a Lib system? Everything about the Great Depression
points to governmental meddling as the root cause. That being said,
FDR's New Deal did little to help the ecomony.
  Besides, if a lib government had been effect at that time there
would have had to been a substantial amount of support for their
positions. Huey Long and his ilk are *so* far to the authoritarian/left
side the country would have to be in two armed camps for such an
event to take place. What you are conjecturing here is civil war.

-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:39:37 GMT

  > >  Saying that the US should not meddle or be the world's policeman
  > >is hardly "isolationist".

  >  Au contraire, it is the precise definition of the word.

  Therefore, every nation on Earth, except for those few superpowers which
routinely meddle in the affairs of others or act as world policeman, is
"isolationist" -by- -definition-.  This conclusion is so preposterous that
your definition of "isolationish" must be rejected out of hand.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.233206.18833@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>  Has it occurred to you that the Great Depression wouldn't have
>>happened under a Lib system? Everything about the Great Depression
>>points to governmental meddling as the root cause. 
>
>Smoot-Hawley.  Perhaps that.  But that didn't change what happened
>in Europe.  It was a global depression and the LSA would have been
>swept right along with it just as easily as the USA.  

It was a global depression because of governmental meddling in monetary
policy throughout Europe and the US.  The protectionist tide that swept
the world helped prolong the depression and helped Hitler take over
Germany.
>
>>That being said, FDR's New Deal did little to help the ecomony.
>
>It did much more than Hoover's laissez-faire.  

The US Government was already tampering with fiscal policy under Hoover.
That contributed to financial market instability,  and also prevented
smaller natural corrections in the US economy leading up to the crash in
1929.  Those smaller corrections, if they would have been allowed to
occur,  would have prevented the long term overspeculation that lead to
the BIG correction.

>Plus, it prevented a revolution.
>Yes, we would have had either a civil war or a revolution under
>a Libertarian government.  And ended up with a system far worse than
>what we have now, while Nazi Germany reigned supreme.

Revisionist history lessons at work.  Every regime that intervenes in
the free market and takes away civil liberties has to justify its
excesses by claiming to have prevented a civil war that was 
lurking "just around the corner".   "We had to save you from yourself!"

------------

- Ted Drude
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:32:55 GMT

In <Bxu80x.4Kt@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.160121.21201@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>
>>One great thing to come out of the Reagan era is that the Democrats are 
>>far better than they once were.  They are aware of how often they've lost
>>in the past, and they're determined to do a good job.  The Republicans
>>have at most 2 decent candidates, the Democrats have at least 2 excellent ones.

>	I'll grant you Gore, Bentson, and Tsongas. I'll take Kemp, Gramm,
>Bush, Dole, and Dole. Wanna bet on 96? (-:

Uh, you can keep Bentson, thanks all the same.  You can also keep
Gramm; I had a lot of respect for him ten or so years ago, but I've
lost all that after watching him for the last couple of years.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we just say we DON'T WANT Bush?
That hardly makes him a great candidate to try running again.  One of
the Doles comes across as 'mean', while the other should have had Dan
Quayle's job 4 years ago (which is just another indictment of Bush's
ineptitude). 

The 'front runners' on the Republican side are probably Kemp and Dole,
but I think you're going to see the Republicans suicide over the
Religious Right -- they can't win with them, and the Religious Right
will fight to make them try it anyway.  On the Democratic side, you
left out a number of other contenders (Nunn, Bradley, etc.).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23898 alt.politics.perot:5525 alt.politics.reform:59 alt.politics.usa.misc:591
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:23:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.160121.21201@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>In article <BxMpqp.JB2@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov11.063952.24801@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>>>The Republicans best chance for the future is probably someone like 
>>>>William Weld or Pete Wilson.  But I don't think they can wise up in
>>>>time for 1996.
>>>

Well, now, out here in California, Pete Wilson's future looks
pretty doomed after this last election.  Is there a well-spring
of support for him out east, so he wouldn't have to carry his
own state?
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24103 talk.politics.misc:60779 tx.politics:7477
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:54:29 GMT
 <yHqTr*gb1@caleb.UUCP> <1992Oct26.190244.19210@novell.com> <qliVr*ge1@caleb.UUCP>
 <1992Nov3.143927.22911@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Nov3.143927.22911@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> In <qliVr*ge1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Oct26.190244.19210@novell.com>, Brendan B. Boerner writes:
> 
> >> In article <yHqTr*gb1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >> >[...]
> >> >Fred apparently doesn't know what "moderate" means.
> >> >
> >> >A "moderate" would NOT
> >> >[...]
> >> >  3.  Make radical Pro-Abortionism a litmus test for his appointments.
> >> 
> >> And Bush wouldn't make radical Anti-Choiceism a litmus test for his
> >> appointments?  Yeah, right.
> 
> >He obviously hasn't yet.  Remember all the ridiculous "litmus test" accusations
> >about Reagan/Bush Supreme Court appointees?  If those accusations were true,
> >the Court would have already overturned Roe vs. Wade.  They had the opportunity
> >recently, but they did NOT overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Therefore YOU are wrong.
> 
> Well, no, Jim.  What it demonstrates is that George Bush guessed wrong

Fred still doesn't seem to understand plain English.  If it is a litmus test,
then he doesn't have to GUESS how they will vote.  He would have already
established that fact BEFORE appointing them.  Therefore he couldn't have
"guessed wrong" as Fred said.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:42:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.171038.21117@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>[to JFHII]
>: I think it's high time you pulled your head out of your ass and
>: started thinking instead of being what you are.  

>YOU could do some head-pulling yourself.  JFH posts 100% from home.  He owns
>rpp386, and runs his own feed.

	And I need to pull _my_ head out of my ass. (Is is okay to flame 
myself?).

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:11:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

I can't print on alt.president.clinton.

rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>but, at least he is getting some stuff done.  and not like bush compromise
>where he went from no new taxes to 2nd largest tax increase in history *and*
>spending $1.83 for every $1 brought in.

And with whom did Bush compromise? With Quayle? Come on, now; if you
Democrats felt so ill about this compromise, why did you let the bill
pass? And who's in charge of budgeting money in government?

I'm glad Clinton's getting some stuff done. But let's move on from
political rhetoric and heal the country.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	Hope you have a very good "Native American Exploitation" Day.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24107 talk.politics.misc:60783 tx.politics:7481
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: 300,000 out of work
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:09:57 GMT
 <WARSAW.92Oct27181016@anthem.nlm.nih.gov> <9uoVr*ze1@caleb.UUCP> <1992Nov3.194414.4760@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Nov3.194414.4760@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> In <9uoVr*ze1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >In article <WARSAW.92Oct27181016@anthem.nlm.nih.gov>, Barry A. Warsaw writes:
> 
> >> Excuse my ignorance, but do the Japanese and Germans have to abide by
> >> the same CAFE standards as American car company's do to sell their
> >> cars in the USA?  If not, why not?  If so, how will raising the
> >> standard *necessarily* lead to a loss of American jobs unless you're
> >> admitting that the USA companies can't remain competitive (i.e. build
> >> a safe, efficient car for less cost that American consumers *do* want
> >> to buy)????
> 
> >I've said this before, but I'll repeat it here again.
> 
> >Economics 101:
> 
> >If you raise the price of something, fewer somethings will be sold.  If fewer
> >somethings are sold, fewer workers are needed to build them.  If fewer workers
> >are needed, jobs will be lost.
> 
> If you raise the price of something BY MAKING IT MORE COMPLEX (which
> is what getting to 40 MPG would take), then you don't necessarily lose
> jobs because each unit takes more people.  Seems you should have stuck
> around for Economics 102, Jim.

Fred, you really are slow.  If you raise the price you WILL sell fewer of them.
It doesn't matter how "complex" the product is.  It is highly unlikely that
the number of jobs created by a somewhat more complex engine would offset the
jobs lost by the reduced number of cars sold.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jay.wise@mail.trincoll.edu
Subject: Why Bush Lost
Keywords: bush clinton presidents politics election
Organization: Trinity College
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:43:03 GMT

	Bill Clinton today showed exactly why he beat George Bush 
November 3rd. 
	It was in the way he walked the street in a Washington neighborhood--
the kind that aren't visited by tourists because they're afraid of the
"wrong element."
	It was in the way he talked to people, the way he mingled with crowds,
the way he stopped for a full five minutes to discuss small businesses
with a passing gentleman, cornering him and discussing intricate details
of public policy.
	It was in the way he talked to the press afterwards, speaking in 
paragraphs, with finely tuned syntax, perfect grammar, elegant diction.
	He demonstrated, in short that the age in which a President can be a
cold-war caretaker, content to let public policy to the pundits and 
pollsters, is over. George Bush lost because he was obsolete. And in the 
end it was the "vision thing" that beat him.
	Bush's vision was one whose time had passed, a vision of a world that
needed no vision, whose direction had been firmly set by his predecessors.
	And Bill Clinton won exactly because he understood that the country
needed to break from the basic cynicism on which the Republican philosophy
is founded. His vision is one of dynamism and action, and a realization
that there are times when that old hobgoblin--government--comes in handy. 
	Surely there are times for the kind of leadership that Bush offered.
But he was trying to be Ike Eisenhower when we needed Franklin Roosevelt.
	Or, even better, Bill Clinton.