HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:56:36 GMT
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Nov8.105951.22000@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.211416.29558@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>}>I don't think people wanted Reagan II.  Perot made sure that people thought
>}>about the deficit.  People who worry about deficits don't want Reagan II.
>}
>}Wrong. I am worried about the deficit and I want Reagan II.
>
>Reaganomics was hardly free market economics.  Spending increased, taxes
>actually collected (as opposed to tax rates) increased, regulations increased
>at about 300,000 pages per year, on average, real estate was subsidized,
>inflation continued, albeit at a lesser rate...

Spending increased? Yes, but at a reduced rate (compared with Carter/Bush).

"taxes actually collected (as opposed to tax rates) increased"
Well, that's the wonder of pro-growth, supply-side economics.
He was successful enough to pay for the expanded state.  :)

"regulations increased" Again, relative to Carter/Bush, it was certainly
slower.

"inflation continued"? hey, it went from 12% to 4% during his tenure.
You can't beat that.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: The real reason Clinton won the election
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:30:18 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu


From the Associated Press, via our school rag.  Taken w/o permission.

	LONDON -- A family-tree researcher saud yesterday that Bill
Clinton's defeat of President Bush could be seen as righting a 13th century
wrong.
	Harold Brooks-Baker said Clinton is descended from English nobleman
Simon de Montfort, who accused Bush's ancestor, King Henry III, of misrule
and led other barons against him.
	The conflict resulted in a parliament in which commoners were
represented for the first time.
	But the king broke his oath to observe the new democracy and sent
his army against Simon, defeating and killing him at the battle of Evesham
in 1265.
	"Simon's body was cut into pieces and bits sent around the country
to show what happened to democrats," said Brooks-Baker, an American from
Baltimore who is publishing director of Burke's Peerage, a publishing house
that documents the lineage of royal and noble families.


-- 
ssc@nwu.edu | Quid est, Catulle?  Quid moraris emori? (Catullus 52)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22693 talk.politics.misc:58271 tx.politics:7020
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: N.Y.C. BOARD OF ED MEMBERS OPPOSE CHOICE
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:09:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

*12  CHOICE WORDS:  N.Y.C. BOARD OF ED MEMBERS OPPOSE FERNANDEZ
     Two members of New York City's Board of Ed have voiced
reservations about a recent school-choice program announced by
Schools Chancellor Joseph Fernandez (Berger, N.Y. TIMES).  The
newspaper writes that the board members "wonder what impact it
will have on poor and minority families."
     Fernandez' plan would allow parents to send their children
to any school outside their district throughout any of N.Y.C.'s
five boroughs (See DRC 9/16, #13).
     According to the TIMES, "Interviews with the two board
members suggest that while they favor the concept of parents
sending their children to elementary and junior high schools
outside their districts, some board members fear that it will
diminish integration in the city's few integrated districts, as
middle-class white families send their children to more
prosperous neighborhoods."  The two board members are Westina
Matthews and Ninfa Segarra.
     Matthews cited concern that "because there was no money for
transporting students to schools outside their districts, there
are going to be 'barriers to equity,'" the TIMES writes.  And
Segarra's concerns include one that some districts that "have
been trying to invigorate long-troubled schools might now find
themselves losing some of their best students and the money
earmarked for those students."
     Fernandez wrote separate memos to both board members,
according to the TIMES.  He told Matthews that although the city
could not pay for added bus transportation, he would request
state legislation to reimburse N.Y.C. for the inter-district
transfer of students.  And he "acknowledged' in a memo to Segarra
"that districts that lost students to other districts would lose
financing," the TIMES writes.
     Also at issue is whether Fernandez' plan requires board
approval.  He has said it does not, and that he "could push [it]
through by amending an existing regulation."  But Segarra "has
questioned whether a major policy decision can be made without
the central board's approval," the TIMES writes (11/4).


-- 
--
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX
 - Begin means testing of Social Security, Medicare and Farm Subsidies now. -
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Nixon's gap and SILENT COUP
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:22:11 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)

In article <1dm90nINNheb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck347@cleveland
(Richard A. Mulac) writes, in full sarcasm:
>And Richard Nixon "accidentally" erased some of the tapes.

Nixon probably had nothing to do with the tape getting erased.  He
wasn't stupid.  See Colodny and Gettlin, SILENT COUP.  They make a
very convincing case that Haig (like Dean before him) was out of
control and misled Nixon every step of the way to protect himself.

Think about it.  A solid 18-1/2 minute gap in a tape of very poor
quality is completely unnecessary quantity overkill.  A few scratchy
overwrites at the right place in the conversation--and there is no
evidence that anything relevant was discussed on that tape--would
have sufficed.  Meanwhile, the "smoking gun" was left untouched.  The
most likely explanation is that someone wanted to embarrass Nixon
very badly, and raise Watergate muckraking to an ever higher fever
pitch level.  And that someone was probably the one who leaked the
gap story to Woodward.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: * THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON!?! *
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:56:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.100523.147@kenyon.edu> turney@kenyon.edu writes:
>THE MEDIA ELECTED CLINTON.	
>
>Showing polls of the "likely voters", 28% of the voters, promoted Clinton as 
>the winner.  Polls of unlikely voters, 72% of the voters, were not shown
>because they did not show Clinton as the winner.  One wonders how the election
>would have ended if Bush or Perot would have been proclaimed as the winner by
>the media causing the hordes of "bandwagon" voters to shift their support.  The
>strong showing of Perot, despite their character assasination campaign, shocked
>the media.  19,000,000 Americans actually thought and acted for themselves!

Yes, I'm sure it surprised them.  And if one gives an appropriate benefit
of the doubt to supporters of the other candidates, it's a sure bet that
over 50,000,000 (!) people thought for themselves and voted.

While not meaning to denigrate supporters of Clinton and/or Bush, I
really do think it is fair to say that Perot received practically
no benefit from the so-called "bandwagon" effect, and that Clinton
probably received the most.

>The media, under the constitution, is free to do what they want - to whom they
>want - with no recourse.  They have abused that privilege in the pursuit of
>profit.  Americans must realize that "news" on the media is no longer "news" - 
>it is "newsertainment".  It is directed to achieve ratings and revenues, not to
>objectively inform the American people on issues critical to our country.  
>Americans, be skeptical of everything you see or hear.

This is excellent advice.
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:37:26 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: gsmith@lauren.uucp's message of 08 Nov 92 10:40:33 -0400

In article <1992Nov8.144033.23673@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@lauren.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt) writes (quoting me):
>>Apples and oranges.  In 1968, it was abundantly clear to *everyone*
>>that every single vote Wallace got came from Nixon.  One can make no
>>such determination about whose votes Perot siphoned off.
>
>Humphrey no doubt lost quite a few traditional Southern Democratic
>votes which still were not comfortable in the Republican camp, as
>well as some populist blue-collar votes.

I knew I'd regret that "every single vote" bit.  You are correct, of
course.  I still believe that most Wallace votes would otherwise have
been Nixon votes.  

>Got polling data to back up your wierd claim?

The claim is "wierd" only if taken literally.  Humphrey was a northern
liberal.  The only "polling data" I have off the top of my head is the
1972 election, which speaks pretty clearly about the affinity of southern
voters for northern liberals.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ozone Man theme song
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:34:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Nov6.193227.14098@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>In article <Nov.6.15.06.45.1992.10055@gandalf.rutgers.edu> Susan R. Hagan,
>shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu writes:
>>By the way, how old are you two?  Does you're mother know that you're
>>playing with her net account?  Actually, most children understand the
>>importance of preserving our environment.  They are taught about it
>>in school.  I'm at a loss.  I can't imagine what kind of mind(s) would
>>make up something like this.
>
>Actually I was relieved to see that not everyone buys into Mr. Ozones
>'wierd science.' His policies place almost every life form on earth
>ahead of man's. What is worse it is unclear that any of the predictions
>from his book are based on the real facts. 



Listen hon, wake up and smell the coffee.  THe facat thtat there is
a hole in the ozone layer is not weird science.  It is a fact.  It
is as big as teh North American continent.  The EPA estimates that
there will be 200,00 deaths due to skin cancer caused by this hole by
the year 2,000.  

THere is a hole in the ozone.  Look it up.  SInce you bemoan the state
of our childrren's education, I assume that you are well educated and
can at least do some elementary research before buying in to
propaganda of the anti-environmentalists.





>
>As to your remark about most children, I agree. That is one of the
>problems we face in the schools today. While we are worrying our kids
>about the 'terrible' state of the environment, we are not teaching
>them to read and write. Let them learn how to do those basic things
>and they will make up their own minds about the 'important' issues
>that we adults are concerned with.
>


I dont know about you but I hhope our kids will care more about the
earth than this present generation.  There is nothing incomptible
about teaching reading and writing and also talking about the
environment.  It doesn't take too much brains to figure out some
elementary problems like where are we going to put our garbage
has something to do with the environment.  Telling kids about
recycling is not propoganda.  

For instance, some towns on Long Island have mandatory recycling because
there is no place to throw out the garbage.  If schoolkids discuss
this issue they are learning about science (recycling) and civic
issues (what local gov't has to do), problem solving (what the local
gov't did about the problem, so what else could they do), this
leads to discussion and thinking by kids.  That is what you wanted
them to do when they grow up and learned what they need to know. Education
is a continual process.  Kids need to learn more then their times
table by heart.  THinking goes on at all phases of life.

I just wished more people owuld think about the environment and not
listen to anti environmentalist rhetoric as the gospel truth.
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: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:26:24 GMT

In <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.

>	The Republicans will be back in the White House in 4 years.
>The party's not in a shambles, they lost their 2nd presidential
>election in 24 years. Wow. The Rep.s still have a dozen decent
>candidates, the Dems still have none.

Well, I don't know about that.  I think the Republican Party is going
to have some problems until it can manage to shove its right wing back
into a cage with the rest of that fascist little bird where it
belongs.  If the Democrats haven't smartened up to the point of
actually BEING Centrist as opposed to just talking Centrist to get
elected, then you could be right.  But we could just as easily see
Perot as President in four years, if one or the other of the major
parties doesn't learn the real lesson that (on a national level) they
tend to be much more extremist than their 'grass roots' support.

-- 
"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:22838 talk.politics.misc:58441 tx.politics:7042 misc.legal:19611
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:04:58 GMT
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA

In article <1992Nov5.220118.11506@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <adams.720979443@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>No, I don't think so.  Remember, the Republicans still have 42 seats,
>>enough to fillibuster.  Cuomo would be fillibustered.  I think you'd have a
>>lot more luck with Lawrence Tribe, who I fully expect to replace the first
>>vacancy (which should be Blackmun, right?).
>
  I'm not sure that Senate rules permit a filibuster (one "l" plez ;-)
  on judicial confirmation.  In all previous confirmations I have 
  watched, there was a preset time limit on supporting speeches from
  both sides.  I am not sure on this however.  I certainly don't ever
  remember a filibuster against a Supreme Court justice.  If someone
  could do that, why didn't a Democrat filibuster against Thomas 
  since certainly a lot of Dems didn't want to confirm him.

  I was surprised to see that all of the last 5 Senate seats went to
  Republicans, even thought the votes in all elections was very close
  through the night.  Sigh, I was sort of hoping the Dems would pick 
  up 60 seats so they could have a filibuster-proof Senate.  
  
  Jon Rosen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:14:22 GMT

elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
>That's an interesting opinion, but the market tends to vote with is
>dollars. The period after those figures came out was business-as-
>usual despite the expressions of surprise about how high the figure
>was.

     I've seen two articles questioning the last round of GNP estimates.
It's worth noting that the estimates have been higher than the actuals
(which come out much later, with much less publicity) for several quarters.
And the seasonal adjustment for October had the opposite sign than it
did last year.

     This would be a great subject for a "Forbes" article.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 17:28:16 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

David L. Cathey (davidc@montagar.com) wrote:
: 	Oh, I just *have* to respond to this one...  In another thread, you
: just ABHORE the No-Pass/No-Play rule, because they have the right to free
: choice.  They should play football (a "comfortable" living) on a free ticket,
: and you think it's unfair that the have to put up with a little discomfort
: on things like not failing classes.  Here, you're bitching about some of 
: those very same people!  Maybe they don't want to make lots of money, John!

If they don't want to make a lot of money that's fine, but that doesn't mean
that the rest of us have to take care of them.

: 	You obviously haven't thought some of this through, since you
: can't have it both ways, John...  Although I do agree with you on these
: three lines.  Don't you see that you encourage them to take hand-outs at
: the early stages, and then hope to take it away later?  

There's two distinct issues here:  Is a publicly funded general academic
education for everybody, regardless of his abilities and interests, both
necessary and an efficient allocation of resources?  (I remain unconvinced
on this).  And, given that "we" have already decided to mandate this, does
it make sense to disregard interests and ability when deciding how to 
educate people?  Does it make sense to mandate a college-prep curriculum on the
40% who DON'T go on to college, or does it make more sense to expand their
opportunities to include vocational training in the fields of their choice
(and yes, that includes professional sports)?

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:42:10 GMT

In <1992Nov9.214710.9631@gvl.unisys.com> dave@prc.unisys.com (David Lee Matuszek) writes:

>Just my $0.02.  According to the vote tallies I have read, Clinton
>received a majority of the votes in one state (Arkansas) and in
>Washington, D.C.
>IMHO, this is not exactly a "mandate."
>  --dave

     On yesterday's McGlaughlin Group, Pat Buchanan, of all people,
asserted "Mandate schmandate; Clinton won.  Bush did not.  Clinton is
president by the law of this country, and that is all that matters."    
(quote is not exact).  The others agreed (Fred Barnes included). 
     Fact is we have a new president, and quibble as you may about how
he got there, he got there.
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dear Republicans
Date: 5 Nov 1992 17:07:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>I survived Reagan; I cheered when he was shot.  I'm not proud of it,
>but it's so

I can't believe anyone would stoop to making a statement such as this.  
The only thing having an attitude like this will get you is a visit 
from the Secret Service (you've probably been added to their nut list 
because of your post).

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1461 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!     
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
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:07:38 GMT

In article <exuptr.210.720981678@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
> I think there is a market for these cars.  The ones who are buying Jap 
> today.  I'm not pro-regulatory normally, but we should protect our auto 
> industry when the "other guy" is using unfair or questionable tactics.  BTW, 
> much improved comfort).
 
And the loser in that senario is the American public which ends up paying
more money for lower quality cars.  Japan does have more import
restrictions on cars than the US, but European automakers have made
some real inroads.  The biggest problem is that Japanese consumers
still consider US cars junk.  That's not surprising since American 
consumers also think Japanese cars are of higher quality.  How can
the US car companies expect to sell cars in Japan when they've been
losing market share in the US!
 
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sad comment on democracy
Date: 9 Nov 1992 20:53:57 GMT
Organization: Center for Information Technology Intergration, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bodwin.citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov8.175045.13265@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1d9ai4INNi07@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, 
|> rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) said:
|> 
|> > Barbara Boxer elected to a Senate seat in California, 
|> > despite huge numbers of bounced checks, 
|> 
|> Really?  And just what were these "huge numbers," anyway?
|> 
|> (Hint: This is a trick question.)

I'll bite. 149 "bounced" (overdrawn) checks..
		Rob

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob Skrobola      Institutional File Server Project
Normal Disclaimer: I speak only for myself
-----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics