HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...Tipper Gore
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
	<1992Sep9.141550.8090@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<Sep.9.22.37.03.1992.1602@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:42:12 GMT

In article <Sep.9.22.37.03.1992.1602@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep9.054147.20461@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> 
>>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>>>   Isn't it amazing how the liberal left doesn't have anything to say
>>> anymore on Tipper Gore?  I guess she's their 'token' Family Values
>>> advocate.
>
>She is home showing Mrs. Clinton how to bake cookies [...]

Hardly necessary, as Mrs. Clinton apparently already bakes better cookies than
Mrs. Bush.

Matthias

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4216 alt.politics.clinton:4198
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 10:43:02 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi) writes:

[quite good analysis of the current poll numbers deleted]

>
>       Now he's making himself look like a coward for refusing to
> do debates. While they are a relatively new phenomenon, people
> do expect 'em.  Wonderful.  And the economic news keeps being
> mediocre at best.
>

Given that the debates go back to the 1960 election, I don't think they rate
being classified as 'relatively new.'  That's no excuse for Bush's cowardice,
however, since he was the one that sought to improve his image in the '84
debate against Ferraro, and was the guy who tried to act like The Terminator in
the '88 series.



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:25:23 GMT

In article <0FPuqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>
>Besides, Bush is spending so much time bashing Hillary that his campaign 
>for First Lady wouldn't be complete without a face-to-face showdown.

One prime time speaker during the Republican convention mentions Hillary,
and the press calls the whole convention a week of Hillary bashing.  

Well, now, it seems you don't have to say a thing about Hillary, and you're
still bashing her.  Has Bush even uttered Hillary's name?


>
>
>>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:05:50 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story) writes:
: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

: >If the thought he [Bush] was above the law, he'd have said "Piss on this
: >stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts 
: >himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
: >the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the 
: >results of due process.)
: 
: Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?

Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
write bad checks?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"It was a great time.  Dan
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 drank booze and chased broads
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 like his old man."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			--Dan Quayle's father
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     				


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4779 alt.politics.clinton:4986 alt.politics.perot:1436 talk.politics.misc:44912
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:13:14 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep11.174408.33847@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:

>You are either being knowingly duplicitous or willfully ignorant. The
>overdrafts were covered by the deposits of other House members. There was no
>external (i.e., other than salaries paid to Representatives) tax money
>involved?

Most banks use the interest from members deposits to pay for things like
lights and salaries.  Because of the overdrafts, this money was no longer
available to cover day to day expenses.  Since the bank was unable to
pay its bills through the normal means it had to ask congress for a yearly
stipend to pay its bills.  Thus public moneys (external) were used to 
support the House Bank.

At the very least these overdrafts amounted to interest free loans.

If any of us were to get such loans, the IRS would treat the forgiven
interest as income and would tax us on such.
So on top of everything else we also have tax fraud.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:11:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Sep15.154148.12964@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, by rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat):
> 
> In <1992Sep15.142704.9707@news.uiowa.edu> Kent Williams states:
> 
> |Because religious people on the left do good, they don't just talk
> |about it.  It's only on the right that there are people who call
> |themselves "religious" and want to stick their noses into everyone's
> |business and tell them how to behave.
> 
> Which certainly explains why the Methodist Church wants people disarmed
> of handguns and assault rifles [Through the auspices of NCBH], right? 
> "Tell them how to behave"... give me a break... the busy bodies of the
> "Religious Left" are just as interested in sticking their noses into
> everyone's business as the "Religious Right." Are the "Religious Left"
> interested in the agenda of "Economic Democracy" i.e. the U.S. Politically
> Correct phrase for socialism or aren't they?
> 

I wan't even thinking about the Methodists.  Thanks for tipping me off
to their left leanings.  Actually if you went out and polled churches
for their 'official' positions on gun control, you'd find many main-line
denominations in favor of gun control.

As for sticking their nose into your business, being more strict about
who owns guns is a lot different than turning all women into
involuntary breeding stock.  Maybe we should outlaw abortion so that
we'll have more people to be moving targets.

> |I could name a few very active, left-leaning religious organizations
> |but I don't want to disturbe your ignorance.  Or blow their cover.
> 
> Interesting. "Or blow their cover?" If they claim to be acting in
> favor of "humanistic interests" why would they need cover at all?

It's a joke son.  I forgot the smiley, so sue me.  I'm still working
on my "you're a raving dickhead" glyph.

The following few paragraphs are completely devoid of attempts at
humor, so quit now if you don't want to read it.

In general, I don't believe people need to own guns, especially
handguns.  I'm not sure how far I would go in restricting access to
them if it was up to me, but the NRA position is cynical and self
serving.  Guns are big business.  Many of the people involved in the
NRA manufacture, sell or trade guns. People stand to lose money if we
as a society try to limit gun ownership in some rational way.  We'll
never resolve what the rational limits to gun ownership should be
because the NRA is such a powerful lobby against any limits to gun
ownership.

Guns engender violence.  Fights that used to be settled with fists and
bandaids are now being settled with bullets and funerals.  Where do
the guns come from?  Someone somewhere bought it legally.  Then it was
stolen or sold or lost.  We are a nation awash in guns. We keep making
more.  Why?

There has to be a better way than the status quo, but no one on the
pro gun side seems to want to find it.

--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:34:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep1.095535.6402@iscsvax.uni.edu>
fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:

> What does the Vice President do the next day?  Ignore it?  Say, "well, 
> we're over-looking the issues here?"
>
> NO!!!!!!
>
> He's still spending time on it!

Leave it to our boy Dannikins to pick a fight with a fictional
character - and LOSE!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:57:19 GMT

>>It certainly depends on what we mean by education.  Obviously sex
>>education is irrelevant because they knew how to get pregnant and
>>wanted to.  (Voluntary birth control is also irrelevant.)
>
>Wait a minute.  Your not really saying that sex ed is pointless are you?

I'm saying it can't reduce pregnancies by people who want to get
pregnant.

>There is a lot to be learned about birth control, I can't believe that
>15 year old girls, who are not mentally retarded actually _want_ to
>have children.

They don't live in your situation, so it isn't surprising that they
make different choices.

People who won't do something often think that their "if I was to do
that, I'd do it because" comments tell us something useful about
people who do.  Said commentators are wrong; their comments only tell
us about them.  We know that they're very different from the people
they're trying to talk about WRT the issue under discussion.

>>Some of these kids were quite bright.  It isn't obvious that they made
>>the wrong decision for someone in their situation.  After all, they
>>weren't going to be in a rich family whether or not they got pregnant.
>
>So, what is exactly do with we do with a 15 year GIRL that intentionally
>gets pregnant?

I don't know.

>I have been misunderstood on this point before <the usual
>dimwits called me a Social Engineer/Nazi because I was for free access to
>abortion>

It isn't obvious that abortion access is relevant either.  Abortion is
chosen by 20-30 year old women, but the teens don't seem to keen on
it.

-andy is pro-abortion
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:22:47 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep2.202410.1569@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
]And according to the Republicans, the things to do about it are to make
]no-fault divorce illegal (implied by William Benett's speech at the
]convention anyway, who listed it as one of the causes), ban abortions,
]and institute a school voucher system.  Pragmatism at work, I see.

Which Republicans? Which issue? Only the extreme right want to BAN
abortions (although most of us would like some restrictions on them).
A school voucher system is certainly a pragmatic approach. Making
divorce less acceptible is pragmatic (although I wouldn't favor making
no-fault divorce illegal).

]I suppose another thing we could do is to confiscate the children of
]single parents and put them in some kind of government regulated
]homes.

Yes, that is clearly a Republican party. We are shouting this from
the rooftops, aren't we. We want concentration camps for single
mothers and euthanasia for their Kids. Yeah... That's the
republican view. Thank's for clarifying it for me.

]Just what exactly should go into this "Family Values Amendment" anyway?

Because the Marxists... oops, I meant Democrats... are blaming so
many of our societal problems on the government or on economic factors,
and we assert that many of these problems are actually problems of
values.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Watch NIGHTLINE tonight! (9-15)
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:44:07 GMT

For those of you on the west coast, don't miss NIGHTLINE tonight (9-15,
Tuesday).  They did an excellent show on the Clinton draft story.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, if (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) are moderates, I'm | These pontifications
a world champion speller." - Vice-President Dan Quayle  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5011 talk.politics.misc:45283 alt.politics.clinton:5283
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:52:58 GMT
	<NEERI.92Sep11165255@iis.ethz.ch> <BuFCyF.JGD@apollo.hp.com>
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <BuFCyF.JGD@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <NEERI.92Sep11165255@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>>In article <BuD7sq.K08@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>  Fans of Clinton/Gore high-taxes/government-investment/government-mandated
>>>  worker-retraining/national-health-insurance would learn something by 
>>>  looking at western Europe:  The average EC unemployment rate is currently
>>>  9.5%.  At it's recent *low* in the 80's it got down to 8.3%!   In the 
>>>  US, in what is one of the worst recessions in recent history it's "only" 
>>>  7.8%.  (source: Business Week, current issue)  
>>
>>Not all of Western Europe is high-taxes/government-investment
>>government-mandated-worker-retraining/national-health-insurance.
>
>  Can you name any EC nation with lower mrginal rates than the US?
>  Can you name any without some form of national health insurance
>  or mandated employer-supplied health coverage?

I must admit that I don't have sufficient data about the EC to answer these
questions. I suspect that if any EC country has lower marginal taxes for
corporations than the US, it would be Luxemburg. Some form of health insurance
probably exists in all EC countries, but I would be surprised if a country like
Portugal had a higher level of government investment and government mandated
worker retraining than the US.

>
>> And Sweden, the country which probably fits these criteria best, had
>>  unemployment between 1.4% and 2.8% through 1985-1990.
>
>  Their unemployment rate is quite a bit higher now, although still
>  below the US.  But at the cost of the highest marginal tax rates
>  in Europe,

OK. My point was that both economic policies and unemployment differ widely
within the EC, and that they are not necessarily correlated in the sense you claimed.

>    So Sweden is an
>  interesting example of *something* but it's unclear how well 
>  their experience can be mapped to any other society.

Agreed.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "No, what he didn't like about heroes was that they were usually
    suicidally gloomy when sober and homicidally insane when drunk."
                          -- Terry Pratchett, _The Colour of Magic_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4961 talk.politics.misc:45196 alt.politics.clinton:5220 alt.politics.democrats.d:93
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:02:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>Speaking of which, I'd love to hear Lloyd Bentsen or some other senior
>Democrat tell Bush "Mr. President, you're no Harry Truman."

He did.  I saw it on C-Span.  It was when they sent that budget to the pres,
and the pres vetoed it.  He and Mitchell were in a press conference.  Bentsen
said something like "Mr. Bush is trying to make himself look like Harry Truman
against a do-nothing congress.  Well, I knew Harry Truman, etc."


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5196 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3778
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:27:25 GMT
 <#5yn3n=.mvp@netcom.com>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <#5yn3n=.mvp@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) says:
>
>I can't see as the Berrigans, Jesse Jackson., etc., were doing anything
>*but* trying to imposed their views on others by force of law.  They
>disagree with the law, and demand the law be changed to conform to
>their point of view.  How is that in any way different from what you
>accuse Falwell of?  Other than that you maybe agree with Berrigan,
>Jackson, Coffin, etc?

Gee, and witness people like Ben Linder (that commie) who went to
Nicaragua to help build power plants.  And he went and got his brain
blowed-out by the Contras!  That troublemaker!

Jeff Luck                              *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State Univeristy             "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                   -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:18:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <70akqB4w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:

> No, I was sitting in front of the television praying that the sucker wasn't
> going to dump Lake Pontchatrain on top of my house.  However, we do know a lot
> about emergency preparedness down here.  FEMA could take a few lessons from
> South Louisiana before a storm.

I will agree about FEMA.  However, read Newsweek:

"From Newsweek (Sept 7, 1992):

"During the Miami stop the president offered Chiles federal troops several
times.  The governor, sensistive to old-fashioned political ideas like not
truckling to Washington, and still out of touch with the full scope of the
hurricane's damage, turned him down."  (pg. 27)"
 
> > > No, Blame Bush.  Blame his staff for not moving.  There is no such thing th
> > > days as states' rights.  Florida certainly has none, since there's no way t
> > > state or Dade County will be able to rebuild without federal help.  States
> > > rights are a myth perpetuated by Republicans and racists (when the two are
> > > the same).
> >
> > I guess you really do want a King.  Why not just tear down state borders
> > and just let the President do everything?  He offered troops and was TURNED
> > DOWN by the Governor of the state of Florida (Newsweek).
> >
> 
> Where do you get this king bit?  Was Eisenhower a king when he ordered federal
> troops into Little Rock?  Was JFK a king when he threatened it in Mississippi
> and Alabama?  You don't get it yet:  states' rights is a dead concept.
> Homestead AFB is (was) a *federal* installation.  'States rights' have no place
> on a federal military installation.  It's also a military installation that has
> a runway big enough to permit a serious airlift.  No need to involve the
> governor, just a way to help those folks out.

States Rights is not a dead issue to a large group of us here in America. 
It's what the concept of minimizing the Federal Government is all about. 
States should be more sovereign.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4859 alt.rush-limbaugh:4656 alt.politics.clinton:5089
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:32:54 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

Well, realistically, rasing taxes hasn't done squat to reduce the deficit,
because congress raises spending by an average of $1.75 for every buck's
worth of new tax revenue estimates. 

What is even WORSE is that revenue estimates from tax rate increases are
INVARIABLY far too high, because revenue estimates are based on the faulty
assumption that tax rate changes won't influence peoples' behavior. 

These last tax hikes provide ample evidence. The 1990 bedget deal was
supposed to cut the deficit and bring in tens of billions in new revenues.
instead, the budget deficit has nearly TRIPLED, and revenues have FALLEN. 

Let's look at the tax on luxury yachts. It was supposed to bring in 8
billion in new revenues; instead, it has destroyed the yacht-building
industry, putting about 5000 people out of work. And revenues from yacht
taxes have FALLEN, because nobody is buying American-made yachts. 

Ditto for airplanes. Piper Aircraft Co. is in bankruptcy (thought the Wall
Street Journal suggests that product  liability lawsuits played an even bigger
role than tax hikes to kill the company) and Cessna doesn't build light
aircraft any more. 

The tax on luxury automobiles drove Sterling (remember their commercials?
"Find a better made car and we'll buy it for you!") out of the U.S. market
altogether. And I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but tax
revenues from the luxury auto market went DOWN after the rates went up. 

Conversely, revenues soared in 1961 and in 1982 when Kennedy and Reagan
(respectively) forced tax RATE cuts through the congress. 

There's no way to raise taxes enough to cover congress' spending and pay
down the deficit; the ONLY solution is to slash spending at ALL levels of
government. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections