HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject:  Voices Uncounted -- The Old Folks Vote (was Perot Wins...)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:13:00 GMT

nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes...

>While I still don't think Perot can win the election outright,
>continued good performances could make him more of a factor.  His
>agenda might best be served if he could capture enough votes to win
>enough large states to cause an electoral deadlock.  Perot could then
>ask his electors to vote for whoever agrees adopt more of his economic
>and government reform plans.

Personally Richard, I'd rather see either or both of the major parties 
fall below the 25% figures and lose federal campaign funding. That's
a pretty good reason not to vote partisan, by itself. 

More importantly, I can't support people who eat their young: 

The Democrat and Republican Parties both authored and passed the 
$1.5 T federal budget last week, with no evidence of any attempt 
to control spending or borrowing. 

And if I had a hearing aid I'd turn it off to partisan lies and
TV mud wrestling too.

(I threw out my TVs years ago -- so I don't have to look at the lies
either.)

After hearing a *real* person like Admiral Stockdale trashed for "stage
fright"... He who was formerly a test pilot, and had more flight time 
in an F-8 fighter than anyone else in the world when he led the initial
strikes off a carrier in the Tonkin Gulf, and resisted torture as a POW
because he led the prisoner resistance, and has lived with pain and
disability ever since never succumbing to the stress and confusion which 
an unprepared generation fell too. Who took courageous stands to try to
introduce needed changes in ethics to the Naval War College and the Citadel
against strongly traditional opposition. A person of indomitable courage
and fortitude -- *belittled* as not fit for television, or running the
country in times of crisis....  I am ashamed of those who turn their
backs on him. (Not to you Richard....) How can you put more faith in an 
image than the actions of a man?

There are two people I want dearly to see making those necessary decisions 
of wisdom, day in and out at the helm of government -- Jim Stockdale and 
Barbara Jordon (you'll recall her speech at the Democratic Convention).

Age has taken a toll on each physically -- and they'd need help managing
the rigors of national office -- but we would be truly best represented 
as Americans through their love of all of America, (the living, the dead, 
and those unborn), their strong courage to fight adversity, and their 
willingness to look truth in the eye -- unbowed by the daunting task ahead.

Jim Stockdale -- I am proud of you. I want you there at the head of the
Senate in the bloody battles to come. 

>Richard Caldwell
>nrc@cbnews.att.com

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    10-14-92   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:07:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.140035.5043@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>> [from Peter Nelson]
>>   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.

This is an excellent point, and a powerful argument in favor of
what Perot is saying.  If you have people of all economic classes
complaining about how certain proposals are hurting their individual
benefits from government largesse, it is both rational and correct
to characterize the results of such proposals as "shared pain".

Dave
   Libertarians for Congress!
   Perot for President!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50758 alt.politics.clinton:9608
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 10 Oct 1992 16:28:46 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct9.164726.4664@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1b20bpINNf3f@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>> Today's NY Times reports that one of Clinton's classmates on the trip is
>> now a judge and worked nine years in the Reagan-Bush Justice Department.
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	Judges don't need security clearances, they're not working for the
>military or the executive branch.
                 ^^^^^^^^^

Care to try again (note emphasized passage).

At least half a dozen posters have sent messages that your claim Be a
Tourist -> No Security Clearance is nonsense, including one posting from
an officer who holds a security clearance himself. Maybe they didn't get
to your site. I find it interesting that of all this, you have only
replied (as far as I can tell here) to my posting about a Reagan-Bush
judge, and as you see, your reply is not even accurate.

Republican Governor William Weld (often mentioned as a 1996 candidate)
turns out to have taken pretty much the same trip. Are yu willing to
state that he, too, is a security risk?

andy
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:43:59 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1atqepINNkqd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
>
>   I just got down watching Perot's first half hour program on TV and all I
>can say is WOW! Setting politics aside, have you EVER in your life seen a
>candidate hit you with clear and precise facts like this? It was like being
>splashed with cold water. What a very refreshing, informing, non-bashing
>"commerical" this was!

Er, the statistics aren't all that new.  In fact, they've been around
long enough to have refutations offered by Cato Institute and National
Review (I don't recall the precise details: it's been a while since
I've seen them.)  I'm trying to think where I've seen these stats before.
The information has always been there: it may be hard to find a concise
summary in the mainstream media, though, because the numbers tend to
come out one at a time.  Much more diffuse.

In any case, let's wait and see Friday's segment.

--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Does he or Doesn't he?
Summary: Dangerous
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:00:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.153506.4645@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)             writes...
> 
>		Peace Marcher Recalls Clinton in London Parade
>	Jesuit priest and Georgetown prof (and peace activist:) Richard
>McSorley rememvers student Bill Clinton

I never realized he associated with such dangerous, communist criminals.

 helping to carry a coffin around a
>London square in 1969.  When the marchers were denied access to the US embassy,
>Clinton tried to negotiate with police.  McSorely said he also met Clinton at
>an anti-war prayer service.
> 
Sounds like anarchistic activities to me.

>Brett                                                      

-Garrett
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
From: skrenta@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rich Skrenta)
Subject: Re: Next Perot ad?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:44:52 GMT

From what I've been able to scrounge up, here is when I think
the next Perot ads will be on:

Friday, Oct 16:		7:30 EDT / 8:30 CDT on ABC "just before 20/20"
			8:30 EDT / 9:30 CDT on NBC

Saturday, Oct 17:	6-7 EDT / 7-8 CDT on ABC (one hour ad)

--
Rich Skrenta
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate Qualifications
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:36:25 GMT

> I was wondering how many ballots in the 50 states
> these other candidates are on.

So far as I know Bush, Clinton, Perot, and Marrou are on all 50
states... any others?

> 
> Also, is that some sort of qualification for
> appearing in the debates?

According to the Co-Chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates
the qualificitions are:

1)	They must have a chance to win.  If you're not on all 50 (actually
	51 counting DC) ballots you have no shot of winning.

2)	You must have something to contribute.

3)	You must be newsworthy.  I guess they think Marrou isn't newsworthy.

-- 
/---------------------------------------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               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51120 alt.politics.elections:16252
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Sixteen more years
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:29:36 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <1992Oct10.181610.6870@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:
> ... Then in another 10
> years the Republican party will have another ingrained voter block.
> 
> Kemp and Baker in 1996.


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.  A Clinton/Gore win
in 1992 will lead to

     Clinton/Gore in 1996

     Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)

     Gore/Braun in 2004

I think 2008 is still up for grabs.

-- 
Bob Munck
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:02:29 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1992Oct7.143738.26261@csrd.uiuc.edu> saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen) writes:
>Just as a reality check here: *how* do those homosexuals have offspring?

Just like straight people.  The woman is impregnated by the sperm of the
donor, wither by natural means or artificial insemination.  She then
carries the child to term.

Happens all the time.    For an example see the video of the NAMES Project.
There is a perfect example of how this occurrs.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:06:23 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <ld63n8INNoom@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

> I assume you are using the word "knowing" in the biblical sense.

Know you.
-- 
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: DAJ105@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: health care
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:07:00 GMT
 <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu>
 <1992Oct8.183217.8118@nntpserver.chevron.com>
 <1992Oct9.163813.4662@desire.wright.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Oct9.163813.4662@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
(Stupendous Man) says:
>
>In article <1992Oct8.183217.8118@nntpserver.chevron.com>,
>jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>> In article <Bvt6sK.MJt.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)      :
>writes
>>>In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>
>>>#This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health
>>>#care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line
>>>#to pay for th[text deleted]
>>>
>>>Can anyone document the statement that "87% of Americans have
>>>comprehensive health care plans"?
>>>
>>>Susan
>>
>> It doesn't matter.  13% of the people without health insurance is a lot
>> more than the entire population of Canada.  And people complain that
>> it's a tradgedy up there when someone can't schedule a vasectomy for a
>> couple months.
>
>        But that isn't an issue either.  You see, they can get health care by
>going to the nearest hospital, and you and I pay for it.

To say that isn't an issue is absurd.  They go to the hospital because they
couldn't afford the docotr before their condition became worse.  Provide
universal health insurance and you and I pay less.  In addition, they go to
the hospital, but they get less care, and are discharged sooner, and are
re-admitted sooner.  Provide universal health insurance and that doesn't
happen, and you and I pay less.  If that's not the issue, then tell me what is.

>        The issue of universal health insurance is a non-issue.  If everyone
>is
>gauranteed to have insurance--WHY HAVE INSURANCE AT ALL?

Because the more people in the pool, the lower the average cost per person.

>        But that won't do any good until you get the customer back in the
>price
>loop.  Right now no one cares if bypass costs $18,000 per doctor, because they
>don't pay $200,000, they pay the deductable.  You and I pay the rest.

The customer is in the loop (paying 25% of care) and by all the empirical
estimates raising that percent would have slight effects.  Stop to consider
that the "price loop" you admire doesn't always work well.  Health care
might be one of those cases.

Dennis Shea, Penn State....My thoughts not my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51534 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6814 alt.politics.clinton:10235 alt.politics.bush:9028
From: ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:02:09 GMT
Organization: NC Microproducts, Inc.

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
}
}You haven't answered the question.  Any temp will still take time to get up
}to speed.  I'm a programmer working for a small group within a large company.
}When we hire somebody new, it usually takes that person 6 months to a year
}before they know enough to contribute.  
}
}Even though my company employees thousands of people, over 300 at this site
}alone, my group has only a dozen people in it.  There is nobody within the
}company with the requisite skills to step in should one of us take off for
}three months.
}

So, Mark, what are you arguing for?  That:

  a) If someone on your team gets pregnant, or has a sick kid, they
     should have to keep working regardless, or

  b) People with kids shouldn't be hired for important positions where
     their absence would cause the company some problems.

I don't think either option is very palatable...if you can think of a
third, by all means, post it.  

It seems to me that, if a company wishes to obtain the advantages
of hiring an employee with a family (increased stability, good "values",
whatever...), they should also be willing to accept the occasional
disadvantages.  Quite frankly, if a company can somehow manage to
"make do" when an important team member gets sick suddenly, and "disappears"
for three months with no warning, they sure as hell ought to be able
to handle a well-telegraphed three month "disappearance" by a similar
employee in the case of a pregnancy.


Lance
-- 
Lance T. Franklin            +----------------------------------------------+
(ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org)   | "You want I should bop you with this here    |
NC Microproducts, Inc.       |    Lollipop?!?"                 The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas            +----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:11:11 GMT

I really can't see devoting a lot of energy to rebutting the paranoid white
males on the net who are so desperate to avoid real competition with
females and non-white males that they must cite the results of their
discriminatory past and insist that it somehow proves their superiority
(read: right to exclude others) even though all but white males were
excluded from both formal education and the resources to achieve on their
own.

I doubt that any one of these insecure men would ever bother to read a
biography of someone like Marie Curie (whose sister became a physician at a
time when European women were routinely excluded from higher education).
If they did, they would not recognize the obsticles that were placed in her
path or respect them.  That is why this type of white male is not respected
by others.  Some day they may realize they are creating this experience,
but don't hold your breath for it.  They talk the talk of fair competition,
but they don't walk the walk:  they can't face the effects of their
past discrimination on their successes any more than they can face fair
competetion in their present.

Most of you guys who are so hot on this couldn't last a moment with a
modern woman.  I invite you to step on my turf, a courtroom, sometime.  I
will gladly hand you back your clock--fully cleaned.

I know it's rough to have to compete with the world on an equal basis, but
it's only going to get worse for you guys.  You are dinosaurs.  And you
obviously know it.  Tough luck, guys.  The past is only important if you
live in it, and the more you live in it, the more irrelevent you become.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: ==> 3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:47:55 GMT

In article <92285.153100U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>          3 BUSH TAX AD `STARS' LINKED TO CAMPAIGN
>
>From the Chicago Tribune   Sunday, October 11, 1992
>(First published in the Boston Globe)
>
>WASHINGTON--To Sig Rogich, President Bush's top advertising adviser,
>his campaign ad charging that Bill Clinton will raise taxes
>by more than $1,000 apiece on average Americans is extraordinarily
>effective because it shows "real people . . . it stands the test of
>integrity."
>
>The five people in the ad are real, but several of them also have
>ties to officials in the Bush campaign.

I'm less concerned that the people in the Bush ad were all friends
of the campaign (this is a surprise?), but I'm much more curious
as to how the tax increases were calculated.  Is there any factual
basis to the ad?  Or is it lying that is especially blatant by
the Bush campaign?  

(Wouldn't it be a great commercial to show this Canes fellow being
interviewed saying that the Bushes were lying about how his taxes
would be raised under Clinton?) 

Side-note: Bush has already broken his Republican convention promise:
his latest budget calls for $35 billion in new taxes and fees.

>Canes, in an interview, said he did not know how the
>campaign figured his taxes would go up by $1,088 under Clinton and
>said he would like an explanation.
>
>"I can't explain it," Canes said when asked about the conflict
>between the Bush campaign's assertion and Clinton's pitch that he
>would raise taxes only on those earning more than $150,000.  Canes
>earns much less, he said.
>
>"I don't know how they came up with this, I have to be honest with
>you," Canes said.  Asked if the campaign had explained it, he said,
>"Not thoroughly, like you would expect it to be."  He said a campaign
>official had talked to him for "two or three minutes" before
>the filming.
>
>The fifth person in the ad, Lori Huntoon, a scientist, said in an
>interview that she had confidence in the accuracy of the ad.  She
>said she could not explain how the campaign came up with the estimate
>that her taxes would go up $2,072 under Clinton but said she
>believes Clinton would raise taxes.  She is a volunteer in the
>Bush campaign.
>
>When a campaign spokeswoman, Alixe Glenn, was asked if any of the
>people were connected to the campaign, she said "No."  Asked about
>the two relatives of a Bush campaign official, she said that that does
>not qualify as a campaign connection because "they are not on our
>payroll."
>
>Privately, however, some officials in the Bush campaign said it was a
>mistake to allow people connected in any way to campaign officials
>to be in the commercial.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Subject: Re: BUSH: Larry King Live text 10/4
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:44:17 GMT


{thanks to James C. Barrett for posting this.}


>    KING: Does he have the debate edge, as you've said?
>    BUSH: I think he's probably a better debtor.
> And I'm not down grading my past efforts.
>    KING: He said yesterday you're a pretty good debtor.
>    BUSH: Well, I heard him say that, which I was
> flattered. But, you know he's got all these statistics. He's
> got all these statistics. Eighty-two % of the people did
> that, 39--I'm not as good on that.

It is amazing how humorous a typo/wrong word can be!

debtor - n.  one who owes a debt.
I'd give Bush the edge.  It runs in the family.   =)



>    KING: You don't think it's an issue, then, or shouldn't
> be an issue?
>    MRS. BUSH: I think the issue is that we ought to tell
> children that sex is--is death. It is. Promiscuous sex is
> death. They shouldn't be doing that.

When I read the first sentence of Mrs. Bush's response, my eyes
went wide and I had to reread it again.  I then read the third
sentence.  Glad she clarified what she was saying.



patricia


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d