HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Further proof that Clinton is bad for U.S.
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:19:13 GMT

In article <DOEL.92Nov20125839@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>
>As if we needed it, we finally have convincing proof that the Clinton's
>represent a very disturbing change at the top.  We no longer have a White
>House dog.  Instead, we're getting a damn cat.  I was all ready to give
>Clinton the benefit of the doubt on the issues, but once he showed
>favoritism for cats over dogs, well, he just killed his support from this
>citizen.

Q: Is it Bill and Hillary's cat, or Chelsea's?  I heard thaat he and
Hillary are allergic to cat hair.

>
>I'll be he likes the designated hitter rule & artificial turf too!

That's right: the Dems are responsible for these.  DH: an AL thing,
and who's been winning the White House when an AL team won the Series?
At least until recently.  Artificial turf is just vengence on the NL.

>
>:-) for humor impaired



A cartoon found in last week's New Yorker:
Picture: Middle-aged man talking to another middle-aged man in a bar.
Caption: "I just heard that Superman is going to die.  He's the same
	  age I am!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Issues on the voters' minds (was: Why is George Bush such a loser?)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:27:39 GMT


<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>

In article <21858@rpp386.lonestar.org>, 
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) said:

> "Issues they care about - Newsweek Special Election Issue, pg 10." <*>
> 
>                         All     Clinton Bush    Perot
> Economy, jobs           43%     52%     24%     24%
> Deficit                 21%     36%     26%     38%
> Health Care             19%     67%     19%     14%
> Family values           15%     23%     65%     11%
> Taxes                   14%     26%     57%     17%
> Abortion                13%     37%     55%      8%
> Education               13%     60%     25%     15%
> Foreign Policy           8%      9%     86%      5%
> Environment              6%     73%     14%     13%

<*> "Election Day exit poll of 15,241 voters conducted by Voter
    Research & Surveys, an association of ABC News, CNN, CBS News and
    NBC News.  The margin of error is +/- 1.1 percentage points."

Hmmm.  I realize that this is skewed/controlled by the pollsters'
initial ideas of what the potential issues-to-be-cared-about are, but
I still find it interesting that that dreaded Great Satan of the
American Mindscape of just a few years ago, the (cue up the "Jaws"
theme in the background, please) Menacing Drug Crisis, didn't even
seem to make the final cut.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24174 talk.politics.misc:61006 tx.politics:7554
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:36:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <lux+r*Bk1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.143927.22911@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
>> In <qliVr*ge1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >In article <1992Oct26.190244.19210@novell.com>, Brendan B. Boerner writes:
>> >> In article <yHqTr*gb1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>> >> >[...]
>> >> >Fred apparently doesn't know what "moderate" means.

>> >> >A "moderate" would NOT
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >  3.  Make radical Pro-Abortionism a litmus test for his appointments.

>> >> And Bush wouldn't make radical Anti-Choiceism a litmus test for his
>> >> appointments?  Yeah, right.

>> >He obviously hasn't yet.  Remember all the ridiculous "litmus test" accusations
>> >about Reagan/Bush Supreme Court appointees?  If those accusations were true,
>> >the Court would have already overturned Roe vs. Wade.  They had the opportunity
>> >recently, but they did NOT overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Therefore YOU are wrong.
 
>> Well, no, Jim.  What it demonstrates is that George Bush guessed wrong

>Fred still doesn't seem to understand plain English.  If it is a litmus test,
>then he doesn't have to GUESS how they will vote.  He would have already
>established that fact BEFORE appointing them.  Therefore he couldn't have
>"guessed wrong" as Fred said.

Huh?  You *ALWAYS* have to guess how they'll vote.  Unless you're Nancy
Reagan's astrologer, that is.  There is no such thing as establishing a
fact that hasn't happened yet.  They might *say* they're going to vote
one way, and then change their minds.

After all, Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor aren't exactly radical
pro-choicers or anything.  Their votes were a surprise to everyone. 
It makes a lot more sense to assume that Reagan/Bush *did* think they
were anti-abortion types, and wouldn't have appointed them otherwise.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24001 alt.politics.perot:5551 alt.war.vietnam:580 soc.veterans:1293
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Keywords: Willie Horton
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:50:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov13.201048.20903@news.nd.edu> wlamonac@larson.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca) writes:

|>In article <1119@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>>A. Only in MA could a person convicted of murder and sentence to life
|>>without possibility of parole be let out for the weekend, as Willie Horton
|>>was.
|>>
|>>B. Michael Dukakis signed his furlough.
|>>
|>>C. Michael Dukakis didn't sign MA's furlough plan into law, but he was on
|>>record as supporting it (including as I understand it, by vetoing a bill to
|>>change it, but I can't confirm that).
|>>
|>>In otherwords, it was a legitimate issue, and the ads were fair.  Sorry.

|>Wrong! Most states (~45 or so) have furloughs.  In fact while Ronald
|>Reagan was governor of California he furloughed two convicted murderers
|>who then killed again while out on furlough.  In interest of fairness,
|>George Bush should have brought that fact up too.

Can you not read or is that you just don't want to?

The issue is not whether their were furlough programs, but that the MA
program was unique in that it allowed furloughs to lifers.  No other
program did this.

Dukakis not did nothing to remove this program error, he actively opposed
others when they tried to do something.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24000 tx.politics:7406 talk.politics.misc:60529
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:07:07 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>sug6@benedict.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>  I really wish you would review the above studies.  They would provide
>>you with much better information concerning this subject. 
>
>Well, I'm not sure how the fact that regulations have a short-term
>impact is meaningful to your argument against them, either.  You have
>to look at the long-term effect of the regulatory effort.

  Short-term impact?  The studies I recommended _all_ concentrate on
long-term impacts.  Once again, I highly recommend Mr. Hopkins work and
the Fall issue of Policy Review (among the others I mentioned).  


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Dump the Democratic Congress( was Re: The end of the Reagan Era)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:29:23 GMT

In article <vzx+r*Ck1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> In article <1992Nov03.161142.1261@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:
> >  
> > I'm sure there are some Congressmen who made some decent money by using
> > their campaign contributions, but to pretend that most got rich in 
> > Congress is pretty intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Oh give me a break!  Compared to the average guy, almost ALL Congressmen are
> wealthy.  Many were NOT wealthy before they went there.  I think that YOU are
> being "intellectually dishonest" here.
 
OK Jim, give us some facts to back up your assertion.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 02:59:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: beirut.berkeley.edu


>>>
>>>In the referenced article, the poster summarizes our (LP) positions in
>>>a reasonably fair manner *EXCEPT* when he gets to foreign policy,
>>>which is bizarrely characterized as "isolationist".
>>>
>>>Just thought I should correct that rather strange parody of our views.
>>>Saying that the US should not meddle or be the world's policeman is
>>>hardly 'isolationist'.
>>
>>Au contraire, it's the precise definition of the word.
>>
>>If Libertarians had won the 1932 presidential election, Europe would
>>be under the Fourth Reich, and there would probably be some sort of
>>dictatorship here as well under a Huey Long or Charles Coughlin type.
>
>From Webster:
>
>1iso-late \'?^--se-,la^-t also 'is-e-\ vt  -lat-ed; -lat-ing
>[back-formation fr. isolated set apart, fr. F isole', fr. It
>isolato,
>     fr. isola island, fr. L insula]

Since I was the poster referred to, let me admit that "isolationist" was a poor
choice of words.  It sounds negative and derogatory--which wasn't my 
intent.  My point was that the Libs are against the government giving 
aid to or forming alliances with other nations.  Whether this is
"isolationalist" or not depends on your definition of the word.  

Also re the WWII discussion--I believe that whatever government we had 
would have eventually gotten envolved.  In fact we tried everything we could
to avoid war-- I'm sure using the military when someone else declares 
war on you would still be allowed.  Even without the draft, I think most 
of the people would have volunteered--lots of men who weren't drafted 
actually did volunteer for example.  Also, if the Libs did not follow 
public opinion or their policies failed, there would not have been a
revolution, they would simply be voted out--like all the other parties.  

Bill. 

--Gets money from the government and is happy about it. 









Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24106 talk.politics.misc:60782 tx.politics:7480
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:16:08 GMT
 <bViVr*ke1@caleb.UUCP> <1992Nov04.001516.32776@watson.ibm.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Nov04.001516.32776@watson.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti/100000 writes:

> In article <bViVr*ke1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >In fact, I haven't heard a single "pro-choice" person admit that the Pennsylvania
> >laws were reasonable.
> 
> Maybe because they weren't.

Ok, I'll take the bait.  Explain to us just what was unreasonable about the
Pennsylvania laws.  Also explain how that any or all of those laws would
destroy Roe vs. Wade as the pro-abortionists claimed.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Airline Industry
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:26:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.142314.18614@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> 
> You lost me on that last turn.  Where'd this "worth more split up or
> whole" bit come from?  Anyway, just how do you 'reform' the system
> while preventing companies operating under bankruptcy protection from
> competing with those who are not?  If they can't compete in the
> marketplace, they aren't ever going to come out of bankruptcy.
 
I already gave several examples including limiting the amount of time a
company can stay in bankruptcy and limiting the number of times in a given
period of time an airline can file.  Some of these airlines have had a
five or ten year cycle of 1 year in bankruptcy, 2 out, 1 year in
bankruptcy....
 
> I've provided as many as you have, Doug, which is none.  Oh, you've
> cited individual companies that were making some money, but you
> haven't given any figures for the overall industries, either.  You've
> simple tried to assert that since one company is making money that the
> industry as a whole must be healthy.
 
No, I showed you data for two companies.  The two biggest airlines in the
U.S.  You haven't introduced any data at all, other than to keep telling
the airline industry hasn't made money in years.  I've looked (without
success) to find overall industry numbers.  I also introduced some data on
the airline manufacturers.  Have you read anything on the subject or did
you base your whole argument on the fact that Mr. Perot claimed the same
thing in a debate?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: New Deal
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:15:07 GMT

In article <19921116121501ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble) writes:
>As to recovery, all of the New Deal programs did very little to relieve
>the impact (the psychological perception that the government cared about
>people was the main effect) of the Depression. 

I think the psychological perception shouldn't be undervalued -- it's
what prevents violent revolutions.

As for the efficacy of the New Deal, GDP increased annually 6 to 10% a year
under FDR.  Compare the 2.7% growth rate George Bush was trumpeting after
four years of growth less than half of that.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:45:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.022850.13866@midway.uchicago.edu>,
   thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

  [quoting me -- rab]
>>
>>Saying that the US should not meddle or be the world's policeman is
>>hardly 'isolationist'.
>
>Au contraire, it's the precise definition of the word.

Methinks the gentleman is very confused and needs to borrow a
dictionary.  Being "isolationist" implies being isolated by choice:
it implies no interactions with others.  Libertarians are anything
but isolationist (using the correct, dictionary definition of the
word).  Of course, a militarist or someone who believes that we should
be the world's cops won't recognize that armies and defense issues
are a miniscule fraction of the universe of issues covered by the idea
of 'isolationism'.......

The further silly remarks on this subject are not worthy of response.
--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24102 talk.politics.misc:60778 tx.politics:7476
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:21:20 GMT
 <1992Oct31.185649.28876@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Oct31.185649.28876@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:

> Saudi Arabia is more than capable of protecting themselves, especially if
> the US allowed them to buy the weapons they wanted.  This whole argument
> goes back to whether or not the US should be in the business of protecting
> rich countries that could afford to protect themselves, if they were
> so inclined (which they aren't since the US does it for them).

This is nonsense.  Regardless of the weapons that we let the Saudis buy, they
don't have the population to use them!  Much of their current military is
manned by foreign mercenaries (e.g. Pakistanis, etc.)  The Saudis cannot
possibly defend themselves alone.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24157 talk.politics.misc:60961 tx.politics:7533
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:56:45 GMT
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <1992Nov16.170523.41439@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>
>If we can't afford it without their support, then we don't build the road.  If
>we can, and we think it's worth it, then we build it anyway and either charge
>them toll (if it's worth enforcing), or we let them use it for free.
>
>: Anyway, you must live in a very wealthy
>: neighborhood, if people can afford to 'chip in' and will collect
>: enough money to pave your whole street.
>
>If people can't afford it, then they settle for a dirt road, or whatever they
>can afford.  Does every neighborhood NEED a paved road?  I doubt it.

What you would end up with in a system where the government doesn't build roads
is that instead of an interstate highway system there is a patchwork of dirt
roads with toll collectors on every block.  For the few roads without
toll collectors, the owners have spent more money building and maintaining
roads than they have saved on taxes.  In such a system I would use my 
connections to buy a 1 foot cross section of LBJ Freeway and charge everyone 
5 cents to cross it.

I doubt that there is a single PhD in Economics who thinks that it would be
more cost effective for individuals to build and maintain their own roads.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:36:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.145104.18196@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Gee, where to begin.  The 24 hour waiting period is unreasonable.
> Requiring parental consent for minors is unreasonable (if they're that
> afraid to tell their parents, there's usually a good reason).
> 
> What other medical procedure has these kinds of constraints on it?
> There's what makes it 'unreasonable'.
 
How many other surgical procedures can minors have performed without
parental permission (or even knowledge)?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: parrish@ecn.purdue.edu (Stephen L. Parrish)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:57:10 GMT

In article <Uf27s0y00VpBE0ykVS@andrew.cmu.edu>, Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 16-Nov-92 Re: Anita Hill to
|> Head EEOC Nick Jovanovic@cs.yale.e (774)
|> 
|> > In article <1992Nov12.171025.2502@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
|> > krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
|> > >In article <1992Nov12.072718.22982@Princeton.EDU>
|> > niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> > >
|> > >>No, only the Republifascists think we *need* a government telling us
|> > >>what values our families should have.
|> > >
|> > >No, we Republifascists have normal families, we like our definition just 
|> > >fine, thank you.  You liberoanarchists have your own thing, you want to 
|> > >call it a family and thereby denegrade the meaning of our families.
|> >                               ^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> > It is ironic that you can't use the word you meant, namely denigrate,
|> > which means *to blacken*.  You show your ignorance and racism at the
|> > same time this way!
|> 
|> > -Nick
|> 
|> 
|> Word         DENIGRATE (DEN'i-grayt')  tr.v.
|> Definition   --tr.v. -grated, -grating, -grates.  1. To deny the validity 
|>              or importance of; belittle.  2. To calumniate the character or 
|>              reputation of; defame.
|>              denigration --n.
|>              denigrator --n.
|> 
|> His use (but not spelling) of the word was not racist, and you sir are
|> out of line to make such an accusation.  Denigrate is a commonly used
|> English word, and is used to denote the above, not "to blacken" anyone.
|> 
|> 					Tom the non hacker
|> 					Kemp in 96!
|> 					"If patriotism is the last refuge
|> 					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
|> 					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
|> 					Bob Jackson

For the hearing impaired... I asked the question earlier:

Show to me the racism you perceive in his reply...

and the use of the word denigrate does not make one racist:

Webster's 7th Collegiate Dictionary, Copyright (C) 1963 by Merriam-Webster,
Inc.  No part of this information may be copied or reprinted without the
express written consent of the publisher.

den.i.grate \'den-i-.gra-t\ \.den-i-'gra--sh*n\ \'den-i-.gra-t-*r\ 
   \-gr*-.to-r-e-, -.to.r-\ vt [L denigratus, pp. of denigrare, fr. de- + 
   nigrare to b]lacken, fr. nigr-, niger black : to cast aspersions on : 
   DEFAME - den.i.gra.tion n


-- 
Stephen Parrish              |  "Do not speak to me of good men, bind them
Purdue University            |   with the chains of the constitution"
School of Nuclear Engineering|   --  Thomas Jefferson  (roughly) 
parrish@gn.ecn.purdue.edu    |  KEMP/Powell '96   (If the US survives '92-96)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc