HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Admiral John Poindexter Surfaces!
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:20:58 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <9208301419.AA16520@MIT.EDU>, dks@MIT.EDU sez:
> 
> Poindexter told Newsbytes his Ph.D. in Physics from California
> Institute of Technology is the background he uses to work on
> the Analyst debugger which will be marketed by Quarterdeck.
> Poindexter says he's programmed for 30 years and is also
> credited with development of a multiport communications
> system; an algorithm for detecting changes and patterns in
> digitized video images in real time; and a laboratory data
> collection and analysis system.

If Poindexter were really using his own experience, his first project
would be to design a secure e-mail system that doesn't leave
embarrassing PROF notes lying around on backups.

-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:14:29 GMT

In article <610BqB9w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> If the alternative is to run off the cliff, yes.  I do prefer stagnation
>> to a quick disaster.
>>
>> Branley seems to believe that "Bush is clueless" implies "Clinton will
>> do good".  It doesn't.  As bad as Bush is, we could do worse.  Branley
>> argues that Clinton will do more of the things that Bush has done
>> wrong.  Branley prefers the sure thing, running off the cliff, to the
>> random chance of wandering aimlessly around at the top of that cliff.
>>
>> >Freeman fails to realize that Bush's blaming of Congress is going to get
>> >nowhere.
>>
>> No, I assume that that's true.  Then I listen to Branley tell us what
>> Clinton's plan is, that it is the worst mistakes that Bush has made,
>> only magnified.  Clinton will get his way on this with Congress,
>> because it's their plan too.
>>
>> While Bush doesn't have a direction, he also doesn't have Clinton's
>> "right off the cliff" aim.
>
>You continually claim that Clinton will drive us off a cliff.  How about some
>specifics?  We're heading constantly down under GHWB.  What is there about
>Clinton *specifically* that will hasten what GHWB has already begun?

Branley forgets that he's agreed that Clinton's tax and "invest" plan
is a bigger version of the 1990 tax increase plus the spending pattern
since then.  (If someone else wants to dispute the point, step up.)
We also know that, on this point, if Clinton had been President
instead of Bush, Clinton would only have disagreed on the magnitude;
he'd have gone further on both the tax and spending increases.  (We
know this because we've read Clinton's plans in 1992.)

Apart from the "I have no lips" effect, the 1990 tax increase plus the
spending was a POLICY mistake.  Bush bungled into it; Clinton wants to
do it again, only more so.

We've been following a mild version of the Clinton plan since 1990.
Does anyone want to argue that more of the same is a good thing?  (The
last time I asked this question, Branley went back to "Clinton is a
leader with a plan and Bush is a dweeb", which is true, but let's look
at the plan.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3111 alt.politics.clinton:3177 alt.politics.perot:1353
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:04:22 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: hailstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug23.000216.2250@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>towards new domestic spending.  A large hunk of the new spending will 
>go towards Clinton's "Rebuild America Fund" (i.e. PORK-BARREL fund) 
>that will finance bridges, roads, and other massive construction projects 
>that nobody wants except for the Labor special-interests.

Even assuming that bridges and roads are a waste, a pork-barrel fund,
(which I doubt) what makes pork successful is that it IS popular in its
local vicinity. You know, like surplus military bases and defense
plants. It costs the taxpayers as a whole, but locally it's great.

> ``A lot of the talk about immediately balancing the budget is
>   economically screwy.''
>   --- Clinton's economic adviser, Derek Shearer

Still waiting for the Bush/Holtsinger balanced budget. Do you know what
RSN means?

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:45:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.140743.21281@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.220758.879@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
|> 
|> >The Soviet Union collapsed because of extensive internal corruption.
|> >This occured partly as a result of very widespread cynicism which
|> >essentially provoked an everybody-for-themselves attitude.  The same
|> >thing could happen here.  For example, we have a tax dodger for
|> >president.
|> 
|> 	How is Bush a tax dodger?
|> 
|> 	I've never heard _that_ one before.


Haven't you heard anyone who calls a low tax state home is a tax dodger.  Bush a long
time resident of TEXAS (becoming TAXES with liberal Democrat ann richards) pays
less taxes because he claims Texas to be home.  If we carry this argument through
Clinton is a tax doger to because he lives off of ( i mean in) Arkansas instead of claiming
NY home.

##############################################################################


The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not shared by my 
employer or my friends. However, they should be.

If you receive more than one copy of this notice please pass it on to a 
friend.

Fred Seals
409-845-2298

##############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jimj@meaddata.com (Jim Johnstone)
Subject: Re: Distortion of facts
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:58:42 GMT
Reply-To: jimj@meaddata.com
Distribution: na

In article <Btprtq.9p4@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
|> jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
|> 
|> >-> Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
|> >-> From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)
|> 
[republican funny counting story deleted for space]
|> 
|> >->      He has proven that he has no scruples.  
|> 
|> >	Evidence?
|> 
|> >->	His theory of trickle-down economics isn't working. 
|> >	
|> >	There's no basis for a conclusion for or against his economic
|> >policy, since it hasn't even been tried.  Congress has continually
|> 
|> It's true, Bush's economic program really hasn't been tried.  But if what
|> he wants to implement is some "voodoo economics", then Congress has good
|> reason to block him.

Please define voodoo (the media never seems to). I think the "voodoo economics"
is partially responsible for the longest post-war expansion (roughly 83-90). 
It basically involves letting people (even the rich ones) keep more of their
money and making it easier for business to do business (read: create jobs).
It was actually simpler than many of the hokey plans that have come from 
Congress over the years. 

Remember the critters declaring Reagan's balanced budget "Dead on Arrival" ??
He tried to stop the increase in government size & waste. He obviously
mostly failed. But think of the effect of another 4 years of Carter stagflation
or Dukakis spending as the alternative to Reagan's "voodoo economics".

|> What I don't understand is that the Republicans, specifically Bush has never
|> even TRIED to deal with the defecit or CUT government spending that makes
|> up the WELFARE STATE.  What he should do is submit a balanced budget, cutting
|> all of the communist stuff out, get all the Republican Congressmen on his
|> side and *VETO* any budget that is not balanced.  If the government has to shut
|> down for six months, so be it.  It will be *Congresses* fault, not Bush's.

I'd love to see him do it. 

|> 
|> Of course, cutting the welfare state would mean political suicide.
|> 
|> >blocked his proposals.  One reason not much on the economy is being
|> >done is because the Democrats want to economy to stay bad until
|> >election day, and their congressional majority gives them the power to
|> >keep it bad.
|> 
|> You are right here, I think.  The Democrats won't lift a damn finger in an
|> election year to put through any good legislation.

How true, but I bet you won't here that in the evening news.

|> 
|> 
|> Daniel at UIUC         "Throw out the kooks, and I'll vote Republican"
|> -- 
|> Daniel R. Sawyer
|> daniel-sawyer@uiuc.edu
|> 
|> --

-- 
Jim Johnstone              jimj@meaddata.com                           
Mead Data Central          
P.O. Box 933               I do not speak for Mead Data Central
Dayton, Ohio  45401       
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3580 alt.politics.clinton:3576 alt.rush-limbaugh:4127 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4940
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:19:52 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Aug31.163023.23747@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>I was totally amazed that there was a delay in getting federal aid to
>florida, and it's convinced me that GHWB is flat out incompetant.
>Here's what I figured would happen:
>
>	Hurricane Andrew is on its way to florida. GHWB makes sure that
>	the pentagon is ready to act on a moments notice.
>
>	Andrew hits. Florida is devistated. GHWB interrupts his campaign
>	and flies to the disaster area immediately, gathering damage info
>	as it comes in. Arriving in florida, GHWB shows massive concern
>	for the suffering, and promises immediate federal troops to 
>	help out.

This is exactly what was planned, but we must be aware that some politics
was going on with the governor of florida (who just happens to be a
democrat) that prevented Bush from sending the troops in.  The media did not
point this out, although Mona Charin pointed it out Saturday night on the
Capital Gang.  What prevented Bush from sending the troops?  The governor
of a state must request troops for them to be sent, and, unfortunately for
Floridians, the governor did not request them until 3 or 4 days after the
Hurricane hit.  

by the way, the state did ask for national guard unit from the state of
florida to help, which they did promptly.

======================================================
 Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu 
   University of GA Computing & Network Services       
     Inst.of Higher Education               
=====================================================                                                                          
	"The sleep of reason gives rise to monsters"
				        (Goya, Caprichos)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3029 talk.politics.misc:42103 alt.politics.clinton:3099 alt.politics.elections:11643
From: malmberg@umsa8.umd.edu (Norwin Malmberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton in Arkansas!
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:37:07 GMT
Distribution: usa

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

>        Not too long ago I called my family and learned that state workers
>would go on 'furlow' for one day of the week(no pay), because of a
>budgetary constraint.  Someone had misplaced some money or something, and
>there was an old law that requires Arkansas government to balance the budget,
>so the Guv laid everybody off for one day of the week. You honestly
>want him to run our government?

Many states have similar laws.  (Actually, I think it is usually written
into the state consitition, so that the lawmakers can't simply pass a law
repealing it.)  I work for the State of Maryland, and they had furloughs
last year, and are considering them again because of the tax shortfall.

As I understand it, the "Balanced Budget Amendment" is basically the same
thing that these states already have in place - the government cannot BY
LAW spend more money than it takes in.  If that means not paying it's
employees, then so be it.  (Not to imply that I like not being paid.)

Norwin Malmberg
University of Maryland System
malmberg@umsa.umd.edu
Speaking for myself
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:25:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.195708.25113@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.185537.26594@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <BsvuuI.E84@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>
>>>Having said that, can you substantiate your claim that Bush has shown
>>>AGAIN and AGAIN that he is above the law?  Sounds like a bunch of biased
>>>rhetoric to me.  I challenge you to produce instances where he has
>>>broken the law.  
>
>
>How about the way that his administration continues with efforts to have
>the Endangered Species Act legally "re-interpreted" to support his
>position on logging in the domain of the Spotted Owl?  This appeal has
>been rejected twice by two seperate high courts that have realized that
>the Act is funtioning in just the way that was intended:  to keep men
>like Bush from _bending_ the laws when the law dosen't suit them.
>
>Do you need more?

Oh come, come.  This ploy is not specific to George Bush.  Both republicans
and democrats have used this forever to have laws interpreted in the way
they want them.  Not to mention special interest groups or any nut with
the cash to file a law suit as an "interested party" or "friend of the
court".  Whenever a law is passed by one group and another group is in
power, they interpret it according to their beliefs.  You'll have to do
better than that.  Besides, *interpreting* a law is not the same as
breaking it, especially if the law is written in such a way as to allow
for interpretation.

Tim


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3283 talk.politics.misc:42522 alt.politics.clinton:3328 alt.politics.elections:11815
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Clinton fucks up!
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:03:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.000018.11890@eng.umd.edu>, georgec@eng.umd.edu
(George B. Clark) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug29.213123.19508@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|>>
|>>Abortion is not a religious issue, it is a legal and moral issue. 
|>>
|>>There are many good arguments against abortion which are based on 
|>>secular thought.  Come over to talk.abortion sometime and you'll 
|>>find them. 

No thanks Doug.  It wouldn't change my feelings about abortion one bit.
This, like so many other things, should be left up to the individual
which has to live with it.  Do you want to support unwanted babies?
Do you want to support/feed that mother, who doesn't want to be one,
or send her to a shrink?  Are you willing to work extra to take care
of that child?  We can't already take care of the people who are 
alive and living now.  What are we going to do create more people
which we don't want to take care of?  Which is better, Life in Hell
on earth or no life?
Stop legislating morality?  Seperate Church and State!!
|>>
|>>Doug Holtsinger
|>>
|>Call abortion whatever you like. As long as you're voting for Clinton,
|>I'll agree with anything you say.
|>
             

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche (Mo.L.)         |   labiche@bnr.ca
Bell Northern Research          |   Part of Northern Telecom 
Richardson, Texas               |   i'm really in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No opinions herein expressed have anything to do with the opinions 
of Bell Northern Research or Northern Telecom or CIA or NSA ...
These statements are mine and mine alone, well i guess my wife 
agrees with some of them?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 23:53:10 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <2A9FF1C0.10153@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Edward J. Branley writes
>> So, tell me, do you include that chapter of the Hitler
>> Youth (oh, excuse me, Young Republicans) that charged
>> the doors of the building where Ron Brown was holding his
>> press conference during convention week in Houston
>> 'intelligent students' also?  Give me a break. 
>
>Again, exactly how does that differ from young ACT-UP "nazis" shouting down  
>George Bush ? Except - of course - that the Young Republicans probably were  
>better dressed and cleaner ?

Actually, the primary difference is that the young rowdies who disrupted
Brown's press conference were endorsed by several members of the Republican
National Committee. I saw a quote from one of the Young Republicans to the
effect that since the Democrats came onto "their turf" that they'd gotten
just what they deserved. Unlike ACT-UP, these were indeed Young Republicans,
party members every one, following the examples set by their leaders: Bush,
Buchanan, Duke, Mussolini...sorry, got carried away there. Gee, it does seem
like a logical progression when you look at it that way.... :-(

>Be serious. Rudeness is a vice in anyone. Fortunately, rudeness alone does not  
>a nazi make. And quite frankly, I'd rather deal with a rude republican, than  
>with a machete-wielding berkeley radical heroine.

Yes, rudeness is a vice. Organized harassment for political purposes goes a
bit beyond rudeness, though. I'd rather deal with a rude Democrat than with
a fetus-wielding right-wing radical lunatic. What's your point?

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

A television review on Tuesday about the MTV program "Decade" misattributed a
remark about the Reagan administration. The comment, that it became
"fashionable to be racist" during those years, was made by the filmmaker
Spike Lee, not by Lee Atwater, the Republican national chairman.
	- Correction in the December 14, 1989, New York Times
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:42:06 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1992Aug26.222532.4591@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, Michael J. Bumbulis writes:

>"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
>presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
>but still led the nation to war".                                 
                                                                          
>It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
>reads:                                                                 
                                                  
>"In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
>effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
>Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
>company."

Lincoln noted about that conflict that the only blood he lost was to 
mosquitoes. I believe his company was given the fire-and-brimstone
task of guarding a local town and never saw action.

One can also argue that the militia was not the same as the military 
in those days. (Much less so than the Nat. Guard is now.)                                                           
  
Lincoln was criticized very harshly in his time for his lack of military
experience, since he took an active interest in the strategies of the 
Union armies, and his opposite number, Mr. Davis, was an accomplished
field general in the Mexican War. 

I'm not too worried about Bill's statement. I'd put it right up with GB's 
"7th of September" statement about Pearl Harbor. 

If this is his worst blunder of the campaign, he has nothing to worry about.

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:50:26 GMT

In <19664@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.232616.16804@sequent.com>, bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:

>} I really get sick of hearing Bush claim that he is solely responsible
>} for the downfall of communism just because it happened on his watch.

>Suppose one used that same logic to claim that the economic problems of
>the US would have happened whether George Bush were president or not.
>And that it is wrong to claim that Bush is solely responsibile for them
>just because they happened on his watch.  What would be your response be
>then?

>I am no big fan of George Bush; I do believe that much of the economic
>problems are his doing.  It just seems you are making an argument that
>cuts both ways.

	Are you seriously suggesting that George Bush had as much influence
over the internal structure of the Soviet Union as he did the US economy?  I
think it's much more legitimate to criticize Bush over the economy than to
give him full credit for the downfall of the Soviet bloc.

	The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight.  One could argue
that Reagan's policies, continued by Bush, sped up its demise (I would
disgaree), but it's ludicrous to say such a complex event was brought about
by one cause.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mike Cummings VP, PNOAD			|  "Now take two forkfuls
cummings@u.washington.edu		|   of cooking oil..."
cummings@mailhost.hsas.washington.edu	|   - Julia Child
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3718 alt.politics.elections:12108 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3251 alt.politics.clinton:3705