HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Today show (and ramblings) 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:16:51 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:

> By James's comment that Bush should come out from behind Baker's
> "skirt" I got the impression that the Democrats really are afraid
> of Baker.  I've heard rumors of this before, but this statement
> seemed to confirm this.  Why exactly is Baker so imposing to the
> Democrats?  I mean, he has done wonders in the State Department
> and worked on Reagan's campaign, but what exactly did he do to
> earn this reputation?

I didn't see the show, but only James Carville would say that GHWB is hiding
behind Baker's 'skirt.'  Carville is Clinton's campaign manager and head nasty
boy.

> The thing that struck me the most about the segment (and caused
> me to run late) was the demeanor of the men.  When James was
> talking, Black looked uncomfortable most of the time (he did
> smirk once though).  Where as while Black was talking, James had
> a hugh grin on his face.  He almost bursted out laughing a couple
> of times.  {Being slightly giddy from lack of sleep, I found this
> extremely humorous - which is why I kept watching.  If I was a
> Bush supporter, I would have wanted to slap him across the face.}
> If their personas were reflective of their respective parties, I
> would say that the Republicans are trying to climb a steep hill while
> the Democrats are sitting on the top bemused watching the Republicans.
> But, beware, it is very easy to topple from the top.

Carville is from Louisiana and was raised on nasty politics.  He's comfortable
making others uncomfortable.  Charlie Black is a political hack that a three
year old could intimidate.

>
> Since I am rambling (which I do when I'm tired) another point:
> I've heard people say there is too much anti-Bush/Clinton and not
> enough pro-Bush/Clinton.  A lot of people vote against a person they
> don't like, the so called lesser of two evils vote.  Some people
> think that this wrong.  I don't.  If you know you don't like someone
> and/or their policies, but you know a heck of a lot about them, does
> it make sense to vote for them just because you don't know as much
> about their opponent?  Should you vote for someone you know you don't
> like, or should you vote for someone you may or may not like?  This
> doesn't mean that you should be ignorant about the other candidate.
> I mean, could tell you a LOT more about Bush than I could about
> Clinton, but I also have stronger opinions about Bush.
>

Hopefully 50.1% of the voters who vote on November 3 in states with electoral
votes totalling at least 270 will feel the same way.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Just to keep things straight . . .
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:15:00 GMT

In article <CHRISF.92Sep12154107@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:
>didn't list any money that might be saved by proposed military cuts (who said 
>all the money would come from one place?).

Why should we?  Clinton claims that it is NEW spending on top of that
from diverted spending.

>I disagree with your method of calculating how much taxing the top 2-3% will
>raise; using a figure for the top 4% and then subtracting can result in a big
>difference (it may be in your favor!).

Using the number for the top 4% without adjustment doesn't change
things significantly.  The original poster actually did that by
writing "$15-20B"; the latter is assuming that we get 5% more from the
top 4% instead of just the top 2%.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Patriotism (was Re: alt.politics.clinton)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:00:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.000005.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
>I'm curious, and want to find out how patriotic people are.  Bill Clinton
>dodge the draft.  I consider him a coward.  I just got out of the Marines and
>spent my time fighting for this country.  Why would I want to vote for a man
>that dodged the draft?
>
>This is my question, are you really going to vote for this man?  A man that 
>runs from a fight.  What's going to happen if we end up in a war. (Which could
>very well happen with the state the world is in right now.)

One may ask if it was patriotic to blindly serve in Vietnam, or to
follow the orders of our leaders unquestioningly.  If you had
honorable objections to the war, would you go?  If you believed that
your leaders were not right in prosecuting the war, would you put
aside your doubts?  Remember that Clinton worked in Sen. Fulbright's
office when he was in Georgetown, and perhaps had a clearer view of
the war at that time than most other people.  Perhaps it would have
been better if he didn't dodge the draft, and was more active in the
anti-war movement.  In any case, to simply label as unpatriotic those
who disagree with you verges on blind nationalism.  "America, love it
or leave it?"  And one may think that someone who would not go lightly
into war would be better for our country.

>
>LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
>	   paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
>	   and believes homosexuality is normal.

I'm sure that we could come up with something equally as charitable
for you.



--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 21:42:50 GMT

Chris you miss the point.  The liberal bias in media refers to Maria (I know
this one is totally misspelled) Shribert asking one of economic advisors
"how are you going to pay for this stupid plan!!!  There is no way!!!  HOW!!!"  and
then asking Clinton or Democrats..."This excelent plan of yours how did
you ever come up with it?"
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Opinion on CNN Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger..."
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:12:04 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <5214@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
->Short letter about CNN. CNN is more objective than any of the other
->major networks without a doubt, but it isn't the most objective
->lens through which the news is delivered. I do enjoy Crossfire, which
->I think is the best news commentary program ... when they had Braden
->vs. Buchanan. The benefit of CNN is that when news happens, it is

 Here, Here. I nominate Crossfire as the best show on Television ever !
 That is until Rush Limbaugh starts his TV show.......

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:51:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <MATT.92Sep10141201@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>	(2) Every major newspaper I have seen has a "business" section,
>	    complete with many pages of information that is of interest
>	    only to well-off investors.  When is the last time you saw
>	    a newspaper with a "labor" section?

  What would you put in it?   I'm an investor and I'm also
  "labor" in the sense that I work (sell my labor) for a
  living.   Every day I peruse the business section looking 
  for information on companies or industries I follow or 
  economic trends that I can use to make investment decisions.

  What would you put in a "labor" section that would be similarly
  useful in decision-making?   (note that statistics about labor,
  e.g., employment, productivity, wages, strikes, workforce com-
  position, etc, are *already* in the business section.)


---peter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing System
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 05:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.210606.21998@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
"
"May I add that 40% of the "poor" own their own homes!
"The average value of these homes is 43,000 (about 60% of
"the average value of all homes).
"
"Something like 60% own a car.  Around 50% own microwave ovens.
"
"The census bureau's statistics do not count any welfare that a 
"person receives, either.  There a lot of new poor who just found
"that they could earn more by not working, so they quit.
"
"How much do you wanna bet that within 9 months of Clinton's 
"being elected (God help us if it happens), the census starts 
"adding in entitlements and (miraculously) the number of
"poor starts to drop again.
"
"These poor Americans live in homes which are on average 150%
"the size of the average Japanese worker -- think about that.
"
"These poor Americans have a standard of living that is much
"higher than most of Western Europe.
"
You're full of shit. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:18:30 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep7.112043.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     On Sunday's (9/6/92) Meet the Press, Al Gore claimed that
>"Six Nobel Prize winning economists have endorsed the Clinton/Gore
>(economic) plan."  Then, Sunday evening on NBC's Brokaw Reports,
>Bill Clinton said that eight Nobel laureates support his
>economic plan.  I guess that either two more jumped on the bandwagon
>(or more appropriately, on the bus) Sunday afternoon, or two of the 
>eight are not Nobel Prize winners in economics.
>     Does anyone know the names of these Nobel Prize winners?
>I would greatly appreciate seeing a list of these names.  Thanks.
>
>     C. Perttunen
>
>P.S.  By the time you read this, they may be claiming 12 to 14 Nobel
>laureates endorsing the Clinton/Gore plan.

I can think of one off hand: Bob Solow up at MIT.  I believe he
won for his work in long-term economic growth.

What Clinton is refering to is a plan put forth by the 6 (or eight)
Nobel Prize winners along with about a hundred other economists
a few months ago.  They called for many billions of dollars in
infrastructure investment over the next 4 or 5 years.


--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: 20-20 Hindsight (was: SC rally
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:08:23 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

[ Masses of arguments on the responsibility of Jimmy Carter's policies
versus the policies of Reagan et al deleted...]

I remember the Carter years well, and I remember the terms of the economic
debate as well. On the Republican side of the aisle, the argument was
that all of our problems were due to the massive deficits that Carter's
economic policies were piling up, that if we only managed to have a 
balanced budget that all would be well. Well, the National Debt as
a percentage of GNP fell through Carter's term and we had stagflation.
When Reagan took office he cut taxes, the deficits ballooned, and we
had "prosperity." Question: where have economists suddenly derived
certainty about which policy produced the "prosperity"? Was the prosperity
due to massive federal government stimulus or the cut in taxes? If
Carter had cut taxes wouldn't Certain Parties be wringing their hands
about his Massive Debt? About how there will be hell to pay, etc? 
I find the rather leaden verities of the currnet economic debate/harrangue
just more pattern finding in rubble than a prescriptive solution.
The canard "If your so smart, then why ain't you rich?" is a more
than ample rule of thumb. 
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 0-3 Lifetime: 0-5 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:12:27 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <edjans01.716570007@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>, edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing) writes:
> In <1992Sep14.162833.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>>     Once again, I appreciate your perspective.  But when I look
>>up the word "natural" or "nature" in a concordance, practically all of the
>>passages talk about the "sinful nature" of man (e.g. one does not
>>have to teach a young child to lie or to be greedy).  This is
>>what leads me away from your interpretation.
>>     I think you can see where I was leading you -- with 
>>"natural lust" meaning lusting for one of the opposite sex, and
>>"unnatural lust" meaning lusting for one of the same sex.  Note
>>that Biblically, both natural and unnatural lust are sinful.
> 
> Cary,
> 
> You note that natural and unnatural lust are sinful according to Scripture.
> Does this eliminate (in your opinion) the possibility for a consenting, 
> monogamous, intimate relationship between two persons of the same sex?
> 
> Dave
> 
> -- 
     I have been trying not to overtly include my *personal* opinion
in this discussion -- I've learned that the only thing immoral in
these newsgroups is to talk about personal morality.  However, I
was trying to present a more traditional interpretation of
scripture -- whether anyone believes it right or wrong.  Let me
say this: when trying to interpret scripture, it is important to
look at *all* relevant passages before any conclusions can be made
(which is why I included the passage from Jude  An

     C. Perttunen
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:59:07 GMT

In article <BuD794.JoI@apollo.hp.com>
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>
>In article <PA146008.274.716077157@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (Davd Veal) writes:
>
>>     It would be nice, though, if the national television media occasionally
>>acknowledged the *existance* of minor parties.  There's a big difference
>>in "balanced" reporting you suggest and occasionally mentioning they
>>are even out there.'
>>     But it's their air-time, I suppose.
>
>
>   Which is exactly the point.

     Ah, the cruel, callous way in which the world works.  :-)
>
>   Back in 1988 I called several networks to complain about lack of coverage
>   of the L.P.  They gave me all the usual stuff about "not enough people are
>   interested", "too many bigger stories", etc.  Mostly a lot of BS, considerin
>   that they usually manage to find time for cutesy human interest stories abou
>   train engineers dressed up as Santa Claus and The World's Oldest Lobster. (ec)
>
>   The truth of the matter is that it's their network and they can run whatever
>   they want.   They're a business; they are beholding to their shareholders
>   to run profitably, and to their customers (the advertisers) to provide a
>   large enough and sufficiently qualified audience to justify the rates they
>   charge.
>
>   I agree it would be "nice" if they mentioned minor parties once in a
>   while, but obviously they've decided that being "nice" doesn't pay the
>   bills.

     Libertarians often catch a lot of flack for being for the free market
and then complaining that the free market does not represent them.
I think that is a little unfair, because, as has been mentioned before
on many other debates, that recognition of something's right to exist,
and in the Libertarian's view left alone, does imply approval.
     When all is said and done, though, we all have to vote with out
channel changer.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5468 talk.politics.misc:45510 alt.rush-limbaugh:4858 alt.politics.bush:5163
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC flamefest
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:56:26 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Sep14.214958.696@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
MW:I didn't grow up with them, but then again some of my best friends are
MW:rednecks. ;^)

MW:I am sorry you feel this way.  Sounds like you need to get some professional
MW:help to get rid of these feelings of hostility.
 
DOC:Sounds like you need to go home and have your mother reteach you some manners.
DOC:If I sound hostile, it is because the irresponsible voting of this
DOC:portion of the electorate does affect the rest of our lives.



Sounds to me more like you are upset becuase us stupid rednecks don't
recognize your brilliance when we see it.

GAWD, we must be stupid, we don't vote in the approved manor.

I repeat doc, get some professional help, then get a life.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4872 tx.politics:5081 alt.politics.bush:4683
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Poverty
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:06:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <21463@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>This is the logic AARP uses to get more free handouts for the elderly.
>Who already own over half of the country anyway.  And who get special
>tax credits.  These are the people Bill Clinton supports.  People like

Hmmm, IMHO, this is not a special characteristic of Bill Clinton -
everyone (Repub. and Dem.) is afraid of the AARP.  If I recall
correctly, whenever Bush talks about a new budget, he rushes to assure
that this will not bite into current Soc. Sec. or Medicare benefits.

It's quite easy to be politically active when you don't have a job you
need to be at 40 hrs/week...

I was talking to a friend of mine about this recently - he foresees a
BIG generation clash coming along in the not too distant future when
the young finally have to start paying the bills left by their
elders...

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4293 alt.politics.bush:4297
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:45:16 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep7.161403.6417@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep7.103517.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep7.031815.25831@athena.mit.edu>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>>> 
>>> I don't think that anyone else could have done any better.  Now, on the
>>> other hand, a room full of monkeys could have done better than George.
>>>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> -bert
>>
>>     Are you referring to Congress with that 'room full of monkeys' 
>>quip?  The problem is Bush has to try to work with a room full of
>>monkeys (Congress), and the only power he has over them is the veto,
>>i.e. refusing them bananas.
>>
> 
> Perhaps Sununu, Darman, et al., would qualify as the proverbial
          ^^^^^^
> "room full of monkeys".
> 
     NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....NEWS FLASH.....
John Sununu is no longer Chief of Staff!  I guess news travels slowly
to some parts of the country-- unless you're waiting for the story
to appear on MTV Music News (the network that preps 18 to 25 year-old
minds for the real liberal media).   :-)
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 8 Sep 1992 13:28:52 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep8.000005.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>, matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
> 
> I'm curious, and want to find out how patriotic people are.  Bill Clinton
> dodge the draft.  I consider him a coward.  I just got out of the Marines and
> spent my time fighting for this country.  Why would I want to vote for a man
> that dodged the draft?
> 
> This is my question, are you really going to vote for this man?  A man that 
> runs from a fight.  What's going to happen if we end up in a war. (Which could
> very well happen with the state the world is in right now.)
> 
> LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
> 	   paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
> 	   and believes homosexuality is normal.

Good definition except for the insecure and hypocrit part.....

> 
> If you have any comments direct them to matrix@unt.edu.
> 
>   
> 
> 

Vietnam was a stupid, immoral, and pointless war. Many of those who refused to 
fight in that war did so out of strong moral and ethical objections to the
reasons we were fighting. Many of these same people would have probably been
first in line to sign-up after Pearl Harbor. Calling someone who opposed that
war a coward is not valid necessarily.

The big difference between the dodge of Clinton and the dodge of Quayle as I see
it is that Clinton has not spent his entire political career playing Joe
War Eagle. I find Quayle to be a hypocrit for that reason.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
to 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:25:47 GMT

So that must be why the media is so inept :]

Seriously though, I don't remember reading in my local paper that Clinton was
booed (a fact).  I don't think people are looking for commentary in the news.
They are looking for the facts.  Thats why we call it "news" not "commentary".
We can read this newsgroup for commentary.
>
>Seiously though... this is just another irrelevancy in a long string of
>irrelevancies being bandied about. It just proves that Bush can fool
>some of the people most of the time.
>
What's irrelevant about wanting to be told the facts?
How did Bush manage to involve himself here?

>Dr. Norman J. LaFave

Jeff.