HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:55:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
|> Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a Democratically-controlled 
|> Congress will keep a lid on spending is fooling themselves.  

Well, who else can we possibly fool? Certainly not the
hordes of fiscally responsible Republicans who're out there
beating the bush ( 1/2 :^) for more tax cuts in the face of
$400 billion annual deficits...no, sir, nobody's going to put
anything past those sharp customers!

Let's put this into perspective. In only eight years, Ronald
Reagan and his borrow-and-spend crew doubled the size of the
total outstanding national debt, accumulated over the previous
200 years. Now, in not-quite four years, George Bush and his 
S-and-L (as opposed to S and M) cronies have added just as much
to the debt as Reagan did in twice the time - or more than 
40 presidents did in 200 years. Now, that's impressive. Sort
of like hitting 100 home runs in only 7 or eight ballgames,
compared to either Ruth's 60 or Maris' 61* in 154 and 162,
respectively.

But ya gotta give these guys credit! (Actually, that's what it's
all based on :^) If it hurts, the cure is more of the same!

To be moderately serious, anyone who considers that Democrats have
a monopoly on spending just hasn't done his homework. Yeah, I know
it's much easier to just swallow the malarkey regularly spewed out 
by OMB, or Bush's and Quayl's speechwriters, but the plain facts of
the matter are that the last dozen or so budgets, every one of them
Republican, have been the dozen biggest budgets in our history. No
Democratic budgets compare. And they've been "paid" for by mortgaging
the futures of ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren (if,
indeed, the pain stops there).

Use your brain, Doug. First, check up on your sentence construction.
Then get off your good intentions and find out whether or not what 
you're being told is, in fact, true. Finally, make the supreme 
effort and actually *think* about it all, what it means, both in the
short and long run.

I have a friend with a parrot. The parrot can repeat anything
you tell it. But that doesn't make it true...nor, of course,
does the parrot waste effort thinking about what he says -
he just bounces it back at the source.

Interestingly, the parrot has absolutely *no* feathers...

Don Coolidge 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2014 alt.politics.elections:10838 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2612
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:31:50 GMT

In article <exukjb.80.713804906@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>I've been hearing people claim that 'our country would be much worse off' if 
>we did away with public education or, more often,if we had never had it in 
>the first place.  Could someone flesh this argument out more fully for me 
>and the rest of us?

Education arguments are full of BS positioning on both sides.

Let's let a major city or county get rid of their public schools as
an experiment.  We'll find out whether the private market will be capable
of educating the populace from those regions.

We can already see where educational experimentation has proven new
paradigms for schools, but people ignore them!  For example, 
"artificial free-market" competition between co-existing schools withing
one public school building has shown to result in improved schools.
Any school district unhappy with educational results could do this.

I don't believe that the U.S. would be be able to educate all of its
kids by eradicating public education.  But I'm not sure.  There is only
one way to find out, try it.

-Thomas




Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:37:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug17.174847.12821@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <19347@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>
>>In article <l8l2viINNhnl@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>} |> If they can't afford their children's education, then they shouldn't have
>>} |> had children in the first place!
>
>So poor people shouldn't have children?
>
>>} |> 
>>} That won't fly. 
>>
>>Won't fly?  You are saying then that people having something that they
>>cannot afford does fly?  Very odd.

  Sorry but this is Usenerdism (tm) again!   Regardless of whether they 
  *should* have kids if they can't afford them, in the real world people
  don't always base their decisions on such rational factors.

  Also, sometimes people get pregnant despite the use of birth control 
  (or are you suggesting that poor people should have sex either?) and
  sometimes, especially in this economy, people sometimes become poor
  after starting a family.

---peter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Congress Bashing
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 15:52:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.225141.8372@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>If the Republicans can't agree with the Democrats on something,
>it's probably because its a bad idea.  Ever hear about compromise?
>If ya can't convince the other guy that it's a good idea, then
>it probably ain't.

Really?  The Democrats would never hold up a good idea for political
gain?  It is "common knowledge" that the Repubs do this.  Why assume
that the Demos don't?

Economic factors do affect elections, so Congressional Demos
do have an incentive, namely the White House.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1247 alt.politics.marrou:726 talk.politics.misc:39116 alt.politics.elections:10329 talk.politics.theory:3624
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:29:33 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <1992Aug10.171453.9530@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>>Now then, you will note the phrase "prohibiting the free exercise
>>thereof?  Funding an organization (like a school) which has MANDATORY
>>religious classes arguably amounts to making a law that "prohibits the
>>free exercise" of their religion for students who do NOT happne to be
>>of the religion which is 'mandatory'.  Get it now?
>
>This is kind of a foolish argument. The Gov would just be allowing parents
>through the school to lay dow the law. Providing money to a parent to
>spend on education in no way constitutes "establisment of religion". It
>seems to me that allowing parents to spend the money on the school of
>their choice FACILITAES the free excersize of religion.

Then you haven't thought it through.  Schooling is required.  We know
that Catholic schools (over half the private schools in this country)
are SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive.  So the government allows vouchers,
and the Catholic schools thrive while the others lose out (due to the
inability to acquire all those cheap instructors who are doing it as a
religious duty, for example).  You have just used Federal money to de
facto require children to have a Catholic religious education.

It could be any religion in a given area (I don't mean to pick on the
Catholics, in other words).  However, the fact that the religious
classes aren't optional make government funding an interference in the
practice of religion.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:01:34 GMT


edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) writes:

>I think I watched the interview that you all are saying bush changed
>his stance on abortion and i dont see it. The question was if
>his granddaughter had an abortion... IE already had the abortion,
>not was going to have the abortion, what would he do? What else
>could he say besides he would be dissappointed but still love
>her?

No, the question specifically was concerned with what Bush would do
if his granddaughter became pregnant, not if she had already had an
abortion. Bush's reply was that he would counsel her against having
an abortion, but in the end he would support her, whatever decision
she made.

-----
Eric Smith     erics@sco.com     erics@infoserv.com     CI$: 70262,3610

"I see no media mention of it, but we entered in -- you asked what time
 it is and I'm telling you how to build a watch here -- but we had Boris
 Yeltsin here the other day.  And I think my times campaigning in Iowa,
 years ago, and how there was a -- Iowa has a kind of, I single out Iowa,
 it's a kind of an international state in a sense and has a great
 interest in all these things -- and we had Yeltsin standing here in the
 Rose Garden and we entered into a deal to eliminate the biggest and most
 ballistic missiles and it was almost, 'Ho-hum, what have you done for me
 lately?' "

 -George Bush, on why he should be re-elected

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 23:48:37 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob) writes:

>   Did anyone else notice all the young, college-aged, enthusiastic people
>   at the Republican convention last night?
>
>   I seriously doubt they are all delegates.  The guys are clean-cut,
>   nerdy-looking and mostly wearing blue-blazers, white shirts and ties.
>   The girls are very attractive (in a country-club sort of way) and
>   could be models for milk commercials.
>
>   They seem to be leading the cheers and providing much of the enthusiasm.
>   They are very photogenic and are often captured in the television shots
>   of the convention crowd.  There are a lot of them.
>
>   Are they ushers?  Hosts and hostesses?  Young-Rebulican cheerleaders
>   brought in to fill space and put life into the cavernous Astrodome?
>   ==
>
>   Bob                                               Seattle, Washington
>

If they're running Houston like they did here in New Orleans in '88, those kids
are ushers, gopher, flunkies, otherwise known as volunteers.  If it were a
science fiction con, at least they'd get a t-shirt, but those young-Republicans
hardly get a thank you.  You've pegged their role in the show:  filler for the
TV cameras.  The real delegates can't be bothered with  anything but the two or
three speeches in the evening, so they let the kids come in and look important.
It doesn't do much for the image of the GOP, however, since they're all so
preppy and white bread that it's obvious what's going on.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2493 tx.politics:4346
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,tx.politics
Subject: Evil government
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:22:14 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

I heard enough about the evils of government provided health
care and so on. Try this out: I pay a good chunk of dinero for
my HMO coverage here in Texas. Back in 1980 when we(family) first started
using HMOs, the service was pretty good. Now it is terrible.
Bad record keeping, no record keeping, can't get appointments for
4 weeks, calls never returned, the list is long. The previous
HMO we were using was dropped by my company after many complaints
and is now being investigated for billing fraud. These are
multi-state large organizations, very profit oriented, who don't
give a damn about their customers. OK, now the contrast. Several
months back, we were visiting Honduras, not exactly your world
superpower or paragon of capitalism. We needed some air-sickness
pills and the community nurse in this tiny town quickly gave us
some without the slightest hassle. She told us that she was
a government nurse and she made weekly rounds visiting several
villages to check on sick kids, old people, etc. Somehow the idea
that these fishermen in Honduras get better health care than
several people I know here in Texas really stinks. 

Who knows, maybe government can't fix it, but don't tell me it can
even more messed up if they tried....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2069 alt.politics.elections:10885
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Young ACT UP Nazi's(Re: TV COVERAGE IGNORES GOP SCRIPT)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:31:29 GMT

fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu writes
> The remarks about the demonstrators kind of set me off.  There was
> a nice little clip in the news showing some young Republican Nazis
> stormtrooping outside a speech being given by Ron Brown.  As usual
> the young Republican Nazi's were rude and boorish.  I've seen 
> these folks before.  Back in '88, Lloyd Bentsen came to the UCSD
> campus to give a speech.  Towards the back, where I was, there was
> a modest gathering of young Republican Nazi's.  Every time Bentsen
> started to speak, they would start screaming at the top of their
> lungs (gibberish about privatizing and liberal...standard Republican
> fare).  As I watched the RNC last night I saw plenty of the Nazi's 
> in the crowd.  There close cropped hair revealing reddish ears as
> they strained to cheerlead (similar to football games).

You mean like when long-haired (to use your means of judging character) ACT UP  
Nazis (to use your term) shout down Pres. Bush ?

	Carl Edman

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: I need a political expert...
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:12:27 GMT

I need a political expert to answer a question.

Doesn't congress have to pass a bill to pay the expenses of congress
real soon?  The information (about 30th hand) that I have, was that
they (congress) had to send a bill to the president each year (?) to
get the money to pay themselves, their staffs, etc.  I want to know
if that is true (1).
 
If so, when does that happen and (2) if the president veto's that
bill, and for some reason the repub's in congress stuck with him
(didn't overide it), when would they stop being paid, and for how
long, and would they be backpaid when it did pass or would they
just 'lose' that money?

I heard that he might announce veto'ing such a bill in his speech, 
he didn't, but he did say that he would veto 'any' bill that they
present after last night that had any spending in it that he
hadn't suggested (my paraphrase).

Someone who knows (a political scientist, or buff), please let me
know..email or post.

thanks
Chad
 
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: cvadrtbc@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: California Polytechnic University, Pomona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 06:07:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1684A74DF.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes...
>you could hardly call it underfunded. And if you read the placards at the
>convention you'd note there are a significant number of Republicans who are
>active in the area of helping AIDS sufferers and gay rights.

Hmm.  Let me see,  this couldn't be the same bunch of Republicans that booed
when Buchanan said "...Clinton/Gore are the most pro-gay and pro-lesbian.."
Helping AIDS sufferers?  NOT!  He hasn't even followed his own damn AIDS
commission for godsake!  You are talking about a guy who appointed Magic
Johnson to the AIDS commission just when public sympathy was at a high for
Magic and then proceeded to completely ignore his pleas!  

Srikanth
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1943 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2587 alt.politics.clinton:2139
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:26:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.195933.7846@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) writes:
> Anyone who believes that a Democratic President and a
> Democratically-controlled 
> Congress will keep a lid on spending is fooling themselves.  

   Now, now, we have to take turns.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU 
"Vote libretarian.  Vote socialist.  Vote the grass roots party.  Hell, go down
to the graveyard, take notes, and then vote all three." 
-Norman Half's prescription for the two party gridlock.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: ara@wam.umd.edu (Ford Prefect)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:29:52 GMT

>>>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.  
>>
>>I am a victim of his Law breaking!!!!
>>He turned me into a Newt!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>Thats against the law isn't it??
>
>Well, there are worse things to be turned into than a Minority Whip in
>congress!  

Hey!, got any photos of Minority Whips in Congress? Aye, nudge nudge, wink
wink, Know what I mean?




Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2360 alt.politics.elections:11156 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2789
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:37:12 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
 <1992Aug14.000821.8215@nuchat.sccsi.com> <1992Aug17.192239.18425@sco.COM>
 <1992Aug17.223337.1544@unlv.edu> <1992Aug19.180134.16644@sco.COM>

In article <1992Aug19.180134.16644@sco.COM>, erics@sco.COM (eric smith) says:
>
>edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) writes:
>
>>I think I watched the interview that you all are saying bush changed
>>his stance on abortion and i dont see it. The question was if
>>his granddaughter had an abortion... IE already had the abortion,
>>not was going to have the abortion, what would he do? What else
>>could he say besides he would be dissappointed but still love
>>her?
>
>No, the question specifically was concerned with what Bush would do
>if his granddaughter became pregnant, not if she had already had an
>abortion. Bush's reply was that he would counsel her against having
>an abortion, but in the end he would support her, whatever decision
>she made.
>

Actually the part of Bush's comment that annoyed me was the final part.
The interviewer said. I believe "So, it would be her choice?" and Bush
said "Of course it would be her choie.  Who else's could it be?"
Yet, at the same time he would like to make it some state legislator's
choice.  He can't have it both ways.

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.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:10:31 GMT

In article <BD.92Aug15103702@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Am I the only person to notice that "Senator William Clinton" is an anagram
>>of "Win mental clitoris loan"?
>
>Who the hell is Senator William Clinton?

The junior senator from the state "between Texas and Oklahoma."  What, you
haven't been keeping up with the news?



--
But this is.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1309 alt.politics.marrou:744 talk.politics.misc:39222 alt.politics.elections:10389 talk.politics.theory:3640
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: School choice (Re: Is this a socialist county?)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:12:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug8.150838.12908@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
} [If your idea of 'school choice' is to subsidize the flight of the
} wealthy and middle classes out of the public schools while leaving the
} less affluent there, then I am opposed.  That's not 'choice'.  It's
} the old 'separate but equal' game with a shiny new coat of paint.]

You seem to be saying that it is good that the public schools have a
captive audience -- if everyone can't leave, then nobody can.  I cannot
accept that as being at all good.

BTW, why do you assume there would be this big flight from the public school
system, if deep in your gut you do not believe there is something inherently
desparately wrong with that system.  And if you do believe that there is
something that wrong with the system, how does forcing people to remain tied
to it improve matters?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:1320 alt.politics.marrou:745 talk.politics.misc:39257 alt.politics.elections:10398 talk.politics.theory:3642