HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: taco@baby.csd.harris.com (Pablo Fumero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting....
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:25:24 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Div., Ft. Lauderdale, FL
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.134.78.5

In article <1992Nov9.185153.8913@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov6.210109.13703@news.acns.nwu.edu> lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov6.191220.16336@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:

stuff about every special interest group wanting something for free ....

|> lighten up, no matter who won people would be asking for stuff.  and as for
|> wallets to be hide...bush got to everyones with his 2nd biggest tax increase
|> in history.  and who flew around handing out pork and 100% government disaster
|> relief for florida/hawaii etc?  good ol' bush-the-liar, that's who.  who
|> racked up more debt that any president in history?  who had the largest 
|> defecits...yep...mr.-tax-and-spend-liberal in republican clothing...that's 
|> who!  let's wait and see what clinton does before judging him.  funny how
|> everyone wants to judge him based on what they think he will do, but no one
|> wanted to judge the liar for what he has done!

Hey.. wait a second., before you set the random typing mode on your
keyboard. You have to have seen the devastation by Hurricane Andrew
in person to beleive it. The pictures you saw on the TV DO NOT do it
justice.

President Bush did what I EXPECT 'a president' to do when faced with
such a disaster. I can't beleive that he TOOK SOOOO LOONG to respond.

As for 'Slick Willy', wait untill he starts taking away more of
your hard earned money to pay for all his special interest promises.
Prediction: the debt will increase no matter who is in the White House.
The problem is not with the president, it is with CONGRESS.
-- 
Pablo Fumero 			Internet: taco@flipper.csd.harris.com
Diagnostic Engineering 		UUCP:  ...!uunet!travis!flipper!taco
Harris Computer Systems 	(305) 973-5167
Opinions expressed here are entirely my own and not of Harris Corporation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: A different prediction
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:47:00 GMT

In <1992Nov4.225440.8335@pony.Ingres.COM>
garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:

>Now that we have been given prediction, after prediction, of
>doom from conservatives, let me make a prediction with a more
>reality based slant.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How can reality be slanted.  Maybe you meant "liberal slant".

>Clinton will cut the yearly deficit in half over his four years.

Hah.  He'll be damned lucky if he keeps it flat.  That's $5 Trillion
of debt, folks.

>Government employment rate will not decrease (despite what he promises).

>On the other hand, it will not increase either.

HAH.

>Clinton's promise of tax relief for the middle class never 
>comes about,

How many times do I have to remind you of this?!?  Clinton NEVER, EVER
promised anything concerning tax decreases for the middle class (he did
say he wouldn't make them pay for HIS programs, though).  He only promised
that he would RAISE taxes on people making $200K or more.

>but neither does the conservatives claim of higher taxes for
>the middle class.

Don't count your chickens before they're plucked.

>Much to everyone's surprise, Congress does make significant
>campaign reforms.

Maybe.  But not unless we "help" them.

>He does, however, invade some small third world country just to prove
>he is macho like almost every president before him.

But not macho enough to go over and serve.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22692 talk.politics.misc:58268 tx.politics:7019
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: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:03:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>religious right will take over the Republican Party (which will as
>good as kill it) 

Too late.  They already did.

There are two big reasons Bush lost as I see it.

1.  The Republicans are correctly perceived as interfering in the lives
    of the American people.  Flag burning and Abortion are examples.
    Most Americans don't like that.

2.  Bush was elected as "Reagan - Part 2" but he was no Ronald Reagan.
    Under Reagan both taxes and regulation went down.  Way down.
    The economy boomed.  Presto.  Landslide.

    Under Bush taxes and regulation went up.  Considerably.  The
    economy died.  Goodbye George.


Social issues and the economy.

If you look at the number of pages in the Federal Registry, a generally
accepted seat of the pants measure of federal regulation, it went down
considerably under Reagan.  Result - economic boom.

If you look at the number of federal regulatory employees, yet another
generally accepted seat of the pants measure of federal regulation, it
also went down considerably under Reagan.  Result - economic boom.

Under Reagan these both went down for the first time IN U.S. HISTORY.
It really was a revolution.

Bush went back to the same old game, both those measures went back up,
it tanked the economy, and he lost.  Bush was not a fiscal conservative.
Reagan was.


If Clinton reduces overall government spending, (as a percent of GDP,) 
Reduces the tax burden, (gov. income as a percent of GDP,) 
Reduces regulation, (with Gore lurking around?) and 
Doesn't build a protectionist wall (with Gephart around?)

	then he'll get my vote next time.

But that all seems exceedingly unlikely.

I think he'll cave in to the big spending Democratic Congress and
devastate the economy and lose to Kemp in '96 in a huge landslide,
if and only if the Republicans jettison assholes like Pat Buchanan
and the Fanatic Right.

-- 
--
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. -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: giovin@medr0.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:03:49 GMT

In article <9211052323.aa05112@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu> davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU writes:
>
>> In article <9211042149.aa21592@Bonnie.ics.uci.edu>, davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU                                  writes...
>>>	Today on ABC Evening news with Peter Jennings...They showed
>>>	a Big Party In Bagdad because of Bush's lost....
>>>
>> I'd party too if the chances of my country getting bombed for political
>> gain just dropped.
There's actually a little more to the Iraq story... Newspapers (and I
imagine television also) claim that God (Allah) is with Iraq
and is punishing the president for his evil deeds.  Of course, we
all knew they would report this anyway.
Rocky Giovinazzo
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:13:44 GMT

In <1992Nov05.174539.32187@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: No, Clinton's plan is founded on the notion, well proven in history,
>: that men are in general a greedy and rapacious lot, and that without
>: some outside guidance and restraint they will lay waste to everything
>: around them in the name of their own profit and privilege.

>Humans are also social animals and will willingly help and take care of
>each other.  You socialists just have this strange notion that making a profit

Sure, just read the posts in this newsgroup - the willingness to help and
care are overwhelming. :-/

>is "evil", and that it's better to pick the pockets of the wealthy than to
>strive for excellence.

>: Then how do you explain the fact that people are working longer hours
>: and making less money than they did in the past?

>Because they're not.  This was campaign rhetoric, and not true over the last
>12 years anyway.

Really? Then who is it that Business Week, Fortune, WSJ. etc are
campaigning for, since they all state the same thing - real wages are
below 1977 levels.

>: In some areas, indeed, but we're working real hard to piss those away,
>: too.  We INVENTED most of the technology that other countries turn
>: into products and beat our brains out with.  Why do you think that is?

>Because we are business idiots apparently.

Agreed, at least most of our so called 'business leaders' couldn't find
their backsides with both hands in bright sunshine.

>: Yeah.  Vote for Nobody, because Nobody is perfect.  Vote for
>: Marrou/Lord, if you're into social Darwinism and industrial feudalism.

>You say that as though it's a bad thing.

>--
>John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
>        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation

I know that 'free enterprise' is a shibboleth here, but why do I have
so much trouble distinguishing it from the jack system [as in f**k you,
jack - I'm all right]. Free enterprise (or someone) has us building
bridges with 19th century technology (steel and concrete) at great
expense when most countries do it better and quicker with pre-stressed
concrete in one third of the time. We spend millions in all the wrong
things in the inner cities when the same money could clean them up.
We wage a phony war on drugs that has only managed to destroy the 4th
and 5th amendments, the list is endless.

Maybe Clinton scares you folks, but another 4 years of the Republicans
terrifies me.

REB


>"When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a 
> building?" -- TMBG
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22925 talk.politics.misc:58548 misc.legal:19621
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:53:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Nov6.085330.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Nov6.060458.14194@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:
>   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

Things have changed since then, but the way that Abe Fortas's
confirmation as Chief Justice was thwarted was by a filibuster of
Republicans.  Lyndon Johnson tried to appoint him to that position
(Fortas was already an associate Justice) during the waning days of
his administration (he had already declared he would not run for
re-election) and after the filibuster had succeeded, it was left to
Richard Nixon to appoint Warren Burger to the Supreme Court after he
was elected.

BTW, the rules for cloture (ending a filibuster) were different then.
It took a 2/3's vote of the members present.  Now it takes 3/5's vote
of the FULL membership regardless of the number of members present.

=== Al Sparks
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: Andrew Chase <T3F2@UNB.CA>
Subject: Silly Americans!
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:09:56 GMT

The media in the USA dictated who wins the election. I'm Canadian and
feel Perot would have solved America's problems it faces. However, the
media doesn't allow for him. 52% would have voted for him if the polls
did not show him losing. Only 19% voted for him because the polls show
he wouldn't win. Do you see the irony here? If you Americans weren't
bombardedwith polls Perot would have won! Polls should be banned but...
oh I guess that might interfere with one of your rights or something!
Its so egocentric for the canidates to say America is the greatest
country and people on the face of the earth. Canada by the way was
ranked #1 country in the world by the United Nations this year.
Haven't heard about it..... did you expect your media to report it!!!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
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 17:35:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Joe Mullally (rocky@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
: 	I think Mr. Blackshaw may not be considering these factors. I
: certainly feel people are much nicer in person than on the net. His
: implication about humanity, based upon a non-standard and unnatural
: gathering of human beings, is quite invalid. 

Agreed.  Well stated.

--
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"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23237 talk.politics.misc:59144
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:02:20 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu

In article <1dm90nINNheb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
> [Clinton press release dated Oct 29, despite the fact the indictment
wasn't handed down until the 30th.]

>Check it out on your own news server (better do it quick before it gets
>purged).  Isn't the electronic age wonderfull!
>
It is wonderful indeed.  At last, poetic justice for the use of the
net for campaigning purposes.

Originally I suspected that this was simply a prosecuter playing
politics on his own.  This raises very serious questions about
the Clinton campaign.  They deserve an answer.
-- 
Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Re: how do i apply to the Electoral College?
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:48:32 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

> from the same state where you reside.  As you note, in 1972
> one elector from Virginia voted for the LIbertarian Party ticket
> instead of for Richard Nixon; this is the last time this has
> happened that I am aware of.

Actually, it sort-of happened in 1988, as one Democratic elector reversed the
ticket.


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@benedict.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Reply-To: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:47:48 GMT

  Yes, I'm following up my own post...

sug6@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Note that saying that there is some economic impact from regulation is
>>NOT the same thing as what you asserted above, unless you assume the
>>only two possible choices a business can make are to pass through NONE
>>of the added cost (unlikely in the extreme) or to pass through ALL of
>>the added cost (also unlikely).  There's lots of middle ground there,
>>and lots of reasons for companies to NOT pass all taxes, regulatory
>>costs, etc., through 100% to the consumer.  
>
>  I really wish you would review the above studies.  They would provide
>you with much better information concerning this subject.  However, I do
>note (once again) that you mistate my position on "pass everything
>through".  Saying that "people pay taxes in one way or another" is
>hardly saying "corporations pass 100% of everything through to consumers".
>I should think that is obvious. (Although, I'm not terribly sure how
>consumers got into this discussion.  I never even used that word.)  
>Perhaps, you just want an easier position to defeat.  Or, perhaps,
>you really believe that corporations are faceless money
>generating machines.    

    Actually, it just occurred to me why you keep using consumers.
You are probably trying to apply to this situation something you once learned 
somewhere about what effect a per-unit tax has under a competition. 

   My guess is that you are thinking back to theory of how much
a "producer" pays vs. how much a "consumer" pays given who the per-unit
tax is applied to under competition.  Not only is this not immediately
applicable (since we are talking about a payroll tax on labor), but it
ignores the point that I was making that "producers" are comprised of
people and a payroll tax has a very direct effect on labor cost and thus
jobs and wages, particularly for small businesses.  Once again, I refer
you to the studies I recommended.

  There are no faceless taxpayers out there.  There are merely ways to try and 
hide the people that are being taxed. 

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
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
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:44:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.193322.4300@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Reducing the number of competitors has nothing do with with movement
> toward a monopoly?  Hmm, maybe I AM in the wrong discussion.  I
> thought we both knew what one was and were talking about progress
> towards one.  Now I'm left feeling like perhaps you DON'T understand
> it; understand it even less than I thought you did, I mean.
 
You were talking like the US airlines are the only ones that determine
whether or not we have a monopoly.  Ok, they are losing market share.  Who
is gaining market share?  Is it just one or two carriers, or is it spread
out over a dozen?  From what I've heard lately, there may even be an
increase in companies as more Pacific Rim companies look into getting into
the business.  A monopoly is highly unlikely.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 00:12:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.144028.1195@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>How much do you want them to spend to protect OUR access to oil?  How
>high are you willing for oil prices to go?

As high as the oil's worth.  Full costing, remember?  I'd rather
pay it directly when I fill up my gas tank than indirectly when
I pay my "income tax".



thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
I believe all human interactions should be based on mutual consent.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cs106406@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs106406)
Subject: Re: That issue in Oregon (?)
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:59:47 GMT

In article <aelman.720933858@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes:
>dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
>
>>Heard a lot of hype beforehand, but not since the election...
>>there was an issue the the Northwest regarding classifying
>>homosexuality as an aberration, or something like that.  How did
>>that one turn out?
>
>Last I heard, it lost by about 10 percentage points.  Pretty
>scary...but at least it lost. :-)

Yes, the Oregon measure lost.
Unfortunately, a similar measure in Colorado, amending the state
constitution to prohibit any state or local entity from enacting
or enforcing anti-discrimination ordinances, DID PASS.
This amendment voids anti-discrimination laws in a number of
Colorado jurisdictions.
THIS IS SCARY, folks.
mj


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:40:28 GMT

In <BxKAA9.9u@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.041832.17175@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Let's try and follow through on the thought a little bit.  Obviously
>> any nation which doesn't plan on engaging in some sort of system of
>> conquest would prefer not to expend too large a portion of its wealth
> 
>I don't agree with that.  Some countries spend a lot of money because they
>intend on become an aggressor.  Other countries spend a lot of money on
>defense because they happen to be unfortunate enough to live next to an
>aggressive country.

Yes, but once they've been spending 15%+ of GNP on the military for a
while, they start feeling the need to get some of that 'investment'
back. 

> 
>> could happen.  One is that someone much more inimical to our interest
>> than the Saudis could wind up sitting on top of all that oil -- which
> 
>The Saudis aren't stupid.  If we made it clear that they could no longer
>depend on us they would make sure that they spent the needed amount to
>protect themselves.

How much do you want them to spend to protect OUR access to oil?  How
high are you willing for oil prices to go?

> 
>> would be a very bad thing.  Another would be that the Saudis would
>> find it necessary to get the additional resources to do all this stuff
>> themselves from SOMEWHERE, and would wind up paying the price and
>> having no say at all in the policies -- which would be a bad thing.
> 
>No say in WHAT policies?  We clearly don't have any influence in whether
>or not SA (and OPEC) plays around with the price of oil.  We clearly don't
>have any influence on democratizing SA.  We haven't managed to get SA to
>sign a peace accord with Israel.  So what "say" do we have now?

Just why, pray tell, do you think the Saudis haven't been going along
with a lot of other OPEC countries that want to limit production to
drive prices up?  Where do you think a lot of our 'spot oil' CAME from
back when various nations were engaging in an embargo?

Reality check, Doug.

-- 
"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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections