HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: 10% Interest via Taxes idea
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:04:24 GMT
	<1992Aug25.035212.27323@pony.Ingres.COM>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA

In article <1992Aug25.035212.27323@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

-> Path: news.larc.nasa.gov!ames!agate!ucbvax!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!mips!mips!rtech!ingres!garrett
-> From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
-> Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
-> Date: 25 Aug 92 03:52:12 GMT
-> References: <1992Aug21.220557.10072@mercury.cair.du.edu>
-> Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
-> Lines: 21
-> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
-> 
-> In article <1992Aug21.220557.10072@mercury.cair.du.edu>, mwasserm@diana.cair.du.edu (MARC writes...
-> >I'm confused after listening to President Bush's speech
-> >tot eh convention last night.  He brought forth the
-> >idea of having a box that you could check on your tax
-> >forms guaranteeing that 10% of it would goto pay off
-> >the interest on the national debt.
-> >Except that would mean that the gov't would only get 90%
-> >of what it was getting before, and go further into debt.
-> >Isn't that like asking for a dollar and then borrowing
-> >one to pay it back, or do I not see this plan properly?
-> >It doesn't sound realistic to me.
-> > 
-> >Marc Wasserman
-> 
-> I seem to remember that right now interest on the debt consumes 18%
-> of the budget. Now I'm sure that there are plenty of extenuating 
-> cicumstances, but does this mean that Bush's plan is nothing more
-> than rethoric? Someone who knows more about the economy should give
-> some stats. (please use numbers,thanks)
-> 
-> -Garrett

	The only way that makes sense is to apply the 10% to the
principal of the debt; the part of the budget that goes to pay
interest would come after the 10% it taken.  Bush also said the
spending cap would be lowered by that 10%, so the government couldn't
go further into debt but would have to get by on less money.  It would
not actually be a 10% bite into the federal budget, since not everyone
is going to check the box.
-- 
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2818 talk.politics.misc:41795 alt.politics.clinton:2936 alt.politics.elections:11520
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 17:13:39 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

> In article <1992Aug30.221319.2770@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx822@cleveland.Freene
> ->
> ->  Is there a Republican out there willing to defend the appointment
> -> of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court? He is the judicial
> -> equivalent of dragging drunks to the polls on election day, to
> -> the point of physically helping them pull the lever. He is
> -> additionally a slap in the face to African-Americans, by
> -> condescenscion. Are conservatives proud of the law he makes?
> -> Did he ask a question this term? I would be embarrassed to have
> -> this man defending my ideology.
> -> --
> -> Ben Hansen
> -> bx822@cleveland.freenet.edu
>
>       How about a few examples of what he's done that you're all in
> a huff about.  I can guarantee you that he will never make a law on
> the Supreme Court, and his decisions to date have reflected a
> conservative ideal which is why Bush appointed him.
> --
> Jason C.Austin
> j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
>

If Roe v. Wade is reversed while he is on the Court, he's just made a law.
He's just outlawed abortion in all 50 states.  It takes one state law (like the
one heading up to the Court from Louisiana) to get to the Court, but if that
one state law is upheld, it becomes the law for all 50 states.  This happened
with school integration, busing, abortion, and many other issues.

To say that a Supreme Court Justice will never make a law on the Court is quite
naive indeed.



|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: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:49:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>The Perot supporters probably have similar feelings about their
>candidate, but at least in his case the argument could be made that
>until and unless he re-declares himself a candidate, the fact that his
>name might be on a lot of ballots is meaningless.  Even so, he'll
>probably get a lot of votes.
> 
>Anybody know how we might inject some rationality into the polling
>organizations?  Convince them that any name which is going to be in
>front of well over 90% of the population of the country should be
>included in their polls...?  Is anybody from one of the networks
>reading any of these newsgroups?    ;-)
> 
>--
>  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
>  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
>                         \-------------------------------------/
>

	Polls indicate that 72% of people think that 47% of polls
	are inaccurate 59% of the time. (with an uncertainty of 7%)
	(Source:Ted Streleski Institute for Apolitical Obfuscation)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3396 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4898
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:07:11 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <1992Aug28.202323.19394@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>One thing the original poster left out was Will's comments on Pat Robertson.
>
>According to Will, Robertson founded his "Christian Coalition" with
>the idea that if he couldn't take over the Republican party from
>the top (get the nomination), then he'd do it from the bottom. 
>Robertson is know claiming that he's succeeded, and I don't
>see any reason to say he's wrong. (I posted a listing of some
>examples of far right influence on the Republicans; I don't want
>to repeat it). 
>
>If a man who is as strongly conservative as Will is questioning the
>direction of his party, than its time for all of the moderate Republicans
>to wake up. 

I think its time for a new party. I'm fairly libertarian but disagree with
the libertarian party taking it to an extreme since it would be anarchy. I
believe in minimal government interference and at this point the democrats
are the lesser of the two evils. I have no reason to believe the republicans
promise of lower taxs, but I have every reason to believe they will try to
extend the war on drugs policies to everything the fundy's believe is a
social problem.  

The party of the drug war and Pat Robertson is not the party of freedom!

If I had a billion dollars I'd be starting a new party :-)
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3759 alt.rush-limbaugh:4160 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4979
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:00:47 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep1.055112.1848@mv.mv.com> mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett) writes:
>George Will has been hard on George Bush for a long time.  He came into
>great disfavor with Bush when he called him a "lap dog" 5-6 years ago.
>Bush reputedly has never forgiven him for that.

>And to my knowledge, George Will has never lightened up on Bush.  So I wonder
>why you wonder where he was 12 months ago.  :-)

 I have been a fan of George Will for more then a decade. My point was why did
George join the conservative feeding freenzy asking President Bush and VP
Dan to step down just two weeks before the convention ? That only weakens Bush
and increases the Democrates chances. The time for fighting was over. Bush won
the nomination. Bush is a moderate who is far to the right of Clinton.
 At least no one caught up in the feeding freenzy pulled a mario cuomo. Mario
previously stated that he would vote for Bush rather then Bill Clinton. He has
since retracted this statement. Perhaps thats why Mr. Bill has offered a spot
on the Supreme Court to Mario Cuomo.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: csjgp@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jim Pierson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:48:45 GMT
Organization: Educational Computing Network

In article <37603@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>
>A large percentage of students who major in the liberal`
>arts do so because (I'm going to get flammed heavily for
>this, but it is the truth) there is no math or hard
>science involved.
>
education/swimming comparison deleted.
>
>So where does that lead us? Well, we have many students
>who qualify for this university who have not one clue about
>algebra. There is a warning in the catalogue which states
>that there are only 'a few' majors which do not require any
>math.' Yes, they are all refered to as the 'touchy-feelly'
>majors.
>
>Most students of the current generation have been coddled
>through school, entertained by television, not challenged
>by their parents and/or teachers. When they reach college,
>the shock is so severe that many take the path of least
>resistance. Thus we have many college graduates who are
>for the most part, unemployable. At the very least, they 
>are only eligible for jobs which are very entry level 
>(i.e. no numerical anylysis like percentages required).
>
>UCSD is a relatively new institution, but it was always 
>viewed as a 'science' college. Up until 1980, approximately
>70% of the student population majored in science, math, or
>engineering. Now only 45% do. We just built a huge new
>building for - get this - Visual Arts. Just what the world
>needs. Another 1000 unemployable Visual Arts majors per year.
>
>				Brad Cote'
>				University of California, San Diego
>				STARE Project

Brad, all I can say is that you're stereotyping.  As a recent B.A.
Theatre graduate whose GRE scores were 610 verbal, 670 quantative and
730 analytical, I'd say that your theory is a bunch of @#$%^&*!!!!!!

				Jim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics  (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.140136.22032@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>Speaking for myself, I am "anti-religious" for two primary reasons:
>
>(1) It offends my sense of intellect to see people believe in alleged
>facts for which there is and can be no proof.  I want to take these
>people by the lapels and shake them and shout "Are you fucking crazy!
>How can you _believe_ this stuff?"  Stupidity bugs me.

Get used to the fact that people are fundamentally ignorant.  I
believe in an afterlife, and I think I believe in a God.  Not for any
particular reason; every intellectual bone in my body says, "Get
real!"  But I can't really imagine it any other way.  I'm sure that
it's just my mind's feeble way of explaining away "eternity," but that
doesn't help the fact that I still believe it.

C'est la vie.

Now if this belief of mine were to rule my world to such an extent
that I attempted to control other people's lives solely on the basis
of these vague and foggy presumptions of mine, I hope someone would
lock me away.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: trust
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:56:12 GMT

Personally, one of my yardsticks in choosing a president is:

   Who would you rather be friends with?   Who would you prefer to be your
close relative?

Personally speaking, Bush wins hands down.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3754 alt.politics.clinton:3732 alt.politics.elections:12130
From: trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The media
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:12:40 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Sep01.180807.46966@watson.ibm.com> born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
>The media is continually being bashed and accused of being "biased".  Has
>has anyone thought that maybe they (the media) just want to sell copy?
	
	I still refuse to discuss this with my 50 year old
step father who categorically states that the press is "liberal."
hehehehe.  So what?  Liberal is not a dirty word no more than
conservative.  (Unless you are 90 years old, can't see over
the steering wheel of your car, drive 20 mph in a 65 mph zone,
make sudden stop in the middle of traffic, etc) ;-)

	I don't give a damn if they are liberal or conservative.
I do care about the media playing into the hands of the politicians
and exploiting needless issues such as "family values" or whether
joe blow is gay, a bastard (in the literal Webster definition), etc.
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about everything BUT how
so and so will run this country and keep it from going belly up
like the Soviet Union in 20 years!

>
>It has been reported recently that people seem to have an increased
>response to "negative" campaigns and "negative" information.  That
>there is some sort of fear factor in people that "negative" information
>seems to activate (if that's the proper word).


	The only negativism I've seen has come out of Dear old
George's mouth!  During the Rep. convention and a week prior, 
here is Clinton trying to run a clean, meet the issues campaign.
So what does Bush do?  He has to throw the whole muddy Mississippi
river at the Democrats!!!  It seems to me that Bush is having too
much trouble facing up to the issues and in order to cast the 
public's eyes and concerns to something else so he doesn't have
to talk about it, he starts some crap on Clinton.  


>My point is, WE respond to what the media reports. Depending
>on that response, the media will react in return, i.e.,
>change the format, the message(in what way you ask!), etc...


	EXACTLY CHRIS!  I am with you 100% on what you said in all of
your post!  The media controls a lot....I have to concede that.
To some extent, they do control what issues are highlighted.
But, the bottom line is, we get what we generated or DON'T react to.
If you don't want to hear about Quayle forgetting to leave out an
'e' (even on his own name), then change the damn channel!

Ted
-- 
         Swallowing your pride rarely leads to indigestion.
         A hard thing about business is minding your own!
-trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu   &    trwagner@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:18:55 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug30.233003.12488@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>Is there a Democrat out there willing to defend the "borking" of
>Supreme Court nominees?  Robert Bork was an exceptionally qualified,
>though conservative nominee, and the left attacked him with
>McCarthyite tactics.  So instead of getting exceptionally qualified
>conservative nominees, the Republicans have been putting up
>nominees who it is impossible to bork, but who are less qualified.

Just becuase one is an exceptional constitutional scholar does not mean
that one must be confirmed to the Supreme Court.  Bork had very strong,
and highly public, views on how to interpret the Constitution.  His
vision was not compatible with the majority of the Senate.  

Remember that the Senate is empowered to "advise and consent" on Supreme Court
nominees.  Robert Bork's comments after he was rejected sounded as if he
had forgotten this point as well.  He basically implied that the Senate
should have rolled over and confirmed him.  That is not what the
Constitution calls for the Senate to do.  

Now the nomination of "Stealth" candidates can backfire.  How happy is
Bush with Souter right about now?

-bert smith

--
Overheard on the net: "George Bush said in 1988 that if I voted for
Dukakis, the economy would go to hell, crime would go up, and the
deficit would grow.  Bush was right -- I voted for Dukakis and look what
happened." 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3833 alt.politics.clinton:3800
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:17:57 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: more predictions
 <37285@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> <1992Aug26.191128.22600@umbc3.umbc.edu>
 <1992Aug27.223531.20419@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Aug27.223531.20419@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu
(john peter wagner) says:
>
>In article <1992Aug26.191128.22600@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
>writes:
>>In article <37285@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>>
>>|> Prediction - If slick willy wins, runaway deficit spending will
>>|> crush growth, unemployment will skyrocket, and inflation will
>>|> rise to double digits. The reasons: the deficit will push up
>>|> interest rates, eliminating funds needed for REAL (not pork
>>|> barrel) investment in industry. His health care policy will
>>|> require employers to cut back on workers in order to pay the
>>|> increased per employee costs. [and more, and more ... deleted]
>>
>>       In 1988, people said that if I voted for Dukakis, deficit spending
>>would crush growth, unemployement would rise, the economy would stagnate,
>>the national debt would skyrocket, etc.
>>
>>       Well, what do you know, I voted for Dukakis, and look what happened.
>
>        And I suppose you are also one of the people who voted for the
>congress.
>

One more time, with feeling!

The Republicans held both the White House and the Senate from 1980 until
1986.  During that time, the national debt took off and the United States
went from the greatest creditor nation on earth to the greatest debtor
nation.  See David Stockman's book on how this happened.

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.bush
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:45:07 GMT

kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch) writes:

>>It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
>>reads:                                                                 
>>                                                  
>>"In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
>>effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
>>Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
>>company."                                                          

>As I said, this is comparatively minor.  Entering the militia in a limited
>role is not enormously different from joining the National Guard today,
>particularly in light of the fact that his entrance was in a crisis situation.

Ah, but volunteering _is_ enormously different from avoiding one's 
legal military responsibilities, isn't it?  


>This is as much interpretation as a "faux pas."  By your grounds, Quayle 
>himself would have a military background.  
And the media _did_ make a big deal of it, claiming
silver-spoon-in-mouth privilege, etc.


>Oh, Christ on a Crutch... I should have know you were going to froth on
>about Liberal Revisionism.  It's hardly that uniform:  witness the media
>that clicked its heels and goose-stepped along during the Gulf War, and
>the media that destroyed Gary Hart's Presidential aspirations.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^
By that, do you mean good ole' Gary "Go ahead, follow me, you won't find
anything" Hart?  Sorry, Gary's lack of control of his zipper destroyed
his career, along with his complete ineptness.

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: Scary thought for the day
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:43:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.232105.24958@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug30.135542.18156@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> 
> >(1) Consider Mary Matalin, George Bush's deputy campaign manager.
> 
> >(2) Consider George Bush's personal devotion to the related concepts
> >    of (a) being loyal to one's friends and (b) rewarding successful
> >    service by one's devoted underlings.
> 
> >(3) Consider the possibility of Mary Matalin holding a position of
> >    real power in a second Bush Administration.
> 
> So what's wrong with that?  What do you have against Mary except that
> she savaged Slick Willie?  Personally, I think Bush could do a lot
> worse than Mary Matalin for an important post in his adminsitration.
> He should also get out of the goddamned way and let her hang Slick
> Willie out to dry.
> 
> >And the Republicans tell me that I'm supposed to be scared of Hillary
> >Clinton... 
> 
> Because of her positions and her influence on Willie.  What do you
> have against Mary Matalin?  Got something against female politicians
> who don't toe the liberal line?
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
> 
> 

Personally, I have a problem with the fact that she has been one of the
people flinging lies and distortions...another Bush lap dog with no ethics.
Using these tactics to "hang Slick Willie out to dry" is proof of the
desperation of the Republican party and their continued attempts to deflect
the scrutiny of the voters from Bush's abysmal domestic record.
The only Republican woman who I think would be worse is Schlafly.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections