HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:04:19 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <15OCT199208493270@utkvx1.utk.edu>, drevik@utkvx1.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.231919.4815@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes...
>>	Just so everyone gets the timeline correct:
>> 
>>	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
>>it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can point
>>to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that was
			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
>>only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did not" vote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.
> 
> 
> This kind of finger-pointing is the thing that ticks me off the most
> about Congressional politics.  YES, he DID vote for it.  But you and
> Quayle neglect to mention that it was part of a larger trade package
> whose benefits ourweighed the downside of the Car. Init.

	Oops. :)

> A congressional bill is rarely one-sided and is never single-issued.
> It has riders, subsections, etc.  And when it comes time for a vote,
> each Congressman has to outweigh the good vs. bad.  It's called 
> comprimising, something the Bush has not clue of how to do.  If Bush

	Uhhh, that's the reason he signed the 1990 tax hike.  He was
compromising with congress.  They were supposed to cut spending.

	Oops.  But then he should have learned his lesson.  Reagan made the sme
deal.

> could have learned to comprimise, he could have had a successful
> presidency and might keep his job.  But by vetoing 35 bills and
> crying his eyes out for a line-item veto, he put us all in this
> terrible situation.

	To have had a successful presidency Bush would have had to have been
not-Bush.  Kind of a catch-22 situation.

> Yes, Gore voted for it.  But when you look at why he did, what does
> it all mean?  It means he knows how Washington works, and he's a
> pragmatic person, not a disappointed dictator wanna-be.

	He's a protectionist, and a radical environmentalist.  A dangerous
combination for any economy.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: [resend] RHETORIC VERSUS REALITY -- THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:47:29 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	Just what we need.  A *third* posting of this.  Hey, it's indicative of
what kind of government we'll have.  Three times as much junk on twice the
money :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Debate thoughs
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:34:57 GMT

pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:

>Now that the debates are almost upon us, I feel I can make a few predictions/
>comments.
>
>Strategy.
>
>Clinton's strategy is easy to see, harder to carry off.  He wants to
>shift most of the attention to the economy, without appearing to be
>dodging character questions.  He has to show some passion, without
>loss of control or dignity.  His general problem is get the proper
>balance both in content and in presentation.  Personally, I think he
>should show a little more emotion.  His cool comments about a
>desperate Bush, while accurate, come across as too controlled.  If
>somebody is spreading vicious lies about you, the public would accept,
>and expects, some anger.  If you don't get angry, people are going to
>wonder if there's any truth in the charges.

Clinton needs to be careful that a snappish attitude toward Bush---like
he showed toward Donahue the other day when the talk show host was prodding
him on diversionary character issues---doesn't backfire.  heaven knows there
will be plenty of dummies in the TV audience who think that showing such
"disrespect" toward *The President* is inexcusable.  Clinton needs to
appear firm in his convictions without being too confrontational.


-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: GEORGE BUSH AND ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES: IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:45:43 GMT


 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE             
 October 13, 1992                             

     GEORGE BUSH AND ARMS-FOR-HOSTAGES: IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH

    (Statement of George Stephanopoulos, Communications Director)

      It is time for George Bush to tell the truth about Iran-Contra.
 For six years, George Bush denied he knew about the arms-for hostage
 deal with Iran.  Today, he admitted he did know.

      For six years, George Bush has acknowledged he knew of the arms
 shipments to Iran, but not of the trade for hostages.  He has
 maintained, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary, that he
 was "out of the loop" and did not learn of the arms-for-hostage deal
 until December 1986.

      In 1987, George Bush was asked if he was comfortable with the
 personal role in the Iran- contra affair.  He replied it was proper
 to reach out to Iran, but "if this includes arms for hostages, that's
 wrong.  I wish I had known something so I could have done something
 different on that."  [NYT, 2/27/87]

      In January 1988, stumping for the Presidential nomination in
 Iowa, Bush said, "I sensed that we were sending arms.  And I sensed
 that we were trying to get hosages out.  But not arms for hostages."
 [news conference transcript, 1/8/88]

      But this morning in the White House, Today Show host Katie
 Couric asked, "You knew about the arms for hostages?" George Bush
 replied, "Yes, and I've said so all along, given speeches on it."
 Bush also claimed on Today that sworn answers confirm his current
 account.  Asked whether he had knowledge of the arms-for-hostages
 deal, he replied, "I've testified 450 times under oath, some of them,
 and our staff 3,500 that yes, but nobody's accused me of not doing
 it."

      But Bush's answers under oath -- given to the Tower Commission
 and to the Special Prosecutor's Office -- have never been made
 public.  Since his current story is now different from his original
 alibi, Bush either told the American people one thing in public and
 told investigators another in private -- or misled both.

      It's time for George Bush to make public the transcripts of his
 questioning by the Tower Commission and the Special Prosecutor's
 office.

      George Bush's statements just don't add up.  Today, Bush yet
 again denied he was aware of the opposition to the deal of Defense
 Secretary Casper Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz.
 "There were two key meetings where they almost got into a shouting
 match, I'm told, that I did not attend."

      Yet, Bush was in the room during a January 7, 1986 National
 Security Council meeting with President Reagan to discuss a
 Presidential finding that authorized the arms for hostage deal.
 Shultz and Weinberger were present at that meeting and expressed
 strong objections to the idea.

                               --30--


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Global Marshall Plan
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:16:35 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:19:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.090506.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> ,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     Let me give you some quotes from the "A Global Marshall Plan"
>chapter in _Earth in the Balance_.  You can make your own inferences
>regarding the cost of the Global Marshall Plan to the U.S.
>(To ceb@dbrus -- no joking in this post.)
>
>Pg. 297:  Improbable or not, something like the Marshall Plan -- a
>Global Marshall Plan, if you will -- is now urgently needed.
>
>Pg. 297:  In an inclusive economy, for instance, wealthy nations
>can no longer insist that Third World countries pay huge sums
>of interest on old debts even when the sacrifices necessary to 
>pay them increase the pressure on their suffering populations
>so much that revolutionary tensions build uncontrollably.
>
>Pg. 301:  To work, however, any such effort will also require
>wealthy nations to make a transition themselves that will be in
>some ways more wrenching than that of the Third World, simply
>because powerful established patterns will be disrupted.
>
>Pg. 304:  As a result, the responsibility for taking the initiative,
>for innovating, catalyzing, and leading such an effort, falls 
>disproportionately on the United States.
>
>Pg. 314:  And it is time for the United States to take the leading
>role -- because no one else can or will.
>
>Also, the summary of his New Global Eco-nomics plan on pp. 346-347
>has 12 points -- with *8* of them beginning with the words
>"Governments should...."


However,  nowhere in the book did he say that we should be the only
country to pay for the plan as Quayle suggested. Furthermore, Quayle's
use of the inflation adjusted figure of the original Marshall plan's cost
as the cost for this plan in the debate is totally illogical. It is  a
sign of
just how desparate they have become.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10610 talk.politics.misc:51982
From: drevik@utkvx1.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:49:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct14.231919.4815@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes...
>	Just so everyone gets the timeline correct:
> 
>	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
>it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can point
>to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that was
>only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did not" vote
>for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.


This kind of finger-pointing is the thing that ticks me off the most
about Congressional politics.  YES, he DID vote for it.  But you and
Quayle neglect to mention that it was part of a larger trade package
whose benefits ourweighed the downside of the Car. Init.

A congressional bill is rarely one-sided and is never single-issued.
It has riders, subsections, etc.  And when it comes time for a vote,
each Congressman has to outweigh the good vs. bad.  It's called 
comprimising, something the Bush has not clue of how to do.  If Bush
could have learned to comprimise, he could have had a successful
presidency and might keep his job.  But by vetoing 35 bills and
crying his eyes out for a line-item veto, he put us all in this
terrible situation.

Yes, Gore voted for it.  But when you look at why he did, what does
it all mean?  It means he knows how Washington works, and he's a
pragmatic person, not a disappointed dictator wanna-be.

-s



> 
>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser)
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:52:13 GMT

When Perot pulled out of the race in July he cited one of his
main reasons was that he didn't want to see the Presidency decided
in the House of Reps.

I haven't heard an explanation from him since he re-entered as to
why he thinks that's no longer a concern. 

 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10716 alt.politics.elections:17072 talk.politics.misc:52107
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:31:45 EDT
From: <SPW103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
 <1bjsd9INNq6p@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <1992Oct15.154532.4368@fid.morgan.com>
 <1bk6bvINN20u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>

In article <1bk6bvINN20u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) says:
>
> >> >
> >>Sure where do I "BUY" the book.....
> >
> >Any book store....its a #1 bestseller since it came out...
>
>Ross Perot bought 100,000 copies to keep it on the best seller list.
>I have no reason to read his plan. I could never vote for a hide and seek
>quitter. Face it the media got on him and he cut and ran.
>

Don't be a moron.  If you bothered to look past the Clinton sign you're
waving like a fanatic, you'd find out that the 100,000 copies that  Perot
purchased directly from the publisher DID NOT count towards the sales
totals of the book.  You obviously KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU SPEAK.
You probobly decided to vote Democrat a long time ago, and aren't even
bothering to learn anything about your choices.  So, do you believe
everything the press says about Clinton?  I bet you don't.  I don't
either.  Do yourself a favor, doubt EVERYTHING that everyone says about
anything and everything. It is only then that you can weigh all of the
rhetoric and make an intelligent decision for yourself.



>I have passed out over two-thousand copies of the Clinton Plan "FREE".
>

"FREE"  Bullshit.  I pay taxes.  Therefore I PAID for the damned thing.

> >I have read all four platforms and decided on Perot.
>

Ahhhh!  Intelligence!  Now if I could only believe that any of them
will stick to their platform.

>You Perot people just might re-elect what we are all trying to unelect,
>think about it on the Nov. 3.
>

I'm not at all sure that Clinton will be any better for this country
than Bush is.  As a matter of fact, having a Democrat congress and
Democrat president scares the hell out of me.  Sure, you could say that
means Clinton and Congress can get something done, but it also means
that they can send this country to hell real real fast.  We need a
PERSON in the White House, and PEOPLE in Congress.  Not a Club like
the republicans or democrats.  If you think for one minute that
Bill Clinton or George Bush or any partisan Congressperson doesn't
support their fellow "club-members" just because they belong to the
club and not because they're good at what they do.
    So, I'm voting for Perot.  What he says makes more sense than
anything I've heard from anyone else.  Don't try and tell me that
it's just a wasted vote, or a vote for Bush, because I think thats
bullshit.  You vote for who you think will do the best job as
President of the United States.  You don't vote for second best just
so third best doesn't do as well.  It doesnt make any sense.

                        -Stephen Walker
                         Not working for ANY campaign
                         Penn State University

>Timothy B. Reynolds
>CLINTON/GORE
>Election Campaign '92
>Houston, Tx
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.correct
From: mci41087@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Occasionally)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:50:55 GMT

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>to be there.  Criminal rights are citizens rights, pure and simple.

Have to agree with that.

>>By the way, should white people be encouraged to be blackophobic 
>>simply because I can list as many annecdotes about black people 
>>mugging white people as you would like to hear?

>Whoops!  We have a budding racist here!  (Maybe a full-blown one!)
>Go ahead, asshole, give me some statistics.  They should be amusing.

Don't have to agree with that.  Seems to me that he was making an argument
against racism on the same basis that he makes one against heterophobia.  
Please don't throw around `racist' as a defensive accusation.  That kind of
talk gets those fascists like Duke winning votes, and makes the real racists
in this country off the hook.  After a while, people get tired of witch hunts.

Matt Ivaliotes
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:29:32 GMT


In article <1992Oct13.104124.4911@iti.org>, 
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) said:

> > What questions are there to answer?  Clinton went sightseeing in
> > Europe during his Christmas vacation, and one of the places his
> > tour went to was Moscow.  [matt@physics.berkeley.edu]
>
> Well there is a bit more to it than that. Several independant and
> very liberal people (hardly Bush supporters) say that Clinton
> organized anti-US protests there.

(1) "There" = Moscow?  Please back this statement up -- just _who_
has alleged that Bill Clinton had anything to do with any protests
in Moscow?  Please be specific.

(2) What "anti-US" protests are Clinton alleged to have organized
_anywhere_?  (Note: a protest against US policies != an anti-US
protest.)  Please be specific.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Clinton Tax Numbers
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:28:13 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent) writes:
: 
:   Clinton's numbers are very fuzzy.  Also, the top 2% does not equal
: those making over $200,000.  Clinton uses these interchangeably, but it
: just isn't true.  The treasury department points out that the top
: 2% for _families_ is $64,000 (and lower for single tax-payers of course).
: This was one flaw with the previous person's post.  The numbers are
: even worse than he pointed out. 

You wouldn't mind giving detailed information as to where you got your
figures, would you?

According to the World Almanac, in the US in 1988, the "bottom" income
for the top 5% of families was $92,001.
If this is true, how can the 98th percentile for family income in
the US be $64,000?  Either someone's figures are wrong, or family
income for the top 5% of Americans has declined significantly under
Bush.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ==> Dan Quayle: Attack Puppy Unleashed
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:41:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <Oct.16.13.24.25.1992.26320@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) wrote:

> >Please define the middle class- Democratic Governor Florio designed his
> >massive tax increase to hit hardest at individuals making more than $35,000
> >and families earning more than $70,000 - Some middle class indeed.
> >BTW, Florio said he say now reason to raise taxes before the election and
> >promptly raised them after he won- DRAMATICALLY.
> 
> I too would like a solid definition of middle class.  However, regarding
> Florio's tax *is* target at the wealthier citizens of NJ. I don't know
> what planet you're living on, but $35K per year for a single person 
> with no dependents a very good salary and is a hell of a lot more than
> many people earn.  My parent's *combined* incomes in 1989 were $33K,
> and that was the most they ever made in a single year.  We were 
> slightly below the average for the area (North Hunterdon County). 

I would have to argue with you here.  I live in the SF Bay Area.  35K is
*nothing* here. 

> I realize that the area that you live in determines how far your money
> goes, but if you are making ends meet, living in a wealthy area, that
> doesn't mean that you aren't making a decent living.  It means that you
> are living beyond your means.

This entire area is expensive. "Living Beyond Your Means": battle cry of
the Socialist.  That's a value judgement on your part.  My mileage may
vary.
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Reply-To: walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:11:19 GMT


In article <2ADB8389.13374@news.service.uci.edu>, jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.004937.16785@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>I agree. And then he passed the scaled-back 1991 Civil Rights
>>Bill. It contained the language "this is not a quota bill."
>				  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>To say that Bush vetoed a bill without saying that he signed the
>>bill after it had been modified (as he requested) is quite dishonest.
>>
>
>This language was also in the 1990 Civil Rights Bill.  The two bills
>were virtually identical.  The reason Bush vetoed it in 1990 was to
>give Southern Republicans a campaign issue.  The reason he signed
>it in 1991 was because honorable men like John Danforth convinced
>him that using racial division for political gain is not in the 
>best interest of the country.

I've heard this "quota bill"..."not a quota bill" argument many times.  Does
anyone have the text of these two bills on line or could post these bills or 
relevant portions of these bills?  I heard when the original bill was vetoed 
that it expressly forbid quotas.  Do any supporter of the veto have the 
passages from the original bill that called for quotas and have the updated 
passages from the passed bill?

Without the texts of these bills it is very difficult to determine whether Bush 
was justified or unjustified in hit veto.  If anyone has the facts, I would be 
very interested in seeing them.  

--
___________________________________________________________________________
Thomas Walsh 		walsh@via.enet.dec.com		Nashua, NH

:opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employers