HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: AT.PLC@forsythe.stanford.edu (PCURRY (415)723-0730)
Subject: Re: Bush Declines Debates: WHY?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:24:17 GMT

In article <Bu2t2K.6Fs@mail.boi.hp.com>,
rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler) writes:
>
>Okay, can anyone give me a good reason why GHWB declined the presidential
>debates?  I can't believe that this would be in his campaigns best interests.
>Debates have come to be expected and are the norm for presidential elections
>so what gives?  Is he really that afraid of being exposed as having no ideas?
>Are the republicans terrified at the prospect of an unmuzzled Dan Quayle going
>off half cocked?  What kind of positive spin can they think they will get out
>of this cowardly decision?
>
>Anyone???
>

Try this on for size:

The Bush campaign is trying to figure out (a) how to fold debates
successfully into their strategy and aren't sure yet, and (b) want
to negotiate the best (for their guy) structure, format, schedule,
and so forth.  By "refusing" now, they buy time for (a) and force
(they hope) a negotiation to get whatever they decide they want in
(b).  The refusal isn't a refusal at all, just a bargaining tactic.

On today's MacNeil/Lehrer Gergen & Shields installment, the guys
speculated only a bit tongue in cheek that the Clinton campaign
would rather debate Bush in public debates than have to negotiate
terms of debate in private with Mr. James Baker, who apparently is
a rough opponent across a negotiating table.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4202 alt.politics.marrou:1059 talk.politics.misc:43960 alt.politics.elections:12506 talk.politics.theory:4063
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Jobs
Date: 6 Sep 92 07:47:30 GMT
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Project Athena

In article <1992Sep4.052830.12554@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>	Hello. I have a question for you people employed in the private
>sector out there, or those who have been employed therein.
>	When you got your degree, assuming you got your degree, and assuming
>that degree was intended to prepare you for the job you are now in,
>would you say that that degree has fulfilled or been necessary in your
>ability to function properly, i.e., to do your work?  From my few
>experiences most of the people who go into the 'Real World' find that
>from what they learned in post-secondary education, only a very
>small amount or none is used.  In many cases the knowledge which is
>actually relevent to their work was never mentioned in college.
>	Obviously if your job is purely technical or research oriented
>the school experiences would give you at least the facilities to
>communicate with your co-workers to some degree.  However, businesses
>survive and grow by improvising, by finding niches and new solutions.
>Textbooks which are even months old can be lightyears behind current
>industrial goals.  The knowledge which one learns in college can thus
>very quickly render one obsolete, and thus dangerously unemployable,
>or at least the advantage of a degree lessens.

I heard some kind of a statistic that said something to the effect of
80% of all college graduates ouside of Math, Science, and Engineering
are employed in a field other than what they studied in school.


>
>				J. Wagner
>


Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 8 Sep 1992 03:30:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) says:

>Given that the debates go back to the 1960 election, I don't think they rate
>being classified as 'relatively new.'  That's no excuse for Bush's cowardice,
>however, since he was the one that sought to improve his image in the '84
>debate against Ferraro, and was the guy who tried to act like The Terminator in
>the '88 series.

Refusing to debate Clinton might be one of the last mistakes Bush makes in 
public life.  It would be his last chance to get his message out.  It's
especially important to him since the GOP royally screwed up the convention
by turning it over to the reactionary fringe, so that Bush got no lasting
benefit from it.
-- 
Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
"The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:49:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep11.162248.13702@umbc3.umbc.edu>, williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.124638.27676@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep5.034853.27507@wri.com>, walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
>>|> In article <1992Sep4.123555.11553@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>>|> >He did inhale. 
>>|> 
>>|> How do you know?
>>
>>	Ever smoked.  If you are in a room with dope you have to breath.
> 
>   I was invited out to a car by a girl I was interested in to smoke a joint.
>   I had never smoked pot before or since.  When the joint was handed to me
>   I took a drag, held it in my mouth for a bit, and as casually as I could I
>   blew the smoke thru the open window.  I repeated this three times never once
>   inhaling the smoke.  If 15 yrs. ago Clinton was as nervous about smoking
>   pot-something he had never tried before-as I was at the time I believe him
>   when he says he didn't inhale.  I know I didn't then and subsequently I have
>   said the same thing as he did when asked if I haver ever smoked marijuana.
>   
     When Al Gore was asked to comment on the Clinton/pot smoking
fiasco, Gore said he had no problem with Clinton inhaling over 20 years
ago.  But Gore did have a problem with Clinton's constant exhaling of CO2 
(a greenhouse effect gas) for the span of his whole life.   :-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:37:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <NEERI.92Sep11165255@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>In article <BuD7sq.K08@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>  Fans of Clinton/Gore high-taxes/government-investment/government-mandated
>>  worker-retraining/national-health-insurance would learn something by 
>>  looking at western Europe:  The average EC unemployment rate is currently
>>  9.5%.  At it's recent *low* in the 80's it got down to 8.3%!   In the 
>>  US, in what is one of the worst recessions in recent history it's "only" 
>>  7.8%.  (source: Business Week, current issue)  
>
>Not all of Western Europe is high-taxes/government-investment
>government-mandated-worker-retraining/national-health-insurance.

  Can you name any EC nation with lower mrginal rates than the US?
  Can you name any without some form of national health insurance
  or mandated employer-supplied health coverage?


> And Sweden, the country which probably fits these criteria best, had
>  unemployment between 1.4% and 2.8% through 1985-1990.

  Their unemployment rate is quite a bit higher now, although still
  below the US.  But at the cost of the highest marginal tax rates
  in Europe, and their central bank recently set the lending rate to
  ** 75% **.  BTW, there is a very good interview with the Swedish
  prime minister about this in today's WSJ -- highly recommended.

  Sweden has always been a unique case -- they have managed to 
  maintain a high standard of living, broadly distributed prosperity
  (i.e., they have no significant endemically poor class like US
  blacks, for instance), labor peace (despite the power of the LO,
  and the HUGE % of the workforce which is unionized, they have 
  fewer hours lost to strikes than most industrialized nations), 
  and civil peace (they have a very low rate of crime).  On the 
  other hand their unemployment rate IS climbing rapidly, their
  deficit is out of control, in the late 60's they had the highest
  unit-productivity and GDP productivity in the world and today
  they are well down on the list.  They also have a low population
  density, low birth rate, and are ethnically homogeneous (modulo
  some Lapps and guest-workers) so they manage to avoid many of
  the social conflicts that plague other nations.   So Sweden is an
  interesting example of *something* but it's unclear how well 
  their experience can be mapped to any other society.

  
---peter
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Answer Re: Bush's economic plan
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:19:49 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

"Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu> writes:
?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.

It's the "Agenda for American Renewal."

Just don't ask me what the stupid phone number is again. :)
[1-800-368-1200]

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The Power of USENET
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:00:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.000355.377@athena.mit.edu> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.210152.8537@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Since usenet really isn't a significant distribution media, ignoring
>>it isn't necessarily "clueless" and doesn't imply that the Repubs don't
>>want to spread the word about their campaign.
>
>Why not?  An estimated 2.5 million people worldwide are USENET readers.

First approximation - non-US readers don't matter.

>And 110,000 read the talk.politics.misc group.  (Data from news.lists
>for Aug 92.)  That's many, many voters.  Not to mention the untold
>numbers that get forwarded files from people that read USENET.

How many of those voters are open to being convinced?  That's the
relevant number, not the total number, regardless of the position of
the rest of the people.  What's the marginal benefit of reaching
them via the net instead of by other means?

Maybe the Bush folks are wrong to ignore the net, but it's their call
and it isn't necessarily wrong.  Since few of us have the relevant
experience, our "common sense" isn't necessarily valid.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:32:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.175342.11514@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>In a *very* tasteful piece of journalism on Nightline last night, Ted
>Koppel talked with Senators Sam Nunn and James (?) Danforth about the
>country's possibly most important problem: the deficit. 

According to most polls, the deficit ranks DEAD LAST among the issues that
concern the average voter. The number one issue is the economy. Even that
tired old liberal standby, "homelessness", ranks above the deficit in
importance.

An increasing federal deficit is just the economy's way of saying that the
federal welfare state is living on borrowed time. Now I can see why senators
like Sam Nunn and James Danforth would consider that a grave concern. But
why that should rank in importance above other issues to Americans not
employed or subsized the uncle sam is totally unclear.

The reality is that the deficit will continue to increase until the role of the
federal government is reduced. For once, Bush is on the right track.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Organization: gte
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:48:10 GMT

In article <farenebt.716237970@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
> williamf@umbc4.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper) writes:
[...]
> Clinton and Gore are new. They are fresh. They are young. They are not burdened
> with history. In some cases, experience is good. I felt in 1988 that Bush had
> the experience to lead the country (I did not vote for him but I was not
> horrified when he won, which I would be if he won this year). In 1992,
> I know that I don't trust him. Clinton's alleged failings are with his personal
> life. Bush's failings have been as President. Guess which one affects me more?


Try taking a look at the budget problems in Arkansas.  It's been said
that these are a result of Clinton's health care proposals (among other
things.)

Try taking a look at Gore's statement to that the automobile poses
a greater threat than the nuke.  

Ever wonder what your life would be like with a 50% federal income 
tax (for $20k and over, not $200k).

Ever wonder what your life would be like if they banned the sales
of gasoline?

The only good thing about Clinton/Gore is that they will bring us
to the economic collapse / second revolution that much quicker.

(Whereas Bush/Quayle will get us there eventually.)


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Bush plan on Health Care?
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:46:33 GMT

On the McLaughlin Group yesterday I heard (I think)
M. Kondrake state that Pres. Bush had a health care
proposal 'out there'. 

Well, I checked the UMD ftp site, and I don't see it.

Does anyone have a text or a citation?

Thanks. Please don't post any me-too's; they 
just clutter things up to make a negliable point.

Thanks.

Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

      ... How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
      To have a thankless child!
                                           King Lear 1.4.272-286
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Alexander Hamilton a Leftist?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 22:43:43 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

Well, if my memory serves me right, I believe Jefferson wanted an
agriculturral nation.  Hamilton wanted something else.

And didn't Hamilton in the Constitutional convention want a life-long
term for the president?  (or wasthat someone else).  I suppose in those days,
aristocratic tendencies and similarities to the monarchies were considered
"conservative" in nature.  Those who preferred the ideals in the Article
were generally speaking, "liberal."

Also, the Constitution was written to help provide domestic tranquility
following Shey's Rebellion and others.  Anarchy was in the air, and Hamilton
wanted a strong government to keep law and order.

All I rememberfrom my high school days was preferring Hamilton to Jefferson.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5282 alt.politics.elections:13249 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3819 talk.politics.guns:21004 talk.politics.misc:45684
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: The Power of USENET
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:20:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.033331.16126@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.200054.24025@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>How many of those voters are open to being convinced?  That's the
>>relevant number, not the total number, regardless of the position of
>>the rest of the people.  What's the marginal benefit of reaching
>>them via the net instead of by other means?
>
>Well, if they're reading the miscellaneous group as opposed to either
>the Bush or Clinton group, then they are probably going to be more flexible
>in their voting I would think.

Why?

>And don't think that the effects of UseNET postings are limited to just
>the people reading the posts.  The posts are read by a great number of
>people, and then whenever one of those people's friends brings up
>politics, the opinions expressed on the groups will no doubt be figured
>in whatever the postreader says to his or her friends.

So?  How many of those readers are going to present arguments
favorable to the candidate that the reader doesn't support to said
friends?  How much will those postings improve the effectiveness of
said readers promotion of his/her favored candidate?  Unless the
answer to the first or second is "lots", Usenet postings don't affect
off-list people.

>To me the true power of UseNET is not just its availability or
>spontaneity, but rather the fact that we are essentially participating
>however we please in a newspaper of sorts.

Yes, but that doesn't make it a significant campaign resource.

>UseNET is the ultimate poll.  It doesn't just ask a person's opinion
>and then tally that number in a percentage as part of a scientifically-
>based random sample, we actually get to read the thoughts behind
>the points, i.e. people's reasons for voting the way they will as
>opposed to just how they will vote.

Usenet postings are a poll only of the posters, who may, or may not,
be representative of the readers, and who definitely aren't
representative of the population at large.  (Dukakis would have won
overwhelmingly in 88 if posters had had their way.)  Even so, it still
isn't necessarily a useful campaign resource.

Useful campaign resources reach influenceable voters.  Does Usenet?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5018 alt.politics.elections:13052 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3690 talk.politics.guns:20908 talk.politics.misc:45287
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:16:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BuIzHC.Dqx@cgl.ucsf.edu> atwater@labmed.ucsf.edu (Susan Atwater) writes:

>In article <1992Sep13.062022.22088@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>>From article <1992Sep12.070447.11974@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, by jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner):
>>> In article <swood.716272312@vela> swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>>>>
>>At least some varieties of trees do indeed cause air pollution.  The
>>Great Smokey Mtns were so named because a prevalent species emits
>>a gas that ends up being converted to smog.

>No WAY!  Prove it.                         

Most, if not all ,trees emit hydrocarbons.  Some trees are better at it than
others.  I believe pine trees are the champs though.
When hydrocarbons react with sunlight (UV to be precise) they form smog.

Shock and Horror.  Reagan was right.  If you believe the media, it may have
been the only time.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4250 alt.politics.clinton:4242
From: boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Live Online Conference re: US Elections
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 21:57:54 CDT
Organization: Consultant
Reply-To: "Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu>
Distribution: us
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Sep6.204517.1994@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> (alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton), greenie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:
> I'm posting this message for the Conference Hosts;
> 
> The IDS World Network will be holding a "live", CB-Simulator chat conference
> on the 1992 election and the candidates.  Topics currently being considered
> include The Economy, Healthcare, Education, Family Values, Abortion, and
> "World Leadership Role".
> 
> The first discussion will take place on September 4th from 7PM EST until
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A little late isn't it?

> 9:30PM EST.
> 
[stuff deleted]
> 
> That's September 4th, 7PM EST on the IDS World Network CB Simulator.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe, do you mean the 14th?

> telnet ids.net [155.212.1.2]
> 

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

boyd@vax.anes.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 21:05:06 GMT

In article <168627A56.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>We've published figures showing, for instance, that inflation adjusted
>income for workers and managers rose a real 3% between 1982 and 1991. Under
>Carter this figure fell.

Another example of using selected statistics to prove a point.  Here's some
more.  In 1991, personal income rose a mere 2.1% while inflation was 3%.
The first time in over 30 years that personal income did not keep up with
inflation.  If this keeps up (as it will if Bush is elected), even those
who became millionaires during the Reagan years might start feeling the
pinch.

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            bills@sequent.com

It isn't pollution that's harming the environment, it's the impurities in
our air and water that are doing it.			- VP Dan Quayle

If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4720 alt.politics.clinton:4923 alt.politics.perot:1431 talk.politics.misc:44818
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:18:12 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

I really liked the Bush ad I saw last night. 

They used the entire width of the video frame for the final info on 
ordering Bush's book with his plan for the future -- with the result 
that the last digit of the phone number did not appear on the screen! 

Someone forgot that many TV sets cut off the last part of the scan 
lines....  Such competence! 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4864 alt.politics.clinton:5094 alt.politics.perot:1453 rec.humor:28485 talk.bizarre:29865 talk.politics.misc:45081 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5305