HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (William P. Jones)
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Summary: Political analysis article -- it ain't over till it's over
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:40:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.034653.8121@athena.mit.edu>, 
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes...
Much deleted........
>WASHINGTON -- David Carney, the Bush campaign's national field
>director, sees the map of the United States as an electoral jigsaw
>puzzle.  At a time when Democrats are becoming almost cocky in their
>view that Gov. Bill Clinton will win, Carney looks at his map and sees
>nothing but good news.
> 
>Carney sees all the needed states -- and more -- falling into place,
>resulting in nothing less than a Bush blowout victory.
> 
What has he been inhaling??? The latest polls show Indiana to be a dead heat. 
If Bush doesn't carry Indiana by 10 percentage points we will get to see in 
which state he really lives.

The ABC polling last night showed Perot taking support from Bush and widening 
the gap. A couple more nights like that and George Herbert Walker Bush will be 
third. 

When do the marines get sent in?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:00:35 GMT

From article <BvtL6u.HGp@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
> In article <1992Oct7.203312.11542@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>>Here is what Perot says about mortgage interest deductions in _United
>>We Stand_.
>>
>>|                     STOP SUBSIDIZING THE RICH
>>| The average mortgage in the United States is $104,000. I propose that we 
>>| limit deductions on interest to mortgages of $250,000 and that we eliminate 
>>| the special deduction for vacation homes.
>>
>>This makes perfect sense to me.
> 
>   It makes IMperfect sense to me:  Perot is right that, as I've pointed
>   out here many times, the home-mortgage-interest deduction is nothing but
>   welfare for the middle-class.

I wouldn't object to seeing the mortgage deduction completely
eliminated as part of a complete tax overhaul.  That doesn't mean that
limiting the interest deduction for the most expensive homes and
vacation home doesn't make sense. 

>   But Perot's proposal is just more of his usual "soak the 'rich'", 
>   politics-of-envy b.s. that totally belies his claims about "sharing
>   the pain".    

While you're complaining that his program is a "soak the rich"
scheme, others are complaining that his gas and sin taxes place an
unfair burden on the middle class or that his deep spending cuts will
place an unfair burden on the poor.  Sounds like shared pain to
me.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52486 ca.politics:8728 ba.politics:6149
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as Homosexual Sex
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:52:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Short answer: no.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: FEC, Ms Brown, RICO, partisan, Eric Honnicker
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:37:56 GMT

It seems that the BI-partisan debate committee has become TRI-partisan
by incuding one other candidate. Remember the spring when debates had
ten people or more?

The difference between BI-partisan (as the debate committee called
themselves) and NON-partisan (as the debate committee call themselves)
is as real as the diffrence between BI-sexual and NON-sexual.

By collecting funds and holding events that favor only a few of the 
many candidates, Ms. Brown's committee is violating FEC laws. By
violating FEC laws, she is violation RICO laws. I do not expect her to
ever be prosecuted, but I never expected East Gernamy's Eric Honnicker 
to be prosecuted either. :-)

Any legal experts care to comment?

****
For liberty and justice for all.
****




Distribution:
  misc.legal internet:misc-legal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  alt-activism internet:alt-activism@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  alt.censorship internet:alt-censorship@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  Libernet internet:libernet@dartmouth.edu
  LPUS Internet:LPUS.Echo@dehnbase.fidonet.org
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:03:53 GMT

The most amusing thing about the Claymer's rattling on about the "10%
figure" is that he's probably right -- it's likely to be incorrect.
Kinsey's study counted only those whom he labeled "5" or "6" on his
sexuality scale, and only measured behaviors.

If Kinsey had included everyone *inclined* towards homosexuality, but
without same-gender sexual experiences, as well as people more towards
the "bisexual" areas of the spectrum, I would be surprised if this
figure were less than 30%!

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51092 alt.politics.elections:16231
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:39:00
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com's message of 12 Oct 92 15:29:36 GMT

In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:

> One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
> economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
> independent of who is President and what he does.

Actually, I agree that if Bush loses in '92 then the Republican party
will probably be out of power for many years, but my reason for that
belief is somewhat different.

Look at the Republican National Convention; the Republican party is
very close to tearing itself apart.  The various wings of the party
(the small-government folks, the moderates, the anti-communist
neoconservatives, the far-right religious groups) have essentially no
commonality, and no trust for each other.  The only thing holding the
Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
party from fragmenting.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:13:54 GMT

In article <1bhdhvINNdv@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
> Quayle had a lot of 'facts' that should be easy to check.  Does
> anybody have a copy of Gores book that they could turn to page
> 304 (i think) and see what it says.
> 

Flat out lie... The figure $100mil on page 304 refers to what the Marshall
Plan would have cost in 1992 dollars.  Looks like the Republican dirt-
diggers were just looking for a number to throw out...

> He also kept saying that Clinton wants to raise 150 billion in
> taxes and Gore kept saying thats not true.  Gore could have explained
> there plan much better than just saying "not true, not true".
> 

Only partially true... He didn't mention the $104bil in spending cuts...
that makes it a total of $46bil... 

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:00:56 GMT

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>I hate to repeat them here yet again, but I'm afraid I must.  

Why is it always the pro-forcers making the claim that people
they've never met, who may be thousands of miles away, are in
control of their actions?  Could it be......projection?

>Steve Kellmeyer 

                           -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51958 alt.politics.clinton:10585
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!^H^H^H^H^Hbit inventive!
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:54:46 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <farenebt.719071511@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
> In the debate, Quayle made reference to something in Al Gore's
> book _Earth in the balance_. Quayle made reference to a proposal
> on a specific page. CNN reported that there was nothing on that
> page about whatever Quayle was refering to. 

	CNN isn't really correct either.  The page is 403.  What Quayle
referred to is the "environmental marshall plan" that Gore proposes.  Since
Gore doesn't say how much it would cost, the Reps used today's cost of the
actual Marshal Plan: 200 Billion.
	If Quayle--well wasn't Quayle--he would have followed up Gore's "did
not" with a "well, how much WILL it cost???"
	The fact that Gore expects the rest of the world to pay for this (!) is
inidcative of the economic proposals we can expect from C&G: Here's a big
expensive program, you guys pay for it, ok?

> Quayle also accused Gore of voting for some proposal which Gore
> flat out denied. CNN also reported that Gore, did in fact, vote
> against the bill.

	CNN was wrong on this one also.  Gore voted against the Caribbean
Iniative twice (83,87)--NOT something to be proud of--and then voted for a bill
that contained money for it in 1990.

> Quayle and the Republicans are telling Clinton's campaign to
> tell the truth?! They are saying that it's the Democrats that
> wecan't trust?!

	The Reps are calling the Dems to task for playing fast and loose with
funding numbers, and exposing them for the protectionists they are.

	Smoot-Hawley is not a legacy to be proud of.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Republican Fear
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:31:23 GMT

In article <92287.212605MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <Bw2usz.5Hs@phage.cshl.org>, pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) says:
>
>>did you see the CNN report on the "Spin Fest" after the first
>>debate? Verrry Orwellian. As the reported noted, the Founding
>>Fathers must be spinning in their graves.
>
>I did like what Bernie Shaw did afterwards... "Let's go now to our
>one-man defender of truth and right... [name], did anyone lie to us
>out there tonight?" The correspondent proceeded to point out a couple
>of, er, "misstatements" on the parts of the debaters. NBC did this too,
>after the veep debate (incidentally, the single moderator format was great!
>The first debate was dull -- this one I listened to the whole thing!)
>
>At least the news media aren't being QUITE the patsies they were in '88.

CCN's Special Assignment reviewed the entire VP debate and concluded that
Quayle had made repeated errors, distortions, and misrepresentations.  His
allegations about Gore's book were labled "False."  His tax allegations
were labeled "Distortion."  His claim that Gore had voted for the Central
American bill on jobs was shown to be "Wrong."  They concluded that if the
voters had scored the debate on the basis of who reported the facts most
accurately, Quayle would be the loser hands down.

That said, Gore remains very, very stiff.  He also should have confronted
Quayle on that assault on Clinton's character.

*That* said, I am revolted by Bush's campaign and am doing everything I can
to call the local radio talk shows and emphasize the shallowness and
desperation of the Bush effort.  As a registered Rep. I can throw out some
good lines in those calls.  (e.g., "Why is it that our VP candidates always
come across as crazed attack dogs in a debate?  They've been like this
since Agnew!  Is it something they feed them or what?  It's embarassing and
they look like thugs.")

Sort of fun...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:54:45 GMT

In article <9605@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>Neither the original biases of the framers _nor_ the biases of the
>>Court really represent those of the people. But unless you like
>>Jefferson's idea of throwing out the entire Constitution and drafting
>>a new one, every generation, I don't see an alternative.

>Isn't that in essence what the Supreme Court has decided to do when they
>decide to reinterpret the constitution in light of "modern sensitivities".

No, becuase the "modern sensitivities" are their own, personal opinions,
_not_ the views of the people. What the Court does, is to impose an
alien Constitution on the people, without asking their consent. Since
I strongly insist on government by consent of the people, I find this
unacceptable.

>If the "people" want the constitution to change they should ammend it.
>It's been done 17 times now, it is possible.  (I count the first ten as
>essentially being part of the original document.)

>If a small group of people decide to redefine the constitution based on their
>own personal whims, that is not democracy that is tyranny.

Essentially my point: We don't seem to be in disagreement.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 23:12:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.233136.23011@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <MATT.92Oct7115038@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>]In article <1992Oct7.022226.19164@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]
>]> He WAS in the SU in '70. He admitted it on TV last night.
>]
>]"Admitted"?!  It's an "admission" to say that you travelled during
>]your Christmas vacation?  
>
>Yes, admitted. He never brought it up until he was asked as a result
>of Republican digging. This is the same guy who has been slippery about
>the draft business, dishonest about the Jennifer Flowers business, and in
>general lies a lot. All sorts of stuff about his anti-war stuff is now
>coming out. I have no problems with him being against the war, but when
>he (a) demonstrates against the US in a FOREIGN country, and, the same
>year (b) travels to the capital of the main embassy while we are in a war,
>I have real problems with his judgement.

The flaw in your logic is the idea that Clinton took the trip to protest
Vietnam, or that the trip was connected with Vietnam in any way.  

Journalists have interviewed the many, many other young scholars who went
on that trip or ones like it.  There was no political purpose to these
trips at all.

As for Clinton's anti-war activities, these have been out in the open ever
since his letter to the draft board was published because he wrote about
them in there.  It is not his job to bring up possible issues for the R's.
It is his job to respond, and then he can drop the subject.  Seems to me
that's what he's done.  If he doesn't talk about this stuff as much as you
like, that is not the same thing as dodging the issue.

Read Clinton's writings from the time and go read the articles by people
who were anti-war activitists at the time.  Clinton was insisting that his
country had made a grave error, but was not rejecting his country as such.
That was not true of many, many people I knew who protested the war.  He
appears to me to be among the most thoughtful element of the anti-war
movement.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:50:33 GMT

From an article about a local idiot who is running graphic anti-abortion
ads as part of his U.S. Senate campaign:

	``Mostly you'll see intact second- and third-trimester babies, but
there is one first trimester fetus which is apart,'' Perry said.

It doesn't seem that showing that first trimester fetuses are not
"just clumps of cells" is foremost on this man's agenda.  

Susan
From: charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Real Change!
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:44:41 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <37221@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> bro@elm.circa.ufl.edu (John Bro) writes:
>
>
>The need for change is clear. Public debt,  billions  of  dollars
>for interest, and  deep  political  rot cripple  us. We work hard
>but get poorer each year.Ten million of us need  but  can't  find
>work.  Eighty  million  have  deficient  health protection.   Our
>lives and our families, our social and natural environs, our  ci-
>ties,  money,  decency and honesty all deteriorate.  Our children
>are poorly educated. Crime is rampant. We are deeply into econom-
>ic  and  social  distress.   These  public  failures  need public
>effort,  our government's, to correct but only  neglect  or  talk
	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>issue.

Are you serious???  You first talk about the corruptness, ineptness,
etc., of our government, and then you want everyone to _depend_ on
them?  Why?  Are we, as people, so inept ourselves that we must
depend on government to help us?  If that is what we must depend on
we have no hope at all!!

>
>The solution; Elect to Congress only those persons  who  make  an
blah, blah, blah...

The solution is to DO IT YOURSELF!  Life is a do-it-yourself project.
If you see someone that needs help, HELP THEM.  If you need help, GET IT
(from a fellow human-being, not the government).  If you need a job,
CREATE ONE.  What did our country do BEFORE government?  What did the
original inhabitants of this continent (native Americans) do before
government?  Let's get back to basics.  If we can't help each other, do
you really want to depend on government?  We, the people (sound familiar?)
can make a change.  Change happens daily with those around you.  Don't
expect government to help you.  Look what government did for Eastern
Europe.  It all sounds good, but without accountability (to individuals)
it all goes awry (do we have any accountablity in our government)?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: The Military Industrial Research Complex
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:00:14 GMT

The Decline of America: The Military Industrial Research Complex 


=======================================================
 Percentage of government research and development funds
                    spent on the military, 1989:
=======================================================

            -----------------------------------
			     PERCENTAGE               
			     OF R&D                   
			     SPENT ON                 
	    COUNTRY          MILITARY(9) COUNTRY      
            -----------------------------------
	    United States      65.4     

	    United Kingdom     45.5     
	    France             37.0     

	    Sweden             24.1     
	    Spain              19.1     
	    Switzerland        17.1     

	    Germany            12.8     
	    Italy              10.3     
	    Australia           9.0 

	    Canada              7.9 
	    Norway              6.8 

	    Japan               3.5 
	    Netherands          3.2 
	    New Zealand         2.5 
	    Finland             1.6 
	    Belgium(20)         0.6 
	    Denmark             0.4 
	    Austria             0.1 
	    Ireland             0.0 

Source: World Competativeness Report 1991, published by IMD International,
Lausanne, Switzerland, and World Economic Forum, Geneva Switzerland, p. 322, 
Original: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, 1990 (Paris: OECD, 
1990).

******************************************************************
From page 82 of:

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations   

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50952 alt.rush-limbaugh:7114 alt.politics.bush:8657 alt.politics.clinton:9750 alt.politics.elections:16132 talk.abortion:41998 alt.sex:32690