HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:10:11 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
: 
: |> Agreed! Let's drop the cost of health care by dropping the threat of
: |> medical litigation... oops, sorry. For a moment, I forgot that Clinton
: |> supports the trial laywers and their movement to ensure that we spend
: |> our dollars in the hospital instead of the court.
: 	Tort reform is a great idea, but it's hardly a universial cure.
: Denying people the right to sue an incompetant or fraudulant doctor is
: never going to sit well with the public, so any tort reform idea is
: only going to be able to cut a small portion of the lawsuits. 

I don't think it's going to go over well with the abulance chasers, excuse
me, lawyers out there.  And what is the predominant non-political
profession among Congressmen?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Is it a Coincidence????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:18:38 GMT

terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (St Theresa of the Net) writes:
] In article <1992Oct6.000021.14558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
] >In article <1akhv8INN1bv@uwm.edu  > terri@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Theresa J Flynn) writes:
] > >PENCILS UP, YOU MAY BEGIN
] > >Joel McNally, the Innocent Bystander -- The Milwaukee Journal 10/1/92
] > >A midterm campaign examination on everything we have learned so far:
] > >1. Which promise on taxes by George Bush do you find more persuasive?
] > >   a.  His 1988 pledge:  "Read my lips.  No new taxes."
] > >   b.  His new, improved 1992 pledge: "I am not going to do it again. Ever,
] > >       ever."
] >    Both.  Bush didn't raise taxes, Congress did.
] 
] [etc., etc.  we've all seen it.]
] 
] Uh, David, it was a *lighthearted piece of humor.*  Unfortunately, all the
] paint fumes from your Nixon Youth Poster Workshop have probly toasted your
] neurons.

1. well it is a point of order, as it is a clearly
defined part of the way the powers are distributed 
under the constitution. He merely signs it into law.

2. What was the only Veto that he was NOT able to sustain....

3. Is there a 'Smoking Gun' Lurking in that Fact?


ciao
drieux

ps: or was that GunSmoke?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Don't Just Rock the Vote
Kick OUT THE JAMS!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8007 alt.politics.clinton:8843 talk.bizarre:33136
From: jon@zeus.med.utah.edu (Jonathan Byrd)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Fathers, abortion
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:35:14 GMT
	<1992Oct6.162127.3657@sci34hub.sci.com>
	<1992Oct7.010013.10853@athena.cs.uga.edu>
	<1992Oct7.014947.5386@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: University of Utah

In article <1992Oct7.014947.5386@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

   It is all in the hands of the woman to kill the child.

right on, john peter wagner!

it's about time they let us guys in on the fun.

--
jonathan byrd
jon@apollo.med.utah.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9486 alt.politics.clinton:10977 alt.politics.libertarian:929
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: cable tv
Date: 16 Oct 1992 17:20:55 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Oct16.094207.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <trussell.718400856@cwis>, trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
>> rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers) writes:
>>>items 1-4 should NOT be controlled by government, these are
>>>issues that work themselves out by consumers/competition. 
>>>the only thing any regulation might have business doing is
>>>guaranteeing the market be open to competition so each 
>>>individual can select the service provider in their home. 
>>>even this is debatable.
>> 
>>     Obviously you haven't read the bill itself (why not?  don't want to
>> be informed?), because what the bill does is to mandate these price controls
>> only in areas where the cable company is a monopoly, and remove them when
>> competition is in place (like DBS, which the cable companies have been
>> fighting tooth and nail and attempting to deny programming to to retain
>> their monopolies).  This act puts a stop to their unfair attempts to
>> deny choices to the public, and leaves them alone once it's out of their
>> hands.
>
>The public does have a choice; get rid of their cable.  This will force the
>cable companies to reduce their rates.  It's called a free market and it works
>better than govt. regulation.
>--Ray Cote

Yeah, the public has a choice, get rid of their telephone to get the phone
company to reduce rates. No one forces you to have a phone. Yeah, lets go
a step further, disconnect the electrical service to force the power
companies to reduce their rates. For some reason I don't see it happening...

What, you say its *different* ? How? All three are granted "limited monopolies"
to "exclusively service an area. The American consumer survived just fine
before they had any of the three utilities (i.e. they're not *vital* services)

Free market didn't work with the telephone system...Free market didn't
work with the power company...Free market won't work with cable unless there
is a way to provide the consumer with an *equal* alternative (i.e. competition)

John



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: millerm@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Mikemoe)
Subject: Re: Bush is...
Reply-To: millerm@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:52:52 GMT

In article 14886@umbc3.umbc.edu, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.091858.2383@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>	[re: Rush Limbaugh]
>	You want intellegent debate and Rush Limbaugh in the same conversation?
>Are we still talking about the guy who uses words like EcoFacist and FeminNazi
>the way some people eat peanuts? A guy who routinely referrs to the next
>president as "Slick Willie"? A guy who has no obvious dedication to the
>whole truth, just the part that supports what he wants to say?
>
>	If you want intellegent debate, start with some. Try George Will or
>any of the other conservative writers/speakers that manage to hold discourse
>without relying on insults and straw men to make their point.
>
>	(Is it just me or does it sound like I'm stating the obvious?)
>

Just you...I like the guy...not EVERYTHING he says. The point is...it takes
a guy saying 'rude' remarks to get the conservative view across. Unfortunately.
Furthermore, he can get away with stating the obvious without causing mass
hysteria/backlash because that is his 'schtick.' 

Case in point: the Sinead episode. To illustrate the magnitude of what Sinead
did to the Pope's picture, he ripped up a picture of Jesse Jackson. [I don't 
support ripping up pictures of ANYONE in public, so please don't flame me on
this particular point.] Believe you me, if Sinead had ripped up a picture of
Jesse Jackson, more outrage would have followed. But it seems people want to
'understand her.'  Oh well, I digress.

Conclusion: Unfortunately Limbaugh is popular because he is not afraid to share
his views. I (a conservative) do sometimes feel uneasy stating my views because 
I don't want to offend someone. At least, Limbaugh is willing to state the views.

--Mike
>-- 
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services

---
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Miller   millerm@oakhill.sps.mot.com                 |
| (512) 891-8582   Motorola - Semiconductors  Austin, TX       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting |
| them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no   |
| good reason. -- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Debate trivial nonsense
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:22:18 GMT
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Oct12.171009.9733@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>
>{you've been warned by the title ...}
>
>
>Bush and Perot wore their watches on their right hand (okay, wrist, but 
>you know what I mean), which is the hand that lefties normally wear their
>watches on.
>
>Clinton wore his watch on his LEFT hand!  I was quite surprised by this.
>He did make up for it by using his left hand more than the others (the
>pumping fist he used to punctuate his remarks).

I noticed this as well, but who cares?  :-)

Bush and Clinton are both southpaws... I don't know about Perot... I've
never seen him write anything.

And before anybody comes running with theories on how left-handers are more
apt to be President, let's point out that the only left handed presidents
to date have been Truman, Garfield, Ford and Bush, and that fits nicely with
the 10 to 15% left-handers in the population.  :-)

>Anyone else have any trivial tidbits from the debate?

I really think that Perot needs to have a serious talk with his barber.  His
haircut just isn't short enough.

>patricia


-- 
 Jerry Kuch (jerry@cs.mcgill.ca) ----- SOMETHING NEAT SHOULD GO HERE.
 "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
  Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
                  --- M. Burns  "Treehouse of Horror II"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9501 alt.politics.clinton:11001 alt.politics.elections:17318 alt.rush-limbaugh:7639
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:31:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <1992Oct13.205054.27002@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
   [...]
   ALL I WANT IS A DEFINITIVE

	 "NO ONE MAKING < $200,000 WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TAXES"

   Give me this and you'll have me and others on the net marching to
   the polls for Clinton in November.  If you don't come up with a direct
   promise you'll probably lose some of the support you have now.  I'll keep
   reposting this until the election or until there is an adequate response.
   And if Clinton does make this promise and winds up lieing after he's in
   office, well, I guess he'll be bounced out in four years like Bush.
   Since the Clinton campaign uses "The rich are going to have to pay their
   fare share" as their lead in advertising and stump speeches, I believe they
   owe it to the voters to clear up the ambiguity.

So, I take it that the major issue in your mind is increased taxes for the
middle class. Would *any* circumstance, short of war, convince you to
change your mind? For example, what if your country is about to go broke 
and default on its obligations, i.e. financial collapse appears imminent?
If so, what about a "lesser" problem, like a genuine depression, with a
large number of people put out of work?

(I know. I know. Trying to tax the rich more could invoke a depression.. Of
course, having our government unable to meet the payroll for fully 1/3 of
the work force it now employs might have an adverse effect too.)

I don't like the idea of paying more taxes worth a darn. But I'd willingly
pay a lot more taxes for the next few years if I knew it was necessary and
fair and would definitely get us out of this financial mess. I know those
circumstances are not likely to converge, of course, since it would
require us to actually face the situation honestly and tackle these very
real problems. Not too likely, huh?

I think it is very foolish to make no tax increase the prime issue. It
leads to idiotic promises and catch phrases, like "Read my lips". And 
God help the politician who ever tells us the truth, instead of what we
want to hear: "no more taxes!".

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
I saw God. He rides a motorcycle. He's coming back soon, and He's real pissed.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:52:32 GMT

In article <92288.114612JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>>But even that won't work. In the past 20 years or so, Congress has spent
>>$1.25 for every $1.00 in new taxes.

>Try 12 years.  Try Republican Presidents.

and a Democratic Congress which did the appropriating. I have no problem
blaming Reagan.

But your statement doesn't change the bottom line: raising taxes will not
reduce the deficit but will actually increase it. Clinton's program will
therefore increase the deficit along with taxes.

The only pollitically acceptable way to end the deficit is to simply
freeze spending until growth catches up. This is part of Bush's program
which he may or may not implement but at least he understands the
problem better than Clinton does.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------193 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9411 alt.politics.clinton:10808 alt.politics.elections:17190
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:26:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct14.045619.21918@rigel.econ.uga.edu> hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.031141.26634@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>Saying that there will be ice floes on the River Styx is a polite way
>>of stating the unlikliness of something.  Think of where Styx is supposed
>>to be, and imagine it getting cold there...
>>
>>Simon
>
>   Your ignorance shines through on all your posts, but this is as
>   good as any to pick.  Styx is not associated with the xian hell,
>   which is obviously what you *think* you're thinking of.  Even that
>   association is wrong: as Dante describes it, portions of the xian hell
>   are room temperature, and the innermost portion is eternally
>   frozen (where Styx would end up, if any of this existed).
>
>   Wayne
Aren't we nit-picky!!   A Clinton supporter, I presume??
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: GET THE REAL STORY ON DAN QUAYLE
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:22:52 GMT


If anyone out there wants to find out the real story on Dan Quayle, much like
someone is advocating reading a book about the REAL Bill Clinton, read

MAKING OF A SENATOR:  DAN QUAYLE by Richard Fenno.

This book is an unbiased, facts-only account of Dan Quayle's terms in 
Congress.  It gives some real insights into D.Q.'s accomplishments and 
faults and failures.

I highly recommend it for anyone who seriously wants to defend or bash
Dan Quayle

Alex


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8953 alt.politics.clinton:10150 alt.politics.perot:2080
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Date: 13 Oct 1992 18:34:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) says:

[deleted]
>	People don't understand what Perot is all about. he wants to break
>up the security agencies, such s the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. Bush wants to
>consolidate them. Kennedy wanted to break them up. Johnson wanted to
>consolidate them. Big businesses and security agencies were afraid they 
>would lose their 'power' to Kennedy. Kennedy was shot and killed.

Excuse me, can you document that this is Perot's intention? With something
from an offical statement or position paper, preferably? If it is in "United
we stand," just give me a pointer to where. I have the full text, but 
obviously haven't read all of it yet.
If that's truly his offical position, I like it. Not enough to vote for
him, but it is commendable. 

>
>	Some people here believe that if Perot is elected, he's a goner.
>
>	Only Perot can fix this country. 

I really wish you guys wouldn't use that expression. "Fix" is way too
simplistic. You make the country sound like a cracked distributor cap.
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Re: Democrats: READ it and WEEP!
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:01:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.204844.25611@meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John 
Townsend) writes:
>     The study shows that the United States is farthest ahead in the 
service
> sector, which now employs three out of four American workers.

A good point.  The official trade surplus statistics only include 
manufactured goods.  I've read a few articles recently that have suggested 
that if services and consulting that US firms supply to foriegn nations 
were included in these figures that we might actually have a surplus.  One 
example would be all the money that Red Adair and his firefighters made in 
Kuwait.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9019 alt.politics.clinton:10224 alt.politics.elections:16580
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:48:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Oct12.050859.10782@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>There will be ice floes on the River Styx if Clinton becomes President.

Groovy.  First the VP gets all het up over what a fictional character does or
doesn't do on a TV show, now we get weather predictions for a mythological
river for November 4, 1992.  Can any Bush supporter deal with reality, or is
that asking too much?  Is this the reason why Bush has been incapable of
working with Congress, a congregation of real, live, adult men and women, not
some fictional collection of imaginary people?

It sure will be nice when we get an administration who can deal with reality
for a change.  21 more days!


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:47:17 GMT


I wanted to see what it would be like to vote for Clinton,
so I went into the bathroom and flushed the toliet.

I had this dream that Clinton was President, the Internationale was
played at his inaguration.

While walking down the street I saw a house decorated for Haloween
and I was wondering why they had a likeness of Hillary Clinton riding
a broom.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Summary: Failed policies
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:28:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.210658.12080@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackel writes...
>In article <MARCA.92Oct7115209@wintermute.ncsa.uiuc.edu> marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) writes:
>>
>>``Let's invade Panama!''
> 
>Let's protect the US citizens who are in danger in Panama.  Let's
>protect our children from the danger of imported drugs.
> 
Fact: No U.S. citizens were in danger in Panama. The couple that 
was supposedly harrased and beaten turned out to be smoke. The 
serviceman that was killed had actually ran a blockade and exchanged
fire. As for stopping drugs, by every measure taken, drugs are 
now flowing more freely through Panama thtn ever before.

>>Marc Andreessen
> 
>David Shackelford

I believe David has a killfile for me since he hasn't responded to
a single post of mine. I guess some people just don't want dissenting
opinion.

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: The First Battle of October
Keywords: Presidential debate, Clinton, Bush, Perot, St. Louis
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:30:09 GMT

In article <6023@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>-
>-Just two notes, 1) Tractor trailors don't run on 'gasoline', they run
>-on desiel and 2) even if you tax deisel (sp?) you could always tax
>-it less, or give truckers tax exempt desiel (farmers already get it).
>
>That may be the case. I hope I can find a car that'll run on diesel
>soon. :)
>
 
  I hope you will not say you don't see any cars run on 4 wheels. But 
I don't really expect those who believes Bush and Quayle know what is
there and what is not.