HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: New anti-abortion tactic
Reply-To: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu
Organization: ESSRL -- Washington University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:53:09 GMT

9nq@chinet.chi.il.us, (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago) writes:
> Yes, it is Michael Bailey. He's running in Indiana. I don't know the 
> Congressional district, but it's on the border with Ohio and Kentucky.
> His ads have run on Cincinnati television. He won his primary, but
> it's doubtful that he'll win the Seat over the incumbant (sorry, I can't
> remember his name, but he's a long-time, popular, pro-choice Democrat.)

His opponent is longtime Democratic representative Lee Hamilton.  He is
reportedly well-liked and respected in Washington and in his district.
His name was reportedly on the short list for consideration as a running
mate for Clinton just before the Democratic National Convention.  You
may remember him for the big role he played in the Iran-Contra investigations.

However, I believe Honorable Representative Hamilton is (quietly) pro-life.

Corrections welcome, but I'm pretty sure.  As the Capitol Steps sing: "I Heard
It on the Nightline..."

---
|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15346 talk.politics.misc:49822
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:44:38 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <BvoLx4.728@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.223005.20550@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <BvMrtI.DGG@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>>>  Clinton announced today that he finally supports NAFTA,
>>>although he still has "reservations".

>>Let's be a bit more accurate.  He supports NAFTA, but he wouldn't sign
>>the agreement in its present form.  He hasn't been specific about the
>>exact changes needed.

>  The way I heard it, he does support it in its present form, but
>also supports an additional treaty or "understanding" which would
>allow the USA to dictate Mexico's and Canada's environmental
>policies.

Excuse me, but he has stated that he will not sign the treaty in its
present form.

>  Presidents don't sign treaties, anyway, they simply have to be ratified
>by the Senate.

Incorrect.  Both have to happen.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: ssurgui@ucdacm.denver.colorado.edu (Scott Surguine)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:17:51 GMT
Distribution: comp.unix.admin comp.unix.bsd

In article <1992Sep29.144840.10335@midway.uchicago.edu>  
shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
> In article <28SEP92.22145685@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu  
writes:

In Response To A Post RE: Mike Royko's Sunday Column The ever Brilliantly
Intuitive Roger Shouse States...
 
> What a completely nonsensical view.  Take note:  Arnold was playing a
> _bad guy_.  In the end, he gets killed by the _good guys_.  I know this
> is a hard concept to grasp among those who have a hard time telling the
> difference, but still it's an important one.

FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW!!!!!  WHAT WISDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Forget the fact that VIOLENT CRIMES in AMERICA ARE UP DRAMATICALLY!!!!!!
Let's forget the fact that Men and Women get killed mutilated and 
grossly dismembered in this film.  Forget the fact that people get their
heads torn off and Arnold shits down what's left of thier torso.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
This is a bad guy who EVENTUALLY gets killed by the good guys.
Wow!!!!  Why Arnold could have raped, tortured, and mutilated your
Little Sister VERY GRAPHICALLY in this film.  But as long as the good
guys come riding in with their white hats on ITS NO PROB...

Is It Just Me? or Do All Reagan Republican's collectively have an IQ
In the single digit range... ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


> -- 
> Roger Shouse
> The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14410 alt.flame:13080
From: aephel01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Big Intertial Spheroid (hiz head)
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:04:46 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <exuptr.705.717640546@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
> In article <1992Sep26.124239.20926@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.
> cs.brandeis.edu (Big Intertial Spheroid) writes:

>>CLUE: The deficit is DELIBERATE and CALCULATED!  The deficit doesn't
>>  just mysteriously pop up after the fact because of errors and
>>  loopholes in the budget.  The *exact* size of the deficit is
>>  calculated when the budget is drafted.  
> 
> No shit?  Guess what?  Anyone that would write a personal check that will
> not clear is a prime candidate for submitting a budget that won't clear.

  Anyone that is as stupid as this guy is not going to understand you no matter
how many times you try to clear it up.  Yes the government does calculate
the deficit every year.  Congress comes up with a figure and the President
gets one of his own.  And the budget is always ready on time.  They always
spend according to the budget.  And, oh, excuse me Elvis, say hi to J F K for
me, and all politicians are honest.

-- no sig necessary --
       Aza
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:54:56 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

In article <1992Oct1.165541.8226@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.113133.21380@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>>Growth industry following a Perot victory: Private Investigations. Discretion
>>is Our Watchword.
>
>	Wow, Perot must be pretty stupid if as the Boss of the FBI, CIA, and
>NSA, he would prefer to hire private detectives.
> 
Stupid...no. Paranoid? Hmmmmm? Could be....
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: First Debate Site
Date: 5 Oct 1992 17:01:19 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov

In article <1992Oct5.081935.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes something wrong:

> ...
>P.S. Forget about all these polls that everyone keeps posting. Without
>details as to who the people polled are or the type of polls, they are
>useless. Lets see what they national polls are like. ...

National polls don't matter.  State polls do.  Remember that it is
quite possible to win a majority of the national vote and lose the
election due to imbalances in the various states.


and something right:

> ... Look for a big surprise from the Bush camp soon. ...

Yes!  I earlier thought that Bush would start a shooting war somewhere
but was reminded that he had already played this card with the "no fly
zone" in Iraq.  That one fizzled when S. Hussein (predictably) refused
to bite and hurricane Andrew blew Bush's get-tough stance off the front
pages.

If I were Baker (who apparently is the guy we're really supposed to vote
for, not Bush) I would hold out all the surprises until the last week
before the election and then hit Clinton with every remaining weapon in
my arsenal, hoping that he would not have enough time left to recover and
respond.

The Repub's have a lot of money left for TV buys.  However, the market
is too fractured with the advent of cable and vcr's for TV advertising
to have the kind of effect that it had in the last 7 elections.
----
    --Brad Sherman
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: First Debate Site
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:19:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct5.011420.25458@wuecl.wustl.edu>, gl1@cec1.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
> 
>     Chancellor William Danforth of Washington University announced this 
> afternoon that Washington University will host the first Presidential Debate
> next Sunday.
> 
>     It will be held in our fieldhouse (with maximum capacity ~4,000, but less 
> for the debate due to press and stage, etc.).
> 
>     Now, I just hope I can get one of the few tickets that will be issued.
> 
> Greg


Where are all the people who said that Bush was "Chicken" to debate???????

Well there are now going to be three not two!!!

Several weeks ago I stated that Bush would debate and that he NEEDS to
debate. I also said that the debates should be NEGOTIATED and that in the
end there would be two different formats, one moderator and one a
panel debate.

Thank you,

Ken


P.S. Forget about all these polls that everyone keeps posting. Without
details as to who the people polled are or the type of polls, they are
useless. Lets see what they national polls are like. I hope Clinton
doesn't coast too much more or he may find himself behind. Look for a
big surprise from the Bush camp soon. Remember Ferraro, she had a 20 point
lead in the polls 2 weeks before the election!!

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Line Item Veto
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:56:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.193552.864@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
 
>
>Wouldn't this idea of simple majority override for a line item veto render the
>line item veto meaningless?  If Congress has enough votes to pass a bill then
>there would be enough votes to override any partial veto by the President,
>unless some who originally voted for the bill vote against the override.
>
>  -- Scott
 
I don't think it makes the veto meaningless.  Much of the pork barrel
spending is added to the bill in committee.  Legislators have a tacit
agreement not to bring attention to each other's items.  The only
roll-call vote is on the entire bill, and each Congressperson can say
"I opposed that item, but the entire bill was so vital I had to support
it."
 
A line-item veto would require a roll-call vote on each vetoed item.
Items truly supported by the majority would win on their own merits.
Indefensible pork-barrel items would be less likely to pass, because
each legislator would have to explain his vote on each item.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Bush Lies
Followups-To: poster
Organization: none.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:00:30 GMT

Here's another good quote from the Today Show (9/28) interview with
Clinton.

[They're talking about the draft issue ]

   QUESTION: Do you wish you had handled it differently at all?

    CLINTON: I wish that I could have predicted that everybody would
change their story. Or that local Republicans would come up with fresh
memories and be taken seriously by the press. If I had done that, then
I would have tried to remember every last thing that happened 23 years
ago in proper sequence and had it all there in the beginning. But I
didn't, I didn't anticipate that.
    I think that it's interesting, however, that we now have all the
evidence--so-called evidence against me has been supplied by people who
either changed their stories, have no direct knowledge, or are involved
with the Republican party.
    Now, by contrast, on this Iran-contra thing, all the evidence
against Mr Bush has been supplied by people who were on his side.
Memorandums from cabinet members of the Reagan- Bush administration,
from General Secord, who was part of their team, another direct story
coming out of the New York Times this week. And he never answers any of
that.
    And this is something that happened when he was well into his term
as vice president of the US, when there was plenty of official records
left, and when all the evidence against him is being supplied by people
who are on his team, and there is documented evidence there.
    So I think it's interesting that you folks have asked him fewer
questions about this, apparently, or gotten fewer answers than I've
given about the draft. There have been a lot more stories about the
draft and I've answered a lot more questions about it than Mr. Bush has
answered about Iran-contra, something that happened more recently, when
he was vice president, where the evidence against him is being provided
by people who are on his side.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: Bert Smith <bowler@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Top 10 questions to ask Bush on Larry King
X-Xxdate: Tue, 6 Oct 92 22:17:41 GMT
Organization: Volunteer Clinton/Gore Email Team
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:14:01 GMT

In article <Bvpp1H.Luy@phage.cshl.org> Pat Monardo, pjm@cshl.org writes:
>Bush is going to reappear on Larry King Live Wed. WITH PHONE CALLS:

I believe this is TONIGHT October 6th.  9pm Eastern time.

-bert
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14802 talk.politics.misc:48859
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:03:09 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1ad7iaINN7ce@eagle.natinst.com>, chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.091937.1438@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>
>>  But it's how loud that answer will be....
>>
>>  A million calls in 12-16 hours??
>>
>>  Now, unless someone's doing some serious calling, there's got to be a lot of
>>support for him.  It's just that, in these polls, "likely voter" usually =
>>Republican or Democrat.
>>
> 
> If I really wanted Ross Perot to run I'd call the number hundreds of times.
> Why not - he's paying for the call.  It doesn't take much effort to dial
> a number, wait for a machine to answer, and then hang-up.  I'd be willing
> to bet that there are quick a few people doing some serious calling.
> Add to that the number of people who called to say DON'T run and your
> 'poll' is pretty useless for telling how many people want him to run.
> Ross Perot may call the number himself a few hundred times :)

  OK.  Let's assume, therefore, that 10% of the callers actually want Perot
out.  And that each person calls an average of 10 times.

  That's still 90000 people in just 12-16 hours.

  And I think that there are a lot more than just 90000 people that want Perot
in.

  <Just trying to apply some logic>

						Mike Falkner

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:20:52 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct2.025653.21931@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.210646.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>
>> How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country? How
>>can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends, family, a
>>priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his wife? How
>>can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
>>American work place? How can we look up to a President who has experimented
>>with drugs... particularly in an age when drugs controls our streets, and
>>murders children?  [rest deleted -- CDP]
>
> Now for the quick rundown:              [which I made quicker -- CDP]
> 
> 1) Clinton believed the Vietnam war was wrong and immoral.  
> 4) Drugs.  Pot?  In the Sixties?  Hmmm....
>
     Clinton had an interesting quote in the Reader's Digest
(Oct. 1992, pg. 60):

     "People should not be concerned about whether I have the 
      strength of character to be President."

I do not think Clinton realized that this statement can be taken
two ways (kind of like the old SNL skit where Ed Asner said
"you can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor").

     C. Perttunen

> 
>>		 --VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)   
> 							^^^^
> 
> My school loves acronyms.  How 'bout, "Assist in Republican Clue Hunting?"
> 
> --
> "Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
> 				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: The environmental president
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:16:18 GMT

NYTimes 9/30:

	The White House has dropped a proposal to allow manufacturers
	to dispose of hazardous wastes in town dumps, senior Bush
	Administration officials said today, because of concern
	that the Bush campaign has become vulnerable to Democratic
	criticism on the environment.


-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14729 talk.politics.misc:48741
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:19:37 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <yvonne.717810029@well.sf.ca.us>, yvonne@well.sf.ca.us (Yvonne Lee) writes:
> Yeah, but only call the number if you WANT the guy to run. A number of the
> callers dialed the number thinking they could voice their opinion over
> whether  they wanted him to run.  This is not the case.  All calls are
> recorded as support.  There is no number to register one's lack of support.
> 
> Ross clearly wants to hear but one answer.

  But it's how loud that answer will be....

  A million calls in 12-16 hours??

  Now, unless someone's doing some serious calling, there's got to be a lot of
support for him.  It's just that, in these polls, "likely voter" usually =
Republican or Democrat.

						Mike Falkner

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:14922 alt.politics.clinton:8154 alt.politics.bush:7487
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:31:59 GMT
 <1992Oct2.033931.24538@u.washington.edu> <1992Oct2.015704.1@acad.drake.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Oct2.015704.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu says:
>
>Hmm... Adam, buddy, I think you completely missed the point. You see, the
>United States hasn't been invaded since the Spanish American war... what I was
>talking about OBVIOUSLY is Clinton's DODGING OF THE DRAFT!

Comments about the draft issue:

-Clinton:  possibly avoided being drafted for a year.  Gave up his
-ROTC status on Oct. 30, 1969 and entered the lottery.  Received
-No. 311 in the lottery on December 1, 1969.

-Quayle:  definitely dodged the draft by entering the Guard.  His
-comments on his action:  "I did not know in 1969 that I would be
-in this room today, I'll confess...I (did) what any normal person
-would do at that age.  You call home to mother and father and say,
-'I'd like to get in the National Guard.'" (August, 1988).

-George Bush, Jr.:  "has acknowledged that he wasn't keen on the
-service but didn't want to go to Canada - and felt his father's
-career was a consideration." (Washington Post, Sept. 13).  Avoided
-the draft by joining the Texas Air National Guard.

-Dick Cheney:  completely avoided the draft by getting continual
-draft deferments.  "...as one who did not serve in the military,"
-he doesn't think military service should be a requirement "for
-anybody who serves in higher office."

-Newt Gingrich:  completely avoided the draft.

-Pat Buchanan:  bum leg kept him out of Vietnam.  Describes himself
-as a "compulsive jogger" today.

Enough said.

Jeff Luck                          *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University         "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU               -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 08:00:38 GMT

In article <8188@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen) writes:
>[big federal debt; can be reduced through inflation]

There are three problems with your argument:

1) It is extremely naive to take the debt of an entity known commonly,
and legally, as the Federal Government of the United States and divide
among those who are citizens of the nation of the same name. Indeed, part
of the great game of chicken that is going on among the Powers That Be(TM)
is deciding who will be made to pay the tab. You have suggested one way
that taxpayers can escape the debt. Others possibilities include privatizing
federal assets (that is assets which are owned by the federal government as 
opposed to assets owned by citizens of the United States).

2) Second, you are discounting one of the biggest lenders to the federal
government: the Social Security Trust Fund. Evaluating the amount that
individual Americans have invested in that Fund is rather meaningless given
the way that it is run, but, in an accounting sense at least, the amounts
are considerable.

3) Third, you are ignoring the long term effect of such a devaluation through
inflation: noone would ever hold dollars again much less lend to the federal
government. Indeed, it would make far more sense to simply repudiate the
debt to at least to protect the value of dollar denominated assets not
involved in the federal debt. People would still stop lending to the federal
government but at least the rest of the economy could continue to function.

A more interesting, and practical solution would be to simply declare the
federal government bankrupt and  proceed as with any private institution:
let debtors line up for a portion of the proceeds from the liquidation of
federal assets. There is little justifiation for a trillion-dollar+ 
federal government in a post-Cold War world.







Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame