HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: what does Clinton have to SAY?
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:33:34 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Apr11.012454.11524@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>
>  Well, not that I trust Clinton to stick to what he says, but this is what
>he says.
>
>
>Health Care:  Favors "play or pay".  Personally, I dislike this as it
>keeps too much emphasis on the employer for my taste.
>
	Does Arkansas have a play  or pay system. I hear some states do.
Has he implemented this in his own state.

>Economy and taxes:
>a) middle class tax cut and increased taxes on 
>incomes greater than $200,000.
>b)  $800 per child tax credit
>c)  acceleration of highway spending
>d)  earned income tax credit to insure no Amercian working full-time
>would fall below the "poverty level".
	Are these plans similar, in any way to the tax plans and economic
development ideas he's proposed/used in Arkansas.

I'm slightly worried that Clinton's positions come from market research
more than from an internal committment.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:717 alt.fan.dan-quayle:1024
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electronic town hall (was Re: Ross Perot)
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:41:16 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


Someone referrred to people surveyed and when showed a copy of the
first amedment said people cant just say what they want.

In NYC they did a similar survey with the Declaration of Independence
and no one cuold identify it and all thougut it was really radical.

And Bush's solution to the education problem is to let corporations run
our schools. please
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mlcole@nevada.edu (Michael L. Cole)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: SCS-DataComm
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:04:09 GMT

when i go to a resaurant, i *EXPECT* the food i order to be healthy.  i don't
really like playing russian roulette with my stomach.

having worked as a bus boy many years ago, i am well aware of the corners many
managers use to cut costs just to save a buck.  that same business sense can be
found in almost any organization.

i personally feel that "regulations" are necessary to protect innocent 
consumers from the fraud that would otherwise run rampant without them in 
place.

i will also agree that many regulations need revising to insure consumer safety
but at a minimum interference to the business that is being regulated.  

the only disinterested 3rd party i know of that could be relied upon and held
accountable for regulating an industry is the local, state and federal 
governments. 

sorry, but leaving industry to self-regulation and/or market forces does not
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Bush and the Adultery Question; IMUS
Keywords: IMUS
Organization: None
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:51:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.182650.10546@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> folse@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Mark Folse) writes:
>I believe the question of George Bush and adultery was covered quite well
>by the LA Weekly in 1988, and not picked up by a single other media
>outlet that I heard of.
>
>Perhaps someone with easy access to back issues could post a sommary of
>their article.

This morning on NY radio 660am (Dom IMUS of IMUS IN THE MORNING FAME), Jeff
Grenfield (WABC TV NIGHTLINE) says it was heavily researched back in 1988
by the newspapers and media and they could not substantiate it as fact;

IMUS has mentioned it on his show from time to time, even mentioning the
ladies name. But apparently its just a rumor. I'll skip mentioning her
name since its yet to be proven. For all I know, the name is fictitious.
But I'm not going to spread the rumor further....

BTW: for those of you who have access to this radio show, its entertaining
as well as informative- Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas have
all been on the show. Other people who call in include Mayor Dinkins (NYC),
Senator D'Amato (R-NY), Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Senator J.Lieberman (CT),
Gov Lowell Weicker (CT), etc.

Tomorrow, Jeff Greenfield will be calling in to discuss the NY Primary. Today
 they discussed how it might go, what a brokered convention means, etc
 
Supposedly Hillary Clinton has tried to call in to be on the air but 
Imus has declined having her on.

IMUS endorsed Bill Clinton for these reasons :-)
1-He won't win in November
2-If he wins big in NY, IMUS can claim credit and increase
  his stature as a power broker :-)

Joe
joec@morgan.com


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 07:13:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.232818.16902@athena.mit.edu> solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>|> Have you heard of company towns?  Have you studied the history of the US
>|> around the turn of the century?  Do you know how Pinkertons got started?

>yup
 
>|> Why is government able to infringe on people's rights?  Because it is
>|> big and has lots of power. Major corporations have, or in the past have had,
>|> the exact same powers that government has to infringe on people's rights.  
>|> That is, they're big and they've got lots of money, which can buy power.

>But they can't force people to buy. The reason why people buy is because they

They can if you need what they're selling.

>like what they are getting. People go to work because they like getting money.

The same way people pay taxes because they like staying out of jail.
Do you really believe this?  I seem to have missed your smiley face.
People go to work because they NEED money, not because they like money.

>People choose to live in company towns (the kind that exist today atleast)
>because they are cheaper and closer to work.

I doubt company towns today are anything like company towns from the past.

>|> Which brings up a question I've had, which I hope the net.libs can
>|> answer.  What's the Libertarian position on incorporation?  As far as I
>|> can see, a true Lib should oppose the concept; a company is a bunch of
>|> people getting together to do something, not a government defined person.
>|> Incorporation prevents accountability; in the example someone gave about
>|> a factory which leaks carcinogens, they pointed out that the EPA limits
>|> liability, but that without it, the company would have incentive to NOT
>|> pollute.  But as long as you have corporations, in which they can declare 
>|> bankruptcy if too many people sue them, and in which the executives are 
>|> not responsible, then Libertarian liability-accountability doesn't work.

>I'm not a libertarian, but I subscribe to their philosophies, and I think that
>corporations are VERY bad.

Good.

>|> >Jason W. Solinsky

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:39:21 EDT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Why indeed?  FOr the want of real solutions and another easy
solution like reagan offered us and look where he got us.
From: winstead@faraday.ece.cmu.edu (Charles Holden Winstead)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Question:  Brokered Democratic Convention
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:38:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: fs7.1992Apr8.153845.17788
Distribution: usa
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon

What does a brokered democratic convention mean?  What are the circumstances 
that would lead to it, and how is it handled?  I hear the press talking about
it because people seem dissatisfied with all the candidates.  I thought that
if Clinton gets x amount of delagates, that he automatically gets the 
nomination.

Thanks,

-Chuck

:followups to this newsgroup are fine, as I'm trying to keep up:
From: normanm@cs.tamu.edu (Norman Ma)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Homeless Voters
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:53:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University

Just curious.  Can homeless people vote? (e.g. don't have a mailing
address).  It seems that one needs a mailing address to register to
vote; the voter registration card is sent to the address.  If the
homeless cannot vote, then they are truly the powerless and forgotten
lot of the society.  I guess the only worry of the average citizen is
that of keeping the number of homeless down to a manageable level
to prevent an uprising.  (cynical but there may be some truth to it.
This thought came about when I was wondering what are the motivations
behind philanthropic entities? A twisted allegorical answer is that
the Upper would prefer to live in a relatively safe environment than
under seize conditions behind ten-feet thick walls.)  Could someone
tell me that the society in the whole does have a heart!

--
=================================
Norman Ma   normanm@cs.tamu.edu  
Texas A & M University           
=================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: areid@mary.fordham.edu (Darin Reid)
Subject: Personal SURVEY: U.S. Presidents and Dates (two questions)
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:59:00 GMT

Hi,

      Since I finished high school I've always had two questions in my mind. 
The first concerns U.S. Presidents the second U.S. dates.  In fact I bet
everyone else has had these questions cross their mind.

     Well being a junior in college and discovering the Usenet has finally
given me a chance to ask these questions of everyone else.  Please send your
responses to me by E-mail as I don't regularly read the groups I'm posting this
to.

  The survey is simple.  Please send answers with reasons behind them i.e. no
cheerleading or slamming for one Pres over another.  If you choose one Pres
over another tell me why.  

   I'm posting this with a _world_ access because I'm _very_ interested in
non-U.S. views on the U.S.  So let me see some answers from everywhere
(especially British, French and Africans).

Please answer the following two question:

              1) Who do you think is the greatest/most important U.S.
                 President of all there have ever been.  Answers don't
                 have to be long but should have reasons (no so-so's the
                 greatest. stuff)

              2) What time in America's history (WHILE NOT AT WAR) do 
                 you think was/is it's most important.  This could be _any_
                 non-war time in U.S. history - 1780's, 1850's, Reconstruction
                 (the period after the U.S. Civil War), 1960's are a few
                 examples.

  _Most_ importantly, I am NOT a CIA operative!  I will not create a file with
names of the people who answer.  This is for my own personal consumption and
knowledge.  Like I said I've wondered how other people feel about these
questions for a long time.  And remember have fun at it.

Thanks in advance to all that answer,
- Darin

----
Fordham University
Internet:Areid@Mary.Fordham.Edu
Bitnet:Areid@Fordmulc
AT&Tnet:(212) 749-8187
From: c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:55:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: pasteur.1992Apr13.175520.21422
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Apr13.104905.1543@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr13.071317.19709@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, 
>c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) said:
>
>> Perhaps it is Congress that should get down to business.  Bush
>> gave his state of the Union address back in January.  He set the
>> March 20 deadline..  well, where has the Congress been?
>
>I think that mostly they've been standing around, staring at George
>Bush as if he was some strange visitor from another planet and
>wondering from where he got the weird idea that the Chief Executive
>has the authority to set deadlines for the Legislative branch.
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
>

Bush has the authority to at least tell them to do SOMETHING. He gave them
a reasonable time for the passage of an economic growth package.  Congress
is stalling, hoping to stall the recession of course. They don't want to
take the risk of having the economy improve so Bush will lose in '92 to
Slick Willie.

What exactly are you saying?  That the President doesn't have the right to
tell Congress to act in the State of the Union Address?   And what's so
wrong with giving them 3 months to act?  It's not like Bush only gave them
a week.   Of course, the House has been too busy with its scandals to
do anything useful.

William F. Tell
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:593 sci.econ:3621
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:05:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: FYL, Seattle, WA

In article <rdippold.702590356@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr4.050838.8631@tandem.com> kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose) writes:
>>>The irony, of course, is that a tax on gas is an artificial way of
>>>making gasoline more dear since it raises the price above what the
>>>free-market price would have been.  

>>Or, one could just as plausibly argue that a tax on gas corrects the
>>huge public subsidy for private driving that exists in the United
>>States.

>Then why not go after that problem?  The "an infinite number of wrongs
>= a right" approach doesn't seem to work too well.

Exactly.  Instead of "playing" with the gasoline tax, we need to let
it cost what it really costs.  I see two simple corrections that would
take care of this:
    * Eliminate tax breaks that artificially lower petroleum costs.
      This means that the price would rise to the real replacement
      cost.
    * Charge oil companies for the costs of "protecting their
      suppliers".  For example, we recently killed 100,000 folks
      to keep the cost of oil low.  This should have been paid for
      by the oil companies.  After all, Japan agreed to pay for
      what they considered their part of the "oil war".

-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@cpac.washington.edu or fyl@fylz.wa.com
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:22:37 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) writes:

>Bush has the authority to at least tell them to do SOMETHING.

    No he doesn't.  No president has. Congress writes laws, presidents 
enforce them, the courts referee. It's called seperation of powers.  
Look it up.  The seperation is supposed to make them work together as
co-equals.
    If the president wants a new law he ASKS congress to consider it.
(for example, the annual federal budget proposal.) Whatever law is passed 
(if any) goes to the executive branch for a signature. If the exec doesn't 
want to be responsible for the law it gets vetoed. If congress overrides 
the veto the executive branch is stuck with it.  Any ambiguous interpretations
of the laws are resolved by the courts. That's our system in a nutshell.

>What exactly are you saying?  That the President doesn't have the right to
>tell Congress to act in the State of the Union Address?  

    Yup.

    STATE OF THE UNION ==> Answers "What is the health of the Union?"
Not "What can I say to grandstand for the next election?"

>Of course, the House has been too busy with its scandals to
>do anything useful.

    Bingo.  The plan seems to be working.

>William F. Tell

Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman)
Subject: Re: The Democratic psyche
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:58:07 GMT

In <12422@tamsun.tamu.edu> achin@math.tamu.edu (Andrew Chin) writes:

>I just thought of the following analysis of the Democrats:

>   Superego:  Tsongas
>   Ego:       Clinton
>   Id:        Brown

>What do you think?

Keep your day job :-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: PAC's  Lets have a real democracy
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:12:37 EDT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr14.105308.23977@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>
>  Currently, our candidates run for president on money that is given to
>them by special interests.  Therefore, they  serve special interests,
>and not the good of the country.  We do not have a real democracy.
>
>  We should eliminate PAC's, eliminate funding from anyone or any group
>for control of the government.  We have a bought house!  Any sort of private
>funding whatsoever should not go into campaigns, including one's own money.
>
>  Currently, our government is a farce because it must cater to special
>interest groups.  It does not function for the good of the people, except
>when the good of the people corresponds to the interests of someone trying
>to make a buck.  Our media and some outstanding individuals have made a 
>very tiny dent in this, but it is insufficient.
>
>  How would they run for government?  Well, this would be provided for by
>the government, as in a free public forum.  Every candidate would have
>to get a certain number of supporters to continue to have coverage.
>Taking out a page in the New York Times once a week would be adequate,
>along with public debates on television for an hour or two.  The current
>method of platform ideas through sound bytes is ridiculous and inadequate.
>
>
>  Until these changes take place, we are living in a pseudo democracy.
>What is our problem?


We definitely need campaign finance reform.  Get rid of T.V. ads - make
them have to give a certain amount of t.v. ad time to candidates
like they do in Britain and other places.  That way, if all the candidates
(or parties) was a set amount of time they might actually talk about
what they would do it and why and why it would be better than the other
guys.  Now, most of the campaigns seem like vote for me b/c the
other guy is terrible.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gabriele@aero.org (Mark Gabriele)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Tax
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
	<1992Apr2.180616.4098@cs.ucla.edu>
	<Apr.2.14.03.54.1992.21515@math.rutgers.edu>
	<1992Apr4.172249.10008@techbook.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:43:32 GMT

I would refer all of you to the Wall Street Journal article from April 1st
or 2nd which was entitled:  "Why Liberals Should Support the Flat Tax."
This article demonstrates that the Citizens for Tax Justice cooked the
numbers (in fact using a  model of tax structure from the Reagan
administration which exempted nearly a trillion dollars from
taxation), and that the original Brown plan is actually quite
reasonable.  It may be that some adjustments need to (and will) be
made - a rebate to low-income people to compensate for the Business
Tax, for example - but it's NOT like the CTJ says.
 
Fact: Bill Clinton's campaign manager was, until last July, the
executive director of the Citizens for Tax Justice.  I wouldn't
consider them unbiased.
 
The National Center for Policy Analysis provided a forecast of the
economic plans of the 3 major candidates - Brown, Bush, and Clinton -
and Brown's plan came out much better than Bush's.  Clinton's plan was
dead last, predicted to cause lasting economic harm to the country.

=Mark
(gabriele@aero.org)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:47:40 GMT

In article <MAS.92Apr6090634@csa.bu.edu>, mas@bucsf.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich) writes:
|> In article <bma0hy.ff3@wang.com> fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
|> 
|>    When will we get a party that's libertarian on civil-liberties issues, but
|>    regards businesses as potential threats to individual rights, just as the
|>    government is?  This party would do _very_ well.
|> 
|> Sounds like the Democrats to me...

The democrats are NOT libertarian on civil-liberties issues. Not at all.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Democratic Candidates: New Yorkers' Opinions
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:09:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: violet.1992Apr8.140932.1
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67709317

In article <1992Apr7.234954.27482@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.201207.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
> f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) quotes from the NY Times:
>>  WHY THEY'RE FOR NONE OF THE ABOVE...
>>
>>  * None of the candidates will lead to true reform
>>  * All of the candidates have character deficits, be it scandal or flakiness
>>       or not enough gumption to take command
> 
> Of course, EVERYBODY has character defects.
> 
> Do you really think people are expecting to find people who don't??

Well, yes, I do.  Some voters are looking for JFK all over again....

We know (i.e., we were told) that Dan Quayle is no Jack Kennedy.

Sometime, somewhere, somebody will say to Bill Clinton, "Bill, you're
no Jack Kennedy" in attempting to dismiss him.

For better or worse, he is the standard against which all political
aspirants are compared.  That is why voters consider modern candidates
a collection of evils, not a collection of goods.  That's the way it is.
-- 
Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."