HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Jeff Kemp?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 23:32:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu


Anyone know who Jeff Kemp is?  If so, is he still active, and if he
is, then where?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3984 talk.politics.misc:43584 alt.politics.clinton:3949 alt.politics.elections:12345
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Suing parents (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:03:40 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Francisco

> john@anasazi.com writes:
>> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>]>Not true. What she wanted to do was eliminate the legal status of "minor" -
>]>giving children the presumption of competency in the courts. This would
>]>indeed allow any child to sue his parents under any conditions.
>]
>]Do you have a reference for this?  I heard on NPR that she argued that
>Yes... see American Spectator - they have a complete quote (I don't
>expect you to believe their non-quoted stuff).
>
>]children deemed responsible by the court should be able to sue their parents
>]over matters that can significantly affect their future, e.g., child abuse,
>]surgery to repair a hair-lip, ability to stay in highschool, etc.  I also
>]understand that her position is now standard practice and well within the
>]legal mainstream.
>
>If so, it is a sad statement about our legal system.

The New York Times printed extracts of the relevant Hillary
Clinton articles a couple of weeks ago.  I no longer have
the issue.  But what she wrote was approximately this:  The
law assumes all minors to be legally incompetent, but surely
it's unreasonable to consider a 16-year-old equally as
incompetent as a 6-year-old?  She wrote nothing about the
right or desirability of a child's suing his/her parents.
Neither did she advocate removing the status of "minor" for
all children.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Distortion of facts
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:01:00 GMT

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

>-> Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
>-> From: king@meaddata.com (Mike King)

>->      I'm predicting that George Bush's plan will backfire on him.
>->      Just as he did four years ago, he is misrepesenting information
>->      to the American republic.  Case in point:  Bush telling everybody
>->      that Clinton has raised taxes over 100 times.  It's just not
>->      true.  Even the Wall Street Journal said that.  

>	How about a day and page number from the Wall Street Journal?
>Keep in mind that the editors of the Journal have political
>orientation.  I have seen a list of 128 new taxes that Clinton has
>signed into law, and I will try to post a copy if I can find it again.
>It doesn't matter too much whether he raised taxes in the past,
>because he has specifically says he will raise taxes if he becomes
>president.  He may call it ``Investing in America'', but it is still a
>tax increase.

I haven't seen the list, but I've heard it being talked about on the radio.
It seems that the Republican campaign did some funny counting on the 128
tax increases.  Some things were counted twice.  A tax on alchohol was 
counted several times because it mentioned beer, wine, etc.  And all of these
taxes on "luxury" goods such as cigarettes and alchohol - should they really
be counted.  If one counted all of the tax increases under which George Bush
presided, there would be a lot more than 128.  Also, Clinton was Governor for
twelve-some years, Bush only four.

>->      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.

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.

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.


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

--
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (cms=)
Subject: Statements on family values needed
Followup-To: poster
Originator: cms2839@ultb
Organization: rit=
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:51:12 GMT

	I'm looking for quotes or statements issued by any of the
presidential candidates, or other party members, on the subject of
family values.  I'm writing an essay on the subject, and am specifically
interested in how they define what family values are.

	Please send ALL replies via EMAIL to cms2839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu,
as i do not normally read these groups and will not see replies here.

	Thanks...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: The media
Organization: The Lab Rats
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:28:08 GMT

In article <Btwz59.J44@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner) writes:

}	I don't mean you in particular Chris.  In general, I mean that
}we as Americans somewhat control what is aired on TV.  Since a lot
}(not all) Americans are couch potatos, (no 'e'  ;-)  ), we tend to
}not change channels.  We all need to switch channels when we don't
}like what is said.  Eventually, not over-night, we will see a difference.

this is a good idea, but it doesn't go far enough. you also have to let
them _know_ you are switching channels in a way they can't ignore. write
to advertisers and tell them to stop supporting programs you don't like.

also remember that you have a lot of control over what you watch because
you can change channels at any time; but who controls what other channels 
you have to select from? the Government -- the FCC decides who is
allowed to broadcast and when, and local governments enforce cable
monopolies which choose what cable channels you have access to. if you
don't like their choices, you don't have to watch; but wouldn't it be
nicer if _you_ had some say in choosing what was available instead of
just picking from the government sanctioned options.

-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences
Libertarian candidate for Delaware House of Representatives, 23rd District

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3351 alt.politics.clinton:3378 alt.politics.perot:1364 rec.humor:27268 talk.bizarre:27851 talk.politics.misc:42625
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:57:08 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

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?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Schroeder	                |  Warning: prolonged exposure to this
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |  .sig may cause retinal damage and 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  |  blistering skin rashes. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: A question on abortion
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<JASON.92Sep3151004@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> <2394@unet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:13:13 GMT

In article <2394@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
-> >In article <1992Sep2.062225.892@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
-> >->     In many states the law can charge a person with two counts of murder if
-> >-> they kill a pregnant woman.  Over the last twenty years there must have
-> >-> been several convictions of people charged with this crime. 
->                {some good stuff deleted here}
-> 
-> This is amazing ain't it? While the current adminstration says its a person
-> at conception the IRS won't count it till after the birth. Which means if your
-> baby is born on 12-31 you can deduct money from your taxes for the whole year.
-> If the baby is born one second into 1-1 then you have to wait till next year
-> to get this deduction. I wonder if any of the states that allow aborations
-> have these type of laws. IMHO there are inconsistencies at just about all 
-> levels of government and these inconsistencies do nothing but bred contempt.

	If you're looking for consistency, you're reading about the
wrong subject.  This and most other governments are based on the
struggle between opposing viewpoints.  If you want consistency, you'll
have to get every federal, state, and local representative to agree
along with all the voters in all future elections. (good luck).
Probably the only government with the possibility of consistency would
be a total monarchy.

-> To borrow a deleted line from Richard: I also have a question that has bugged
-> me for a long time.
-> If society as a whole believes the unborn is a person then how come there
-> isn't a funeral when a mis-carriage occurs? 

	From the abortion debate, it's reasonable to conclude that not
everyone believes an unborn is a person.  I don't think society as a
whole believes in any issue.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Idiocies from Al Gore
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 07:10:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.214724.14694@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>Well .... it was interesting to see the following on Sunday morning:
>----
>
>Gore: (Several minutes of anti-Bush ravings, especially how
>the evil nasty Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge and signed on to
>increased taxes in 1990.)
>
>Hume: One last question Senator. Did you support the 1990
>budget agreement?
>
>Gore: Why , YES! .... ( the proud look lasted for about one second,
>which then turned to one of embarrassed pain)
>.... but, but I was also a cosponsor with Sen (?) of, of 
>a bill (etc., as he tries to explain away his support of the measure).
>----

Well, you certainly have helped everyone gauge your credibility
by heavily indulging your pro-Bush bias.  I saw the program, and
it seemed to me that Gore was composed and articulate.
On the last question, he answered forthrightly, and pointed out that he
had supported an alternative that was rejected by Bush and the
Republicans.  Maybe his alternative would have been better, but he
couldn't get it past Bush.  Just the same argument Bush uses on the
other side.

>
>The exchange lends credence to my thesis that Clinton is running
>as a Republican:
>
>1) The Dems are running against a tax increase.
>(While proposing their own tax hike no less! Go figure!)
>
Yeah, they are waffling a bit, but that is routine politics.
On controversial questions, you try not to alienate many people.

Still, it is certainly fair to criticize a president who loudly
and absolutely promised no new taxes, but then signed them into law.
You may argue that he shouldn't have agreed to the tax hikes,
or that he shouldn't have made the promise, or both.
You can propose taxes on the wealthy few, and still criticize
someone else's taxes as hurting other, less-wealthy people.

>2) "Read my lips" is the "Willy Horton" of 1992.

I fail to see a close relationship here.

>3) Clinton *also* has an idiot for a running mate.

Very easy to say, but wrong.

-----
Jer.
walsh@wri.com
From: drw41888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Wiltz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Quayle takes the heat
Keywords: dan
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:34:24 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

This was pointed out to me recently, and I wonder what others' opinions on this
subject might be.

Dan has been kept under wraps pretty well by the Bush administration.  Okay, he has
his slips, but I wonder if there is a deeper reason for Dan screwing up.

Whenever GHWB gets in some sort of trouble in the media, and opinion turns against him,
Dan always comes out and makes an ass of himself. 

Coincidence??  I think not.

My opinions are mine.
-Dave

-- 
David Wiltz                                 wiltz@after.math.uiuc.edu
Calculus&Mathematica Development Team
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  NeXT Mail always welcome!
-Doing business with the government is a lot like playing poker with God-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Doonsbury prophesy
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 16:02:21 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

>
> I don't know what is more amazing...that Garry Trudeau predicted the
> "Status Quo Presidency of George Bush" four years ago...or that Garry
> Trudeau was the ONLY person to predict what became the increasingly
> obvious.
>
> Mike

The Times-Picayune (our daily down here, and namesake of the infamous Bloom
Picayune) ran Trudeau's wonderful strip from '88 showing Bush coming home to
his Houston hotel suite.  Even though it appears that Doonesbury is on hiatus,
Bush has changed so little from '88 that those strips still hit home.



|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:3996 talk.politics.misc:43606 alt.politics.elections:12353
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:40:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Sep3.183746.15940@oracle.us.oracle.com> jdonald@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:
>These polls are meaningless - i want to see polls by state, showing 
>electoral votes.  Anybody seen anything like that?
>-jd


This is a very good question. I noticed the other day during a reading fit
that in one of Reagan's elections that he took something like 53 or 54% of the
popular vote but captured 49 states! Can anybody come up with data that will
show the absolute smallest percentage of the popular vote a canidate can get
and still get elected? I'll assume that this will also show the the highest
percent a canidate could get and still loose. Rep. campaign directors have 
already stated(last couple of issues of NEWSWEEK)that they have all but given
up on captureing the popular vote and are now concentrating on pulling in
"just enough electoral votes."

Stan Knight
|"But it has to work. I only changed *ONE* line!"|
|        ---A Programmer near you---             |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:20:01 GMT

In article <Bu07px.BMA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>In article <athos-020992085138@kip2-59.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>>You see, he is really in a lose-lose situation because of people like you
>>who expect the president to respond within seconds of an emergency. 
>>Responding quickly to everything breeds disaster.  
> 
> Responding quickly to ANYTHING is beyond George's range.

Interestingly enough, the Florida Democrat party disagrees, at least
with respect to emergency aid.  They claim that EVERYTHING federal except the
army was in place and working before the wind stopped.

>>He waited for the Governor.  Blame HIM.
>
> Care to explain why he waited?  Why things weren't ready to go?  Why he
>was out campaigning while hell-on-wheels was heading for Florida?

According to said Florida Democrat party, only the army waited for the
governor's request.  The LAST time a president sent troops into a
state before the governor's request was during the civil rights wars.
It was considered something of an invasion.

While the army is a visible part of emergency aid, it isn't an
essential or dominant part.

The whole incident is telling us something about Clinton supporters
though.  Why can't they make their "Bush is a bozo" case without
distorting Bush's record?

-andy believes that Bush is a bozo, but the Clinton folks are weakening
      that belief


--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:51:21 GMT

In article <17tpctINN8ip@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>Watch out for Cuomo on the Supreme Court Bench!!!  Of course, voting
>for one president will make that possibility much more likely.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

But we only have one President.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.170408.1712@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

|> >	Although Bush has a 18 room house in Maine, his official residance
|> >is an empty lot in downtown houston (33'x150'). He does this to avoid
|> >paying any state income taxes. (Maine? Thats his vacation house)
|> 
|> In that, he's just like any other govt official stationed somewhere
|> else.  He's just like Congress critters who "live" in their home
|> district only to maintain election eligibility.  (My critter doesn't
|> own squat in "his" district and may not even rent more than a mail
|> drop.)
|> 
|> Of course, when Bush does it, it's different than when a Demo leader
|> in Congress does.

	I think that there is a difference between a mail drop to stay
in your district and a mail drop to avoid income taxes. At least your
congress critter is performing a service for his mail drop, Bush doesn't
live in texas, he doesn't work in texas, he doesn't represent texas (except
as part of the union) and he doesn't even visit texas very often. (You
can argue the value of your congress critter all you want, I'll simply
observe that your district elected him by popular vote, so somebody
likes him).

	He does, however, spend a lot of time in Maine, and utilize the
services that are paid for out of state taxes, without actually paying
any income tax. The *only* reason that he has any interest in Texas is
to avoid paying maine income taxes, which strikes me as a tad sleezy
for a president. 

	There's also the letter he wrote to the state of texas where he
mainitained that he intendes to develop his property and make it his home.
Either he's really planning to develop a 4500sq/ft urban lot for his 
residence, or he lied in order to avoid paying taxes. Since my money is 
on him retiring in Maine, I figure him for a liar.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why Should I vote for Clinton? (long)
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:57:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug22.222632.15414@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>  Mr. Lauren writes on raising taxes 128 times by Mr. Clinton :
>
>>Bush's statement has been refuted in a number of papers, including the "Wall
>>Street Journal".  Being governor of Arkansas for a dozen years, naturally he
>>presided over several tax increases and tax reductions.  Of course, Bush
>>would never give him credit for the latter.  Some of these alleged "tax
>>increases" were really changes in legislation which allowed some business
>>operations to extend their hours, thus generating more tax revenue.  Thus,
>>Bush's statement is misleading to say the least.  Arkansas still has the
>>second lowest tax rate of any stae in the Union.
>
>  True, the number was really more like 70-80 times.  However,
>the thing I think the Republicans should have gone after Clinton on
>is that he was particularly fond of raising sales taxes.  If
>this isn't a regressive tax, I'm not sure what is.  Clinton did this
>over raising income taxes and the like.

This is interesting.  I thought that conservatives favored sales taxes over
income taxes as it means that people are taxed according to what they
consume, rather than what they produce.  It would seem that the main problem
with sales-taxes would be a possible reduction in consumer spending.  However,
employment in the manufacturing sector has increased in Arkansas over the
last four years while it has fallen in the US as a whole.
>
>  He also raised fees a great deal, but that is more "fair" than
>sales taxes.

I guess that it depends upon what fees were raised.  The city council, here in
Charlottesville, raised fees for trash pickup to encourage recycling and it
seems to have worked.  I can remember when people used to toss their grass
clippings out with the trash.  Now they seem to recycle most of their discards.

Peter Lauren.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle