HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:46:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.130521.18346@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>
>fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu writes:
>
>>I guess this points out the fact that Bush is a reactive
>>President.  I doubt that he's done something to prevent a situation
>>in his life.
>
>I guess we can count on Clinton to be more *pro-active* about natural
>disasters?  I haven't heard any of his plans for making sure hurricanes
>or earthquakes don't strike during his administration.  But perhaps
>it's in keeping with his general policy to keep vague on the details...
>
>-- 
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 

Preventing hurricanes is not possible, but actively preparing for
a predicted disaster and quickly getting things moving when it
hits is not an unreasonable thing to ask.

------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Help needed to refute Bush bulldada
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:45:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


I'm looking for some references to refute some of the lies that came
out of the Republican convention.  Clinton raising taxes 128 times, Hilary
Clinton's opinion regarding children suing parents (I've read that it was
regarding a case of severe physical child abuse, but don't have the
reference), and so on.  Basically, I'm looking for ammo in local debates
with right-wingers.
Email would be appreciated!  Thanks.
 
Chuck
 
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Priorities
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:31:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.043816.11478@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.015725.5123@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.204524.763@ils.nwu.edu> Cliff Chaput <chaput@ils.nwu.edu> writes:
>
>>
>>Isn't it interesting that now the Kuwait War is over, the Democrats are
>>complaining that the U.S. didn't do a good enough job and that Saddam
>>Hussein is still in power?  There was even the idea to go in and get Saddam
>>Hussein.  They seem to be saying that economic sanctions are not working.
>
>The complaint may stem from the fact that once we chose war, we did
>not end it properly.  If we're going to discard sanctions, shouldn't
>war be prosecuted effectively, instead of restraining Schwarzkopf
>with the artificial 100 hour ground campaign?  Why didn't we rely
>on the field commanders judgement?
>

But was our goal in getting Saddam in the first place?  I don't think that
it is mentioned in any U.N. Resolution to get Saddam as the key component
in the War.  The U.S. and all its allies, in carrying out the war, respectfully
observed the U.N. resolutions.  What some people suggest is to go beyond
the U.N. Resolutions and be the world's vigilante, one thing the Democrats
accuse the Republicans of being.
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:51:37 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <16856BB5B.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>others bravely obeyed their commander.  Before Bush and Reagan, the soviets
>were strong and had taken over Afghanistan, and had strong influences in
>South and Central America.  These are not true now, and you owe it to
>Bush and Reagan, not any Democratic president nor to the left leaning
>Democratic Congress and Senate.  Now that international affairs are in
>order, relative to the Carter years for example, people tend to focus
>on domestic problems.  I for one do not want a return to Democratic
>international bumbling.

Many people credit the ending of the cold war to the strategy of designing
weapons that were very expensive to counter, in effect, outspending the
Soviets.  I'm not an expert, but it sounds plausible to me.  But I have
heard (and I say upfront that I've only heard and don't have sources to
quote - if anyone out there does have sources confirming or denying this
please post them) that is a strategy that began with Carter, and which
Reagan and Bush merely continued.  The opposition to communist expansionism
does seem to have been a bipartisan effort.

As for international affairs being in order, I dispute that.  Instead of one
big, fairly stable, hostile but sane enemy, we now have a host of small,
unstable countries, some of which have nuclear weapons.  The danger has
never been greater.

It's overly simplistic to credit Reagan and Bush with "winning the Cold War".
A lot of people, notably the citizens of the soviet-bloc countries, deserve
a big share of the credit.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:24:41 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Aug31.134126.989@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:

"Thanks Rick.  I had forgotten where I heard this information on Willy.  My
"final and personal point on this matter is this;  I do not want someone who
"avoided service to the country by lies and deceit having the power to send any
"American to war.

My opinion is that you can hardly call someone unpatriotic that signs
up to the ROTC, the ARMY and the Air Force to aviod the draft.
Apparently he did so for a short period of time, after which he got
out, and got a draft number in any event. It is very clear that he had
the correct opposition to the war, and many of those in similar
positions were grappling with those issues and deciding what to do. In
the end, Clinton decided to take the risk of being drafted. 

On the other hand, his running mate Al Gore was a hero in Vietnam. 

-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    | 
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3261 alt.politics.bush:3204
From: jdsurlow@uci.edu (Jim Surlow)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Office of the Dean, Humanities, UC Irvine
Distribution: usa
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:57:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.135400.23332@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
>Subject: Re: Dan Quayle
>Date: 27 Aug 92 17:54:00 GMT
>Thumbnail sketch of why some of us do not clap our wee handies and
>caper about at the possibility of a Quayle presidency: 

>-- 
>Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 

Oh boy, let's continue the Quayle bashing.  

However, who cares?  

Arguments have been that he may be stupid.  All the Latin America, potato, 
et.al. jokes, etc. etc.  I even admit that when I see his face, I think of 
the Boy Wonder on the old Batman show.

However, you seem to fear that he may end up as president.  I don't think 
that the presidency even requires great intelligence.  Let's recall Reagan & 
Carter.  Who do you think was the smarter of the two?  It's obvious who was 
the greater of the two presidents.  If you say it was Carter, I'll say that 
you are exhibiting a little denial.

So, who cares about intelligence -- and it doesn't matter Bush is healthy.

Jim Surlow
-- All politicians are liars and cheats.  There is not one with integrity.  
   And we the people made them that way.

   This message comes to you from California, the state which has gone 
nearly 2 months without a budget -- thanks to our "leaders"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Intelligence issue
Keywords: brain power
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:10:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.174959.1438@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>> = fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>[...]
>>>After 11 years, I would guess that Arkansas would have found out if 
>>>Clinton is an anti-Christ.  And I'm even going to assume that Bush is 
>>>a good man.
>
>>In Arkansas it is a 'customary' rather than 'internal' goal of people
>>to be Christians.  He may go to church, and thus the people will
>>elect him, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is Christian.
>
>Oh, BROTHER.
>
>C'MON with this bullshit.  You people are really getting desperate,
>ain'tcha?  You want to talk about fake christians, try Ronnie and
>his dress-stealing wife.  
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com
	I am not claiming that Clinton 'is' a non-Christian; nor do
I assume that he is a 'Christian.'  In Arkansas, it would be very hard
to be elected governor, as, say, a Moslem due to the high public opinion
of Christianity more from a cultural rather than ideological standpoint.
	For example; Ronald Simmons, a man from my home town in Arkansas,
may well have regularly attended church.  But when he went on a 17 victim
killing spree, he seems to have forgotten the Judaeo/Christian law of
'Thou shalt not kill.'  Thus, due to his habit of attending church, the
Arkansans will have had nothing religiously against him; that did not
imply that he was a Christian.  Similarly, Clinton attending Church and
being supported by the Arkansans does not imply that Clinton is truly
a Christian, either.  It is common for people to confuse culture
with ideology.

				J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Bush and Baker
Keywords: State
Organization: not very organized
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:17:24 GMT

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

>Then they don't get to
>complain when Bush removes Baker for his political reasons.

Why not?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Subject: Re: crisp's letter on clinton's gov't takeover
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:53:23 GMT

I read this letter by Richard Crisp about Clinton trying to take
over the country and impose martial law...  I feel stunned.  Let 
me try to understand this.

Any sort of gun control + national police force of any kind (like 
the FBI in uniforms or something) = martial law.

right?

(btw, before you get it in your head that I'm a bleeding heart liberal,
I'm not and I hope I never am.  And no random insults?  let's have 
a reasonable discussion without namecalling.)

(btw #2, weren't the bleeding heart liberals the ones that wanted
to have lots of giveaways to poor and disadvantaged people?  I thought
that meant they wanted to help people...  (its that 'with my money'
part that i don't get psyched about))

I remember seeing a while back someone saying that neither one of
these two people are bad men.  I heartily agree.  They aren't evil.
They aren't wild eyed radicals.  They are both fairly moderate
compared to their respective parties.  

I recognize the fact that you are sensitive about limitations placed
on guns.  I suppose that everyone has the right to an opinion on the
issue.  Fine.  I don't want to turn this into a discussion on gun
control.

I want to know why you think that if this sort of thing is limited,
and that if a national police force is instituted, that we'll become
like Nazi Germany.  I'm sorry if I'm just misunderstanding you, but it
seems somewhat paranoid.  Should we assume that homosexuals and
atheists will be put into concentration camps and shot if we got a
president Buchannan some day?  That strikes me as paranoid as well.
Did you believe that UFO plot article that came out some time ago?

I think Clintons's trying to figure out how to reduce crime, which the
Republicans have always championed, haven't they?  They're trying to
suggest ways to get a handle on a difficult problem.  Plus they're
trying to create jobs.

At least that's what it seemed to me.  Now you can tell me I'm blind
and can't see the obvious, but I don't see how limiting access to guns
for people with criminal records will cause martial law.  I don't
own a gun, nor do I know people who do, but I'm not under martial
law.  

Why do you feel so threatened by people with criminal records not
carrying guns?  Don't you have more faith in the system than that?
They aren't exactly disarming everyone...  just putting a few
limitations on because they're trying to control crime.

And if you think the government is out to oppress, then why haven't
they just declared martial law and said that we have an emergency
situation...  There is a provision for that somewhere in the
Constitution I think...

I'm really sorry if you feel somehow offended by the viewpoint that
yours is way off base.

I just felt like I had to answer.


	Trying to be reasonable,
			John
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Does anyone remember the tax increase of 1982
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:37:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I keep hearing rhetoric from the GOP about the taxers and spenders and
after going through my tax records, I remember Reagan doing a tax
hike in 1982 and it was huge.  I think it was larger than the amount
being bandied about the GOP against Clinton.

I always like George's promises of no new taxes, but the GOP has wiped
out my deductions on taxes and I don't have a second home; raised the
deduction for medical expenses, and has eliminated a whole bunch of
deductions for buying things like cars on credit for the middle class.
Bush has kept foreign tax credits so if you have enough money and want
to invest in a global market, you can get credit for investing in a
mutual fund that makes deposits in bonds in Germany.

I'd say more but I have to stand in line at the unemployment office
this week and it's too late and I am too bushed.


Denny 
-------------------------------------
Imagination is the beginning of creation.  You imagine what you desire, you 
will what you imagine, and at last you create what you will.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: George on rebuilding FL
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: world, na, usa
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 17:07:47 GMT

skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:

>Ol George just locked up southern Calif. for Bill Clinton. I would
>think the people of south central LA might be just a little ticked off
>that GHWB goes on national TV to call fo supplies and cash to rebuild
>Homested FL, not that I complain about that but the majority of people
>in SC LA that lost their neighborhoods to fire we inocent victims also.

In case you didn't realize it, the hurricane which destroyed Homestead
was an act of nature.

The hurricane which destroyed south central LA was an act of savages.

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              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Subject: Re: Clinton has the ONLY workable plan
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:12:45 GMT

kds@phy.duke.edu says:

[..  lots of sarcasm ..   then:]

>  Yessiree.  Clinton is the *MAN*!  When he's elected he'll
>have the power of the democratic congress.  So LOOKOUT, you
>stupid conservatives with your 'Budget Vetos', and your
>'Spending Ceilings!'  Time for a change!


Okay, the point is taken.  Borrow and Spend is a bad policy.  

The policy I like is Tax and Don't Spend.  But most people don't
like that either.

Unfortunately, with the Republicans, you get Lower Taxes,
Borrow more and Spend.  They seem to just see cutting spending
as a route to lowering taxes...  and if they can get away with 
lowering taxes and spending the same amount, then fine with them,
because that way they keep the people who get that money happy,
and they have better chances of getting elected.

The thing that I like about Clinton's proposed spending as opposed
to other Democratic spending plans is that his focuses on long term
deals.  Things like education and the environment, whose benefits
last for long periods of time.  (As opposed to simple giveaways...)

I don't like giveaways...  I've always thought welfare should
be workfare.  I mean, why not get something out of it if you're going
to be giving these people money, right?

One of the things I don't like about Clinton is that he hasn't 
said he'd means test entitlements.  Anyone making 50K plus doesn't 
need government handouts.  Especially with social security.

So I'd like to see those ceilings, but I'd like to see more taxes,
too.  The deficit needs to get cut.  

The problem is, neither party is willing to step up and offer something
like this.  Perot sorta did, after.  Geez, I wish he would have done
it beforehand... I would have liked him a bunch more.  

The Concord Coalition (Tsongas and Rudman) is another group that
seems to be for this type of economic plan.  

And then there's the Lead or Leave program.


Howabout, Deficitcut or Die...  ;)


Oh well...  it seems as if neither party is putting this plan forward,
and we live with the choice presented to us.

	Practical doesn't work when nobody votes for it,
			John



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3695 alt.politics.bush:3706
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:54:35 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Entitlements and the deficit? (Was: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's
Distribution: na
 <1992Aug31.001013.4378@midway.uchicago.edu>
 <1992Aug31.161314.3045@uunet!tellab5!odgate>
 <1992Sep1.114100.19959@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Sep1.114100.19959@midway.uchicago.edu>,
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) says:

>  These programs certainly made sense back in those days.  However, these
>days the problems of poverty (before SS/Medicare/Medicaid) are with
>the young, not with the elderly.  Certainly, very few are suggesting

This is a canard.  Yes, the poverty rate among the elderly is just slightly
below the poverty level of younger persons.  That ignores two important facts.
1. The poverty level is an arbitrary line and is, in fact, lower for the
elderly than for the young.  If you raise the poverty line for the elderly
by 10 percent, poverty among the elderly soars.
2. If not for Social Security, poverty among the elderly would be much higher.
In the absence of SS, the Census Bureau estimates that 47 percent of the
elderly would be below the poverty line.


>that these programs be cut entirely.  However, they should be means
>tested.  Does it somehow make sense to enhance the poverty of the
>young to give to the elderly just because they are elderly?  This is
>what we have now.  The average income of those paying in to these
>programs is less than that of those receiving monies.

Could you document this last statement?



>  Another good suggestion is that the retirement age be raised to
>reflect the longer life expectancies.

It's already being done, though not enough.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: tertium@milton.u.washington.edu (l boyd)
Subject: Republicans on "life"
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:36:55 GMT


Hope this isn't old hat, but I heard on McNeil-Lehrer (I think) that:

"Republicans believe life begins at conception and ends at birth."

Thought it might be worth a laugh.  Too bad it seems so true that they
believe that way (-:

lb


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Bush's Vanishing Bounce
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:15:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Aug28.223350.22948@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.190641.16222@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>
>>>Er, well, Newsweek has the reputation of being to the left of, say,
>>>Time, but do you remember their Gulf War coverage?  Lots of soldiers
>>>holding their thumbs up, lots of hawkish sentiment.  
>>
>>I'm sure they did. They have to stay in business you know, so I'm sure
>>they thought it wise to set aside their partisanship ( and maybe even
>>go the other way) in order to sell more subscriptions.
>>
>
>If their base were so large (as large as Time & US News), they cannot
>target readers with left-leaning views.  Consider Harpers and the
>Nation, not to mention Z and numerous other magazines, who were
>quite against the war.  Anti-war views did exist, you know.  Also,
>they have George Will as a regular columnist.  I'd argue that the
>major newsweeklies are quite centrist, perhaps leaning one way
>or another, but still firmly in the middle.

Actually, they are exactly as liberal as their large, almost invariably
conservative, corporate ownership thinks will sell magazines. The idea that
any mass media outlet has any "agenda" other than increasing the profits of
its owners is laughable. The only media that can be anywhere outside a quite
narrow middle are those that are independenly owned, like Z, Harper's, and
the National Review (there are certainly others). Whenever I read in my
local newspaper (the Albany (NY) Times-Union) about "the liberal media", I
chuckle as I turn to the editorial page and find the Hearst Corp. masthead,
an editorial from William Randolph Himself on Sundays, and a typical array
of columnists ranging from Certified Flaming Liberal George Will to Noted
Left-Wing Feminist Suzanne Fields to Prominent Pinko James Kilpatrick all
the way through to Probably Not A Communist Cal Thomas. About once a week we
get Anna Quindlen, twice a week Mike Royko.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

We're enjoying sluggish times, and not enjoying them very much.
	- George Bush, on the economy, January 2, 1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3088 alt.politics.bush:3012