HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:53:11 GMT

From article <BD.92Sep11075850@fluent.UUCP>, by bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby):

	Re. Congressional bad checks.
> 
> No question this was abused, but it is _not_ illegal, any more than it 
> would be illegal for me and my wife to set up a joint account and for me
> to write checks on "her" funds.
> 
	As I have heard numerous people explain, this is exactly the case.
Any group of people can set up an account like Congress did.  However,
I would not want to be responsible for the actions of a couple hundred
people representing a cross section of Americans.  The net account would
be positive for about 5 seconds. How ironic that people complain about
Congress doing something that ordinary Americans could do also if
ordinary Americans were honest enough as a group!!  I have no delusions
that Congress is honest, really!!!  However, I do think it is really
hard to complain about Congress when the electorate is more worried 
about bashing Congressmen regardless of whether or not they have got
their facts straight, then they are about  things like the
deficit, civil rights, foreign policy etc...  IMHO, as long as we
whine about trivia and ignore real issues, we (as a country, not
necessarily as individuals) deserve what we get!

Scott Lackey
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: A few things in Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<FiFqqB5w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> <trussell.715874770@cwis>
	<5162@news.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:39:51 GMT

In article <5162@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
-> :>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.
-> 	Sorry. I don't like this "class envy" politics that Clinton is
-> using to "buy" votes from middle-class Americans. I am not a member of
-> this upper 2%, but I sure want to get there! As I've said, if you soak
-> the rich, you drown the poor.

	Besides that, it just won't work.  The upper 2% is who pays
the lower 98%.  If you increase their taxes, they will just reduce
salaries or employment to recover the loss.

	The polls are manufactured and many times false news and don't
deserve consideration in making decisions.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4453 alt.politics.clinton:4510 alt.politics.elections:12670
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...Tipper Gore
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:15:50 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Sep9.054147.20461@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> 
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>   Isn't it amazing how the liberal left doesn't have anything to say
> anymore on Tipper Gore?  I guess she's their 'token' Family Values
> advocate.

In the Houston Post this morning, liberal syndicated columnist Molly Ivans 
sang high praises for Tippers effort at labeling records and at the same 
time she bashed Quayle for his criticism of the Hollywood elite.

Ironically, last week the Post had a feature article on Tipper Gore in 
which it stated that the Hollywood and record company execs had accused 
Tipper of censorship and called her "nothing more that a prudish 
housewife" for these very same efforts.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4220 talk.politics.misc:43986 alt.politics.clinton:4204 alt.politics.elections:12517
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:52:34 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Sep1.212734.14105@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, 
pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) said:

> The cases Hillary Clinton was considering have to do with other
> things, like "cosmetic surgery, abortion, ..." and other choices a
> child might contemplate.  She wants to expand the scope of
> litigation to cover choices a child might make in contravention with
> the wishes of non-abusing parents.  The "abusive" parents aspect is
> a deliberate red herring to deflect the issue.

Please cite your reasons for believing this.  Please bear in mind the
difference between plastic (or other) surgery performed for purely
cosmetic reasons and plastic (or other) surgery performed for the
purpose of correcting or lessening the effects of a medical problem
(e.g., a harelip).

> Both Clintons are well-beloved by trial lawyers. Having lawyers
> further stick their noses into the workings of families is yet
> another solution-by-litigation that has done more harm than good in
> the many areas we have tried.

Please cite your reasons for believing this.

> It's like saying we don't need tort reform because lawsuits only
> occur with "serious abuses" in liability or medical malpractice.
> Well, the bill for litigation is $300 billion in this country, and
> with the lawyers Clinton & Clinton, who are anti-tort reform(*) and
> pro-litigation, it will further increase.

Please cite your reasons for believing that this figure is accurate.
Please cite your reasons for believing that it would further increase
under a Clinton administration.  Please cite your reasons for
believing that the current figure, be is $300 billion or not, is too
high.

> (*) Clinton killed a tort reform proposal in Arkansas in 1987.  This
> fact was touted in a fund raising letter for Clinton that was sent
> to memebers of the American Trial Lawyers Association.  Clinton also
> opposes the kind of tort reform favored by Bush and Quayle.

Please elaborate.  What were the details of the proposal that Clinton
"killed"?  What kind of tort reform is favored by Bush and Quayle?
Please be specific.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4380 talk.politics.misc:44185 alt.politics.clinton:4405 alt.politics.democrats.d:21
From: msl@hpcvlx (Mark Laventhal )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:47:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Robert Krawitz (rlk@underprize.think.com) wrote:
> 
> 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, Margaret Truman (Harry's daughter) wrote a column to this effect that
appeared in the New York Times; it was entitled "I knew Harry Truman...."

Mark Laventhal
msl@cv.hp.com
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:05:57 GMT

In article <BuDrrp.318@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>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?

Do you suppose an American tank looks more like an Iraqi tank than
an Iraqi schoolbus looks like an Iraqi tank?

-- 
My opinions are my own.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:44:08 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <ART.92Sep11013334@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <lavh2bINN6cq@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>   StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
>   |> Glenn Story) writes:
>   |> : forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>   |> Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
>   |> write bad checks?
        [stuff deleted]
>   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.
>Yes, it's true they broke no laws, but they did spend our money.  It was
>our tax dollars that covered their loans.

You are either being knowingly duplicitous or willfully ignorant. The
overdrafts were covered by the deposits of other House members. There was no
external (i.e., other than salaries paid to Representatives) tax money
involved?

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design.  Unlike most
automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gage, nor any of the
numerous idiot lights which plague the modern driver.  Rather, if the driver
makes any mistake, a giant "?" lights up in the center of the dashboard. 
"The experienced driver", he says, "will usually know what's wrong."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: "Family Values"
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:07:35 GMT

In article <Sep.6.22.05.52.1992.19393@remus.rutgers.edu> clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>
>If I hear this expression one more time, I'm going to puke.

Then we should aim you at the appropriate parties before whispering
"F*mily V*alues" in your ear.



--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: A few things in Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:16:44 GMT

In article <5162@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>	Ok, I assume we're talking about Bill. He may not be personally
>in favor of abortion on demand, but why is he publicly advocating that
>he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court justices regarding choice?
>Saying that Mario Cuomo is qualified to be on the Supreme Court to me is
>one of the most stupid things I've heard Clinton say!

   I can't believe that the man whom Clinton accussed of being connected to
the Mob in his conversation with Flowers a few months ago is now his
leading candidate for the Supreme Court.  And people talk about Quayle!
This to me is the best example of Clinton's pandering.  He is willing to
kiss Mario's *** just to gain the support of his followers.

-- 
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!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5302 alt.politics.elections:13263 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3832 talk.politics.guns:21015 talk.politics.misc:45712
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:46:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.161152.11305@news.uiowa.edu>, williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:

> In general, I don't believe people need to own guns, especially
> handguns. 

In general, I don't believe people NEED to vote, practice religion, or
publish political journals.  On the other hand, given that they have the 
right and the DESIRE to do so, so what I think they NEED isn't worth a 
bowl of warm spit.

> I'm not sure how far I would go in restricting access to
> them if it was up to me

Neither were the Founders, which is why they made sure it wasn't up
to you.

> We'll
> never resolve what the rational limits to gun ownership should be
> because the NRA is such a powerful lobby against any limits to gun
> ownership.

Roughly 60% of homes in the US contain one or more guns.  Ever consider
that the NRA may be a powerful lobby because it represents a major
constituency?

> Guns engender violence. 

And scalpels engender abortion.  Please.

> Where do
> the guns come from?  Someone somewhere bought it legally.  Then it was
> stolen or sold or lost. 

Many black-market guns come from police evidence rooms and military
armories.  Please tell us which of the several trendy gun-control proposals
on the floor today will disarm these groups.

> There has to be a better way than the status quo, but no one on the
> pro gun side seems to want to find it.

We believe we've found it.  Criminals have free rein with their arms
today because gun control measures and a police-dependent mentality 
have resulted in too many law-abiding people being unarmed and 
overmatched.  Who here is stupid enough to believe that advice such as,
"Don't resist, and let them have what they want" will ever DISCOURAGE
predation?

Followups to t.p.g.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4832 alt.politics.clinton:5052 alt.politics.perot:1445 rec.humor:28452 talk.bizarre:29830 talk.politics.misc:45026
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 12 Sep 92 12:39:20 GMT
	<lavh2bINN6cq@spim.mips.com> <ART.92Sep11013334@world.std.com>
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>In article <lavh2bINN6cq@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>   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.
>
>Yes, it's true they broke no laws, but they did spend our money.  It was
>our tax dollars that covered their loans.
>
>   If you want to bash congress, use facts, not bull-shit.
>
>I just did.

No, Al, you didn't.  It was only taxpayer money before it was paid to
the Congress Critter as salary.  Once we paid it to them for "services
rendered", it was _their_ money, not ours, and if they want to pool it into
one account what business is it of yours?
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:14:07 GMT
 <5149@news.duke.edu> <1992Sep7.005906.24495@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>   
 <5159@news.duke.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <5159@news.duke.edu>
eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> Obviously, that explains what the Bush-Quayle strategy should be. The
> more they talk about their opposition -- whether real or fictitious --
> they lose either because they'll be painted as "mudslingers" or
> "trivializing real issues." Maybe that's the reason why Bush won't agree
> to the debate schedule...

You're quite right. Especially since all Bush and Quayle appear to
offer is mudslinging and trivializing of real issues.

> This however gets to be real interesting when it comes to the "it's only
> a TV show" excuse. [much deleted]

There's no doubt that fiction can have an effect on society: look at
Dickens. But these matters should concern literary critics, NOT the
President and Vice President of the United States, who even in the best
of times have plenty of REAL issues to concern them.

> How about those actors and
> actresses who become "experts" in farmers' plights or homelessness or
> life-threatening diseases who go to Congressional panels to testify
> about their knowledge (Sally Field, Jessica Lange, Tom Cruise)? Why
> should they be taken seriously if they're "only playing fictional
> characters?"

No argument here, either - look what one actor did, in the role of his
life as President of the United States of America.
[...]
> 
> Oh, by the way, ask Iowans back in 1986 when the Presidential campaign
> started vis-a-vis the 1988 election. It may not be a blatent screw-up
> as you might think. [...]

Very well, we have our pick of V.P. gaffes that might have been just
honest mix-ups in the spotlight (e.g., "What a terrible thing to have
lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."). But
we also have more than enough egregiously ignorant foolishness that
cannot be explained this way, e.g., "We should develop anti-satellite
weapons because we could not have prevailed without them in 'Red Storm
Rising'." Talk about fiction vs. reality!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4527 alt.politics.clinton:4609
From: boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush's economic plan
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 21:13:30 CDT
Organization: Consultant
Reply-To: "Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu>
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4

What is Bush calling his economic plan?  Clinton's is "Putting People First"
and Bush's has America in the title but that's about all I can remember.

Thanks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria L Boyd PhD

boyd@vax.anes.tulane.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4397 alt.politics.clinton:4423 alt.politics.elections:12639
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton makes Quayle look like a genius (was Re: A few things)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:37:02 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

> In article <6BqRqB1w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
> >
> >> In article <5162@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> >> >     Ok, I assume we're talking about Bill. He may not be personally
> >> >in favor of abortion on demand, but why is he publicly advocating that
> >> >he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court justices regarding choice?
> >> >Saying that Mario Cuomo is qualified to be on the Supreme Court to me is
> >> >one of the most stupid things I've heard Clinton say!
> >>
> >>    I can't believe that the man whom Clinton accused of being connected to
> >> the Mob in his conversation with Flowers a few months ago is now his
> >> leading candidate for the Supreme Court.  And people talk about Quayle!
> >> This to me is the best example of Clinton's pandering.  He is willing to
> >> kiss Mario's *** just to gain the support of his followers.
> >>
> >
> >Clinton said that Mario would make a good justice for the Court.  That doesn
> >mean he has any intentions of appointing him.  Can you provide references th
> >say he intends to do so?
>
>    Even if he doesn't intend to appoint him, how can he say that Cuomo
> would make a good justice after earlier saying that he's tied to the mob.
> I suppose next he'll say that John Gotti would make a good Secretary of
> State {:^) .  His pandering really showed through when he made that
> statement.
>

Hey, bubba, I gave you seven examples of Bush's pandering since 1980.  Do you
have any response to those, or are you just going to be a broken record?




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 20:19:57 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


|> photo-op, but let the wheels of FEMA turn at their regular slow pace.  I don't
                                                                          ^^^^^^^
|> think anyone can believe that Bush's meeting with Lawton Chiles wasn't a
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
|> request for federal assistance.  All of this baloney about how the state didn't
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> ask for the federal help until later in the week is silly.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> |Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|> |Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|> |3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|> |Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|

I can believe it.  If that was the case, why isn't Chiles all over the media, making that case?  The fact is, if he requested aid on Monday, that would be 
smoking gun, and I can't believe that it wouldn't come out.
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: I made a mistake Re: For those who missed it ...
Date: 12 Sep 1992 17:11:16 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <5262@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> I made a mistake about the phone number: it's 1-800-326-1200, not 328.
|> The poster regrets the error.

Heyy!! It is 1-800-368-1200. At least, that's the one I called  and got
a recorded message asking me to leave my address and name.

|> -- 
|> Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections