HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Staff Blasts 'numbers game'
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:02:19 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

In article <BuA78n.LDq@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>LITTLE ROCK, Ark.(AP)-
>
>Is the great tax debate over? Bill Clinton's staff has released a list
>that shows 127 tax and fee increases during his tenure as governor, one
>less than the number cited by the Bush-Quayle campaign.

   According to at least one story I've heard, the Bush/Quayle "Campaign",
considers Clinton's extension of the dog (or was it horse) racing season
to be a tax or a fee since it raised extra money for the state.  

   Not quite a tax or fee in my book.

Greg
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu

Clinton/Gore '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:13:00 GMT

In response to many people's complaints that this topic has strayed
far from politics, I'm taking it to email.
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:11:19 GMT

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>   Isn't it amazing how the liberal left doesn't have anything to say
>> anymore on Tipper Gore?  I guess she's their 'token' Family Values
>> advocate.
>>
>>   He he he he he he!
>>
>>   Seriously, I'd forget about watching any Presidential debates this year.
>> Instead it would be much more interesting to watch Hillary Clinton debate
>> Tipper Gore on the question of 'Should children have the right to sue their
>> parents for cutting off access to obscene records?'.

In article <gw9TqB8w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>Hey, sport, I'm still waiting for you to explain all of that pandering that
>George Bush has been doing since 1980.  I guess we can infer from your lack of
>desire to defend your candidate that he has no record, therefore all you can do
>is spew forth foolishness like the above in his defense.

  Who says Bush is my candidate?  Maybe I just can't stand Clinton.  I do 
know one thing - the Democrats have no sense of humour.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: approval ratings
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:23:00 GMT

i saw a report which appeared to indicate that the
approval rating of an encumbent president running for reelection
is an excellent estimator for November's general election.
since Bush's current approval rating was 39% the last time
i heard it, then he is in trouble.
what is his current approval rating?
how do Bush supporters interpret this situation?

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4323 alt.politics.clinton:4328 alt.politics.elections:12592
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:45:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns


In <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com> Roger Collins states:

|coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
||> The cure for a needed program with problems is not the elimination of that
||> program, despite that being what Reagan's evil minions have tried to make
|                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||> us believe for twelve years now. The cure is to make it *work*.

|Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
|wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
|disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
|never heard the term religious left?

Simple; for the same reason you only hear about "arch-conservatives"
and not "arch-liberals."

Actually, the "Religious Left" is very active, and one need look no
further than the Methodist Building across the street from the U.S.
Supreme Court building to find them. Included there under Methodist
Church support is everybody's favorite organisation, the National
Coalition to Ban Handguns, or whatever they call it now...
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 5 Sep 92 13:53:16 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

> In article <70akqB4w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:
>
> > No, I was sitting in front of the television praying that the sucker wasn't
> > going to dump Lake Pontchatrain on top of my house.  However, we do know a
> > about emergency preparedness down here.  FEMA could take a few lessons from
> > South Louisiana before a storm.
>
> I will agree about FEMA.  However, read Newsweek:
>
> "From Newsweek (Sept 7, 1992):
>
> "During the Miami stop the president offered Chiles federal troops several
> times.  The governor, sensistive to old-fashioned political ideas like not
> truckling to Washington, and still out of touch with the full scope of the
> hurricane's damage, turned him down."  (pg. 27)"
>
> > > > No, Blame Bush.  Blame his staff for not moving.  There is no such thin
> > > > days as states' rights.  Florida certainly has none, since there's no w
> > > > state or Dade County will be able to rebuild without federal help.  Sta
> > > > rights are a myth perpetuated by Republicans and racists (when the two
> > > > the same).
> > >
> > > I guess you really do want a King.  Why not just tear down state borders
> > > and just let the President do everything?  He offered troops and was TURN
> > > DOWN by the Governor of the state of Florida (Newsweek).
> > >
> >
> > Where do you get this king bit?  Was Eisenhower a king when he ordered fede
> > troops into Little Rock?  Was JFK a king when he threatened it in Mississip
> > and Alabama?  You don't get it yet:  states' rights is a dead concept.
> > Homestead AFB is (was) a *federal* installation.  'States rights' have no p
> > on a federal military installation.  It's also a military installation that
> > a runway big enough to permit a serious airlift.  No need to involve the
> > governor, just a way to help those folks out.
>
> States Rights is not a dead issue to a large group of us here in America.
> It's what the concept of minimizing the Federal Government is all about.
> States should be more sovereign.
>
> --
> 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!

Hmmm...if minimalization of the federal government is what you want, you'll
need to look beyond the GOP.  Look at how much government has grown under
Reagan and Bush.  Republicans don't even regard states' rights as a viable
concept, primarily because GOP Congresscritters are at the trough as much as
their Democratic counterparts.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1992 22:53:29 GMT

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:

>Try again. Think hard.  I said bring in a *mobile* hospital and *field*
>kitchens.  These come in tents.  Can you say that?  Sure, I knew you could.

Try again. Think harder. Pictures I saw showed rubble strewn all over the
place. What good is a >mobile< hospital or >field< kitchen if you have
nowhere to put them?


>That's why we're using military stuff in the first place.  If they can function
>in a Saudi desert, they can function in the midst of flattened buildings.

Funny, I didn't realize our military cleaned up a town which looked like
a bomb hit it  when they were in Saudia Arabia...


>Methinks you're not looking at the facts at all.  The people needed help and
>they didn't get it.  It wouldn't have been hard to get it to them.

Where do you draw the line at giving "help". Perhaps we should send federal
troops into NYC since, after all, the police there need "help" dealing with
drug crime.

>That's the facts.  Had Bush cared about disasters in the US, he'd have done
>something about FEMA.  Bush had at least two major disasters to contend with
>and observe how shaky FEMA was.  He tends to react to a crisis after the fact,
>but here's an example of where he has ignored a problem completely.

As a member of the local Red Cross and ARES emergency communications teams, I've
seen much preparation for disaster situations. But, no matter how much
preparation you do, things usually get fouled up. Why? A multitude of reasons
which we could debate for weeks.

Was response ideal? Certainly not. There rarely is a textbook case of
emergency responsiveness - and when there is, its usually from years of
training.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4564 alt.politics.clinton:4669 alt.politics.elections:12731
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 22:27:34 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

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

>
> In article <gw9TqB8w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >Hey, sport, I'm still waiting for you to explain all of that pandering that
> >George Bush has been doing since 1980.  I guess we can infer from your lack
> >desire to defend your candidate that he has no record, therefore all you can
> >is spew forth foolishness like the above in his defense.
>
>   Who says Bush is my candidate?  Maybe I just can't stand Clinton.  I do
> know one thing - the Democrats have no sense of humour.
>

au contraire...check out alt.fan.dan-quayle if you believe Democrats to be
humorless.  We may be guilty of taking cheap shots at such an easy target, but
not of a lack of humor...



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: Tree huggers, Bud-chugging-hairy-backed-red-necked-conservatives
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:31:52 GMT

yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh) writes:

`mostly with girls who feel
`that having a baby is the only way to improve their lives or to bring meaning
`into it.

`How can our education system have failed us to the point where intermediate
`school-aged kids feel they have no future to look foward to?

I know a girl with the attitude.  She has been in and out of a mental
home for attempted suicide.  She always talks of how she wants a baby
to give her a reason to live.  I don't think you can blame George for
her, or the school system.  Her problems stem from her mother.  Both
from a lack of positive value enforcement and from down right psychological
abuse.

But why not blame Bush for everything.  After all, he can make laws, he
can only veto them...


`"Eighty percent of air pollution comes from plants and trees."  --Ronald Reagan

And why include this quote?  You read that new book didn't you?  Well,
for your information trees do cause 'air' pollution - I can't attest
for the figure of 80% as I am not an ecologist.  But you must not let
your emotions get ahold of you before considering the logic in this.
Do not let yourself equate air pollution with other kinds of pollution.

Remember, there are a hell of a lot more trees in the world than there
are cars or flagellating cows, and the pollution (spoken of) they give
off is activily produced from sun-up to sun-down if I understand
correctly.

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:34:16 GMT

In article <la81loINNi@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
}In article <1992Sep1.152133.25112@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}|> Simple check:  When was the last report of a kid having a nightmare due to
}|> the possibility that he, his parents, his community,... might be incinerated
}|> while he slept?
}|> 
}|> Value comparison:  Which is more important to you?
}|> 1. Having a good job tomorrow?
}|> 2. Having a tomorrow?
}
}I assume you are saying that Bush gets credit for all the good things
}that happened on his watch and the Democrats get all the blame for
}the bad things that happened.  If it gets votes, do it -- if your
}concience doesn't bother you at night.

As opposed to, for instance, giving Bush all the blame for all the
bad things that happen in the US (that just happen to be even worse
throughout most of the rest of the world) and the democrats get all
the credit for having been able to do it better (in spite of no evidence
of their having done so.)

Please note that a change can easily be for the worse, not just for
the better.  Andrew visited a change upon southern florida.  A drought
visited a change upon ethiopia.  I really don't care for Clinton's
change, thank you.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5013 talk.politics.misc:45284 alt.politics.clinton:5285
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 14 Sep 1992 16:25:10 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <9086@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In <1992Sep13.054606.20803@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> 
|> >Further, this "high taxes" comment is unsupportable.  Even calling
|> >Clinton/Gore policies "higher tax" would be weak, given that they have
|> >proposed higher taxes on those making over $200k, lower taxes on others.
|> 
|> If the sum result of all of the Clinton/Gore tax changes result in more
|> taxes being collected, then by my definition Clinton/Gore support higher
|> taxes.

By that token, Ronald Reagan supports higher taxes, since his tax cuts resulted
in (or so supply-siders say) more taxes being collected (the result of an
increased tax base??).

|> --Mark


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4373 alt.politics.clinton:4396 talk.politics.misc:44171
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Power of USENET
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:10:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep8.172014.5802@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>
>>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?

Because it is a politics group that doesn't have Clinton or Bush in
its title!  If I am undecided, but still interested in politics,
the miscellaneous group would be first on my list of things to read
as it would be a cross-section (hopefully) of the two sides, battling
against each other, as opposed to the Bush and Clinton groups which
are much more one-sided.

>
>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.
>

Answer to Q2) none at all
answer to Q3) quite a bit. By reading UseNET postings, one could
find some ideas that are pro-their-candidate that they possibly hadb't
thought of or hadn't heard before that may be effective in swinging
friends.


>Yes, but that doesn't make it a significant campaign resource.
>
>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?
>
Agreed, we are not a cross-section of America, but we are spread out
all across it and we all see these postings at more or less the
same time.  
Does usenet reach influenceable voters?  Well, it influenced me and
still does.  There's one.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5266 alt.politics.elections:13238 talk.politics.guns:20997 talk.politics.misc:45665
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 23:06:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Sep15.142704.9707@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>
>> Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
>> wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
>> disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
>> never heard the term religious left?
>
>Because religious people on the left do good, they don't just talk
>about it.  
 
I know religious people on both sides of the political fencing that 
fit that description... 
 
>It's only on the right that there are people who call
>themselves "religious" and want to stick their noses into everyone's
>business and tell them how to behave.
 
You really ought to get out a bit more.  Again, there are religious 
people on both sides who fit that description perfectly. 
 
The only difference that I can find in my own experience is that 
extremists on the left are less likely than those on the right 
to describe themselves as "religious". 
 
That, and the fact that the "right" and the "left" tend to pick 
different points to bash one over the head with. 
 
One says that you can't choose abortion, the other says you can't 
choose to own a tool for self defense. 
 
Both are despicable. 


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4549 alt.politics.elections:12715 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3506 talk.politics.guns:20755 talk.politics.misc:44444
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:51:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>Reality in the US, at least among the young pregnant (7th-9th grade,
>with some high school), is different.
>I used to hang out with them.  Most knew what they were doing; they
>were TRYING to get pregnant.  The others didn't care whether or not
>they got pregnant.

>The ones who wanted to get pregnant thought that having a kid would
>make their lives better.

>-andy

Just a note. This position was seconded by an article in the
View section of the LA Times 9-9-92. Article's angle was that
'familly values' will not change this situation. I disagree.
A strong familly (which means plenty of love, respect, and
guidance), does not produce 12-14 year olds whose only chance
for the love and comfort they did not get from their own 
familly is obtained by starting one of their own. The only
problem is that this happiness never comes when one has a
child at age 13. No money, education, or future makes that
fact a certainty.

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:01:05 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <3#4y6dc@rpi.edu> blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) writes:
]In article <1992Sep4.164731.8994@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
]|> >	So what should we do in the meantime? Discriminate against
]|> >people with AIDS?
]|> >
]|> How 'bout treating them like anyone else who has a deadly infectious
]|> disease. Naw can't do that.
]
]BZZT.
]
]Infectious implies that by standing next to someone with a disease, I can
]contract it from them. In the case of AIDS this is FALSE. Too bad, really. I mean
]that you couldn't have read this the hundred or so times it's already been posted.

Hmmm.... you mean like syphilis? How about treating AIDS like syphilis
(which is what the prior poster meant when he said "deadly infections
disease")? Syphilis and AIDS are spread by the same routes. Syphilis
has mandatory reporting and contact tracing.... even though it is curable
and AIDS isn't.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc