HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:43:14 GMT

Michael Edelman writes
> I was going to reprint extracts from this silly article, but frankly,
> why would Reagan have to steal the election when Carter *handed* victory
> to him? No one cared that much about Iran. What people vote on is
> the economy. Carter more than doubled inflation and unemployment. He
> ran on a campaign that cited the "misery index" and then doubled that
> index.

  The fact that people vote from their wallets is nothing new.  The assertion  
that Carter single-handedly doubled inflation and unemployment is the subject  
of many debates.  Personally, I don't think Carter deserved all of the blame  
for stagflation any more than I blame Bush for our current economic woes.  But  
at least Carter took personal responsibility for the failings of his  
administration; he could teach Bush a few lessons in decency, if nothing else.
  
> The "October Surprise" argument is pure bullshit, an attempt to criminalize
> any and all acts by a non-Democratic executive branch.

  The Iran Hostage crisis was one of the major issues of the 1980 campaign,  
along with the economy.  Can you explain why Reagan authorized the first  
shipment of arms to Iran in March of 1981, less than two months after he took  
office?

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.correct
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:05:02 GMT

rf> Richard Foy

rf> [W]ould libertarians allow dueling? If not why not?

  Who cares? With all the serious issues facing the US these days, you want to
  know what libertarians think about *dueling*? Why don't you ask us how we
  feel about witch-burning, since both practices are so common these days.
  
  Geez.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Yet another wager for the cowardly
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:17:57 GMT

In article <16858BD43.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>[wager deleted]

	I take it that you're resigned to a Clinton presidency?

	-rj

--
Ranjan Bagchi:   Di.sigsgvirusuise                 Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush and Clinton Character Issue
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:23:04 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 115657DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU, DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>What can be a greater measure of a mans character than his honesty?
>I think nothing can, so who is the greater perpetrator of flasehoods,
>Bush or Clinton?  ...I'm soliciting examples, quotes, and facts.
>
>Marty L. Dart.
>My opinions are mine and mine alone.

Depends.  Are you counting henchmen?  If so, it's gotta be Bush, Torie Clarke,
Mary Matalin, Marlin Fitzwater, etc. etc. etc.

--f2
--------------------------------
  "For you're so much younger than I am,
   Come up the years...."
  --either Jefferson Airplane or Woody Allen, I can't remember which
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A challange to Clintonopiles
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:19:26 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>[...] 
>That aside, I wonder how many of the drum-beaters are willing to put their
>money where their mouths are? Since it's pretty clear that Clinton is
>going to be elected, let's make a wager on his economic performance. We'll
>use the "misery index" that Jimmy Carter was fond of. RIght now it's
>around 10, same as at the end of Ford's presidency. 3% inflation + 7%
>unadjusted unemployment.
> 
>Here's the challange: It should be child's play for Clinton to get the
>index under 10, right? He's promised us full employment and no inflation.
>How many of those with Jann Wenner's embarressing enthusiasm for Clinton
>are willing to bet me that Clinton will have the total misery index under 10
>by January 1, 1996? The details: If the index is under 10 by then I'll
>donate $100 to NOW. But first I want to see 10 Democrats who are willing,
>if the index is above 10, to donate $100 to Pat Robertson.
> 
I'd rather cut off my thumbs than donate $100 to Pat Robertson (no, that's
NOT a counter-wager B-) ), but here's a scene I'd _really_ like to see.

Clinton is making some big claims (8 million new jobs, middle class tax cut,
environment improvements, etc.).  Why doesn't _he_ put _his_ money where
his mouth is?

GHWB has nothing to lose after this election.  But I'd feel better about
Clinton if he said, here's what I'll do to make this country better by 1996.
And If I haven't, I won't run again.

Any chance?  Of course not.  This is politics, not governing.

--f2
----------------
  Bush-Quayl '92
  It's a mistake
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: corection - Grand Opening - Genis for U.S. Senate HQ
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:40:57 GMT

         Grand Opening - Genis for U.S. Senate Headquarters

                Thursday, September 3, 1992, 7-9 pm
                         1806 Market Street
                      San Francisco, CA  94102

Building is near the corner of Octavia and Market.  This is a pie
shaped block with Waller hitting Octavia just past Market.  If
you're driving you can take Market to Octavia to Waller and drive to
the end of the block where Waller dead-ends into the U.C. Extension
parking lot on Laguna.  Parking there is $3.00 for the whole evening
and they're open until 11 pm.

In addition to June Genis, Mary Gingell, National Chair of the
Libertarian Party will also be speaking.  Wine and cheese will be
served.  A $5.00 donation is suggested to cover expenses.  For
further information contact Jerry Pico at 415-554-0388.

People outside the Bay Area who wish to obtain campaign information
can call 1-800-894-JUNE.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: Educational Spending (was: "Family Values" -- Clinton Continues to Miss Op
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:26:40 GMT

In article <Sep.1.15.02.51.1992.3819@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug31.193546.13432@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
>>sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>
>>In general, they don't. Here in Detroit teachers make between $27,000 and
>>$40,000 per annum- for a 9-month job. That's $36,000 to $53,000 fte.
>                                                                 ^^^
>What is "fte"?
>
>>Do you believe that the trouble with schools is simply that we don't
>>pay enough to teachers and administrators? Perhaps you'd be very surprised
>
>Absolutely not.  However, a large problem is that the schools do not pay
>enough to attract quality teachers who can make more money elsewhere. 
>Teachers don't teach as a favor to society.  They deserve a competitive
>salary for what they do.  
>
>However, the school system doesn't need to
>be saddled with incompetent teachers who managed to lay low long enough
>to get "tenure".  I don't think there should be a tenure system for
>grammar and secondary school teachers.  It makes no sense.
>
>>learn that private schools pay far less than public schools- and turn
>>out far better educated and better prepared students.
>
>I would be surprised, if I believed it.  Please tell the source of that
>information.
>
>>Looking at the way teacher's salaries and education spending have rocketed
>>in this century you'd think we would have the best school systems in the
>
>Tell me how they have "rocketed".  You forget that this is a state-by-state
>issue.
>
>>world. In fact, student performance has gone steadily downward since the
>>60s, while spending has gone up.
>
>Perhaps we are spending money on the wrong things?  However, I don't 
>consider paying attractive salaries to qualified teachers to be one
>of them.
>
>>So much for the argument that all we need is to throw more money at the
>>problem. The data seems to say the oppposite.
>
>Lets see some of this data please.

See, for example, recent work by Robert Jewell of the University of 
Chicago (Administrator's Notebook, Volume 34 -- can't remember the issue #). 
 He created a regression model using data from all 50 states and controlled 
for everything you'd ever want to control for, and found no significant impact 
of increased funding.

also, see Chubb & Moe, "Politics, Markets, and America's Schools."



-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Bush on Education
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:06:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.181043.23279@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>
> I have only one question regarding Bush's "school choice" plan for improving  
>our education system.  If it was such a good idea, then why didn't he propose  
>it in 1989, instead of waiting until the next election year? 

  To be fair, he proposed the whole thing in April of 1991 when he
was 90s or so in the polls and it looked like he would win
election easily.

  Why hasn't he pushed it harder is a more fair question. (IMHO).

>
>  School choice could prove to be workable, but it would represent a _major_  
>change from the way we've approached education for most of the century.   
>Changes like this should not be made overnight,especially in the shadow of an  
>upcoming election.  This decision should be subject to a proper amount of  
>debate,with plenty of time to explore as many ramifications as possible.  I'm  
>not sure if even a Republican-dominated Congress would pass such a measure as  
>quickly as Bush would suggest.  The President's timing on this proposal only  
>makes it look like an election year gimmick.

  His timing was fine.  It just wasn't well publicized by the media
until this election year.

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Clinton's lies
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:58:06 GMT

From a recent speech of Slippery Bill's:
 
"In 1980...we had the highest wage in the world; now were're 13th...."
 
Only is you use unadjusted figures. The actual figures, adjusted for
purchasing power, show the US with a per capita GDP of $21,449. The countries
Bill thinks have passed us by- Germany and Japan- come in at fifth ($18,219)
and sixth ($17,634).
 
He also says:
 
"  Our productivity has fallen way below that of other rich countries
like Germany and Japan..."
 
But Japan's productivity is 80% of that of the US, and Germany's, 75%.
And US productivity grew twice as fast in the 80s as in the 70s.
 
"...Most Americans are workjing harder for less money..."
 
Between 1982 and 1991, inflation adjuster per-hour compensation rose 3%;
household income, between 3% and 4%. During the Carter-policy years,
1978-82, real compensation per hour actually fell. High inflation made it
look like it was rising.
 
"There has been a stunning rise in the number of people who work for a
living but are still poor"
 
Bit of sophistry here. Clinton wants to suggest that working people are
falling below the poverty line, but what is actually happening is that there
was a tremendous increase in the number of single people working. They fall
below the poverty line for a family of four, increasing that percentage, but
that of course is very misleading.
 
Census Bureau figures show that about 2.4% of working people are actually
below the pverty line, when all sources of income and aid are figured in.
There is, in addition, a great deal of advancement through this lowest
gorup of wage-earners. 2/3rds of those who were in the bottom quintile of
wage earners in 1979 had moved into the top three quintiles by 1988. Their
places were taken by other new workers.
 
The biggest Clinton lie is his oft-repeated assertion that the richest
1% of Americans received 70% of the income gains in the 80s. The figures are
based on some very faulty assumptions; the main one is that the top 1% is
static. It is not, no more than the bottom quintile is. In fact, the top
1% could be said to have received about 13% of the gains.
 
Having said all that, I will say that perhaps what America needs is four
years of Clinton, just to remind them of what four years of Carter was like.
 
Kemp in '96!
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12387 alt.rush-limbaugh:4266 talk.politics.misc:43678
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Keywords: yes
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:55:08 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <21.X92001@ramona.com> jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) writes:
: Los Angeles (UPI) - This morning, in a speech to Southern California
: aircraft workers, President George Bush announced the sale of 50
: ultra-tech F-15E fighter planes to Iraq. The fleet will replace Iraq's
: air force which was stolen by Iran during the Gulf War. Each plane
: will be delivered with a complimentary, specially-tooled version of
: The Club anti-theft device. "I want to be the Jobs President," said Bush
: to the cheering throng.

	This is a joke, right?
From: piiro01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dave Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Vote in past elections
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:29:33 GMT
Organization: Comp. Center (ZDV) U of Tuebingen, FRG


  Does anyone have data available on plurality percentages in previous 
elections? I refer here to percent of vote on a per state basis such as
was recently posted from the Wall Street Journal? I am interested in 
recent national elections for the presidency such as '84, '80, and '76.
I realize that is a lot of information to ask anyone to post so a 
reference would also be fine.
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Great Britain's View of Bush (Was:The Swedish view on Bush)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:44:17 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <Aug.28.10.04.32.1992.5397@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan writes...
>summers%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Summers) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Aug24.140718.27714@ericsson.se> etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se writes:
> 
>>THANK YOU!  Would other non-Americans care to report what their
>>papers are saying?  In general, I would think that other countries
>>would have less bias (either conserative or liberal), and its always
>>nice to see what the world thinks of the Americal political dream. :)
> 
>I just returned from two weeks in Great Britain and was amazed at how
>biased the television media was against Bush.  Not that I was offended,
>but I was surprised.  They were much more biased against him than even
>our own media sources.
> 
>For example, during coverage of the Republican convention, the tone of
>the commentary went along the lines of "In an effort to pull his political
>career out of the toilet, Bush said ____".  All the television and radio
>stories that I heard sounded like that.  
> 
>Clinton was only referred to as Bush's opponent.  I didn't hear anything
>about him other than that.
> 

>Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 

I was in Great Britian in early June and the media was heavily against 
Bush becuase of his stand on the Earth Summit. I don't mean just flaming
him, I mean front page.

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Subject: Re: New poll results
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:06:25 GMT


	Give up on the Libertarian vote.  In 1988 the Libertarian candidate
got less than 1% of the vote.  The New Freedom Party got almost as many
votes.  You CAN'T poll Marrou supporters because the numbers would be
statistically insignificant (much smaller than the margin of error).  With
a sample of 800-1500 Marrou might get 5 or 40 supporters, and statistically
the numbers would be the same.

	-JG

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:51:50 GMT

In article <17uu4eINNf1a@agate.berkeley.edu>
bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

>
>In article <16855327.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Vel) writes:
>
>>>  ...
>>>  no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
>>>  office or public trust under the United States
>>>  ...
>
>>     When you tool up your flame-thrower, it's proper form to
>>make sure your facts are straight.  Your quote is from Article
>>VII, not article VI.
>
>In what alternate universe are you straightening out facts, Mr. Veal?

     Aww, damn.  You're right on that tid-bit.  (My apologies.)
I managed to check that twice and still screw it up.  Teach me to
post late at night.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             Unive/sity of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kkylakos@vipunen.hut.fi (Kaisa K Kyl{koski)
Subject: Re: The lie of "school choice"
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date:  3 Sep 92 14:44:07 GMT

In <16854CEE4.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.123606.6371@iscsvax.uni.edu>
>fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> 
>>
>>I'm going to guess that most people in favor of school choice as a solution to
>>all of our educational woes come from cities.
>>
>>I grew up in western Wisconsin, from a town of less than 1500.  There was only
>>one school in town--in fact, we had students bussed in from two other towns and
>>a lot of farm routes to get my graduating class up to 80.
>>
>>If I had wanted to go to another school, how would I have gotten there?
>                         [...]

> 
>Maybe, if the money was there, someone might *start* a school? Once
>the monopoly is broken down new players can enter the market. Consider
>William Baumol's notion of *potential* competition- see his book, "Contestable
>Markets". Even the possibility of potential competition can act as a
>competitve force...unless competition is prevented by law.
> 
>Take a look at Finland...where they've had choice for 70 years. It's
>resulted in both private schools *and* better public schools

I think you have the wrong country as your example. In Finland
the majority of schools are public. There are less than 10
private schools - all in big towns.
-- 
Kaisa Kyl{koski   Helsinki University of Technology   Espoo, Finland

' I'm a citizens for boysenberry jam fan '      (Paul Simon)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:35:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.233000.19500@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
 
>In article <1992Aug27.151340.9052@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ack@dgp.toronto.edu (Andrew Brownbill) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.185934.15283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug27.130233.7176@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>>>And my unscientific opinion is that there is one major cause for
>>>>unwanted pregnancy: ineffective birth control.
>>>
>>>That unscientific opinion seems to have little basis in this reality.
>>>
>>>Few of the "teen" pregnancies are due to ignorance or inaccessible
>>>birth control, let alone failures.  They're the natural consequence of
>>>sex by people who WANT to get pregnant or don't care whether or not
>>>they do.  Unless someone is proposing some sort of mandatory birth
>>>control (norplant?), birth control policy can't affect that.
>>
>>I just want to get this right. Unwanted teen pregnancies are caused by people
>>who want to get pregnant.
>
>Right.  The fact that society doesn't want these pregnancies or that
>the pregnancies aren't wanted after they're started doesn't imply that
>they were unwanted when they were started.
>
>Why do so many teens want to get pregnant, or not care whether or not
>they do?  I don't know, but until we change that, we're going to have
>lots of teen pregnancies.  The alternative isn't nice.
>
>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
 
The LA Times did a series a few years ago on teenage pregnancies.  (No,
I cannot give a better citation).  They interviewed several teenage
mothers.  A common thread was the girls felt lonely and unloved, and
wanted to have babies because "the baby would have to love me."  Only
later did they realize the price they paid, when the reality of having
to take care of a small helpless human hit.
 
They also said if their parents paid more attention to them and gave
them more love, they would not have gotten pregnant.  I don't think the
availability of condoms would have prevented these pregnancies.  I also
don't think preaching abstinence would have done so.
 
I have not decided how I feel about handing out condoms in schools.  I
definitely believe there should be more and better sex education.  I do
think that would prevent many of the problems caused by teenage sex,
but not all.  There is no absolute answer.  "Just say no to sex" is
unrealistic given the messages from the rest of society.  Much as some
of us would like to live in the '50s, there are no time machines.
Ward, June, Wally and the Beave don't exist anymore.  We have to deal
with today's situation, not wish for the past.
 
Jim McMaster