HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: Good Boy, George. But Why Did It Take You TWO YEARS?!
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:51:59 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Oct14.222745.12675@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.053244.11317@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) said:

>> Well, George Bush has admitted that his tax deal with the Democrats
>> in Congress was a mistake; that it caused the recession and the
>> unemployment.

>Hmmm.  A bit of small but, I think, important nitpicking: Bush can and
>did admit that it was a mistake, since "mistake" is generally a
>subjective term.  But he can only _assert_ that the tax deal caused
>the recession and the unemployment; he cannot admit it, just as he
>cannot "admit" that the big bang theory of the universe is correct and
>the steady state theory is wrong.

Furthermore, that isn't what he said at all.  He "admitted" it was a
mistake BECAUSE IT CAUSED PEOPLE TO CRITICIZE HIM.  According to GHWB,
that's the **ONLY** reason it was a mistake.  Dan Quayle is right.  This
election is about character and trust.  Do you trust George Bush?

>> Now, he has given notice that Darman and Brady, the principle White
>> House architects of that deal, will be joining their fellow
>> Americans in the unemployment line.

>Has he?  So far, all I've heard is that Baker, presumably at Bush's
>behest, has asked that everyone on Bush's staff submit pro forma
>letters of resignation, effective the day after the election.  Many
>people have _interpreted_ this to mean that Bush plans a major
>housecleaning if he wins the election, and the Bush people have done
>nothing to dampen that impression, but the fact remains that as far as
>I know Bush still hasn't actually come out _said_ anything specific.

He hasn't.  But the message he's sending out is still pretty silly:
"The economy is basically okay, and I'm firing the people responsible
for making it so."

[Of course, if he really thought so, he'd fire them *now*, not after the
election.]

(What many have speculated is that the Darman/Brady 'firings' is
designed to make the conservatives happy -- hopefully energizing them to
work for his reelection over the next 3 weeks -- since 99.5% of the general
public have no idea who Brady/Darman are.)

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:29:13 GMT

In article <15OCT199222074314@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
> Why won't Clinton take the Pledge to Lead or Leave?
> 

Why didn't Bush?  Because you can't make pacts like that.  You don't know
what is going to happen in the future...
                                        
> Perot has said "one term" opting for a self imposed term limit.

And most analysts are saying that is was a really stupid and amatuerish
thing to do.

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Games are Over, and Clinton is Going to Win BIG!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:34:13 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>In article <adams.719178972@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>>In article <adams.719167533@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>>rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>If you accept that Clinton is going to win, then why don't you tone down the
>>>>>abusive rhetoric a little and give him a chance?  
>>>>
>>>>Just like the left toned down all of their screeching during Reagan and
>>>>Bush's Presidencies?
>>>
>>>     Y'know, "They started it," just doesn't impress me.
>>>
>>The issue here is wanting a double standard.  It's ok for the left to
>>screech all they want when the White House is under control they don't
>>like.  But conservatives are supposed to tone down and give the opposition
>>a chance.
>>
>>Typical liberal/left double standard.
>
>     Who said it was ok?  The misdeeds of one party doesn't excuse the 
>misdeeds of the other.
>
>     These people want to be leaders?  Fine.
>
>     They can start by leading by example.

Of course.  THEY can start.  How about the LEFT starting?  No?  Of course
not.  Once again, double standard.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: wood@siemens.com. (Jim Wood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton question
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:45:59 GMT

rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>Secondly, I hardly find it surprising that you would find it difficult
>>to understand someone who cares enough about his country to fight in
>>its wars, or, for that matter, someone with enough personal honor that
>>they would not use their privileged position to avoid fighting in a
>>war in which the less well-connected were frced to serve.

>Why are you attacking Dan Quayle again?  Unlike Clinton, he felt that the war
>was a good idea.

... and Quayle proceeded to do everything he could, like Clinton, to stay
OUT of the war.  At least Clinton isn't the hypocrite that Quayle is!  He
stayed at home because he didn't believe in the war policy.

--
Jim Wood [jwood@siemens.siemens.com] (609) 734-3643
"Rise up on the wings of eagles, and two step among the stars.
 You are not forgotten.  Your smile will echo forever."
   -- Ryerson Schwark, to our friend Rob Bernardo.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50692 alt.politics.clinton:9523
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:17:52
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct7.002935.4596@desire.wright.edu>
	<1b20bpINNf3f@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct9.164726.4664@desire.wright.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: demon@desire.wright.edu's message of 9 Oct 92 16:47:25 EST

In article <1992Oct9.164726.4664@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:



   In article <1b20bpINNf3f@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
   > In article <1992Oct7.002935.4596@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

   >>	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
   >>John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
   >>denied.

   > Let's get this straight: Clinton (and a bunch of other Oxford students)
   > go to Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia for Christmas
   > break. Now they can't get a security clearance? Do you have a security

   > Today's NY Times reports that one of Clinton's classmates on the trip is
   > now a judge and worked nine years in the Reagan-Bush Justice Department.
   > He can't figure out what the hell is going on. (He doesn't seem to have
   > had much security clearance trouble, eh?) Incidentally, the same
   > classmate also protested against the war in Vietnam.

	   Judges don't need security clearances, they're not working for the
   military or the executive branch.

One of his fellow travellers is a US Army Colonel.

   > The Bush campaign refers to this as Red Willie. They don't think Clinton
   > is really a KGB agent; they just keep on searching for that magic bullet
   > that will stop Clinton.

	   I don't think he is either.  It just fits in nicely with his other
   patterns of deception (the affair, the marijuana, etc.)

Get fucking real. It fits in with his lack of explanation of
his actions during christmas vacation 1957, 1963, 1973 and 1977.
Not to mention Easter 1966. And Labour Day 1984...

I hate to admit I used to have some respect for Bush as a probably
well intentioned fairly competent politician but the last few days
he's forfeited any respect I used to grant him.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: So what is the Down Side?
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:32:23 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct14.231028.20375@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Bob, I am routing this downwards to talk.politcs.misc
>as being a 'safe haven' to discuss generic political
>notions of substance.
>
>bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>] In article <1992Oct14.001442.14752@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>bob,
>
>] >maybe you've been out of the country for a few decades or so????
>]
>] >So far even WITH grand Mandates from the Masses,
>] >what sort of 'Radical New Changes' have we really seen?
>]
>] Besides, if no changes are possible and gridlock is
>] inevitable, then why vote for one candidate over another?
>] If this is your belief, humor me and vote so that all
>] both branches of Congress and the executive aren't under
>] the same party. I don't particularly care which of the
>] three is an opposite & I don't care which opposite it is.
>] I think a viable third party would be a *good* thing at
>] this point (not to be construed as a Ross endorsement).
>]
>] Do not read into this that I am happy with the way things are,
>] but I think I'd rather see a potato in the oval office
>] sooner than any of the three present candidates.
>
>
>I presume that your 'general' point is that it is
>prudent to have a 'loyal opposition' that can
>provide an effective means of protecting the
>'minority rights' from being trampled upon by
>a rush of "Well the Majority of US are in Favor of it..."
>
>And hence that a creative opposition of forces is
>useful in the distribution of power?
>
>I would putforward the argument: 12 years has been enough.
>
>We know that the traditional GOP process will
>attempt to do for Quayle what it did for Bush,
>and we would THEN face the 'Xerox Factor' that
>Bush was No Reagan, and Dan is No BUSH.
>
>It also follows from this process that one of two
>things will occur with a Non_GOP white house:
>
>1. Things will get better and a Miracle will have happened.
>
>2. Things will go the way of Democrat Dominated Legislatures,
>{as is the ugly history of Hawaiian State Politics.} and there
>will be a more reasoned approach to presenting a Valid GOP
>candidate who is NOT married to the 'Relgious Right Loonie Fringe'
>and can restore the GOP to its Patriotic, American
>Traditional Family Values. {and then rescue the economy.}
>
>Note if You will that (2.) also allows the GOP to do a
>serious search for a competent Presidential Candidate.
>
Just don't vote NOP!!!!   :-)

Simon
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51142 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6703 alt.politics.clinton:9891 alt.politics.bush:8750
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:23:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Bvvy67.Kw1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford) whines:

>: What is the business supposed to do with the work that needs
>: doing during these 3 months?  Just let it pile up?  Pay
>: for somebody to be trained, only to be laid off before being fully
>: qualified?  Hire more people than necessary and endure the
>: overhead all the time?

>Hire temps, or temporarily re-hire people who retired from the company.
>This would handle most of the cases.  I'm not positive, but I heard
>rumors that "key person" positions [Vice-President, etc.] were exempted
>from family leave protection.

You haven't answered the question.  Any temp will still take time to get up
to speed.  I'm a programmer working for a small group within a large company.
When we hire somebody new, it usually takes that person 6 months to a year
before they know enough to contribute.  

Even though my company employees thousands of people, over 300 at this site
alone, my group has only a dozen people in it.  There is nobody within the
company with the requisite skills to step in should one of us take off for
three months.

Retirees are not much better than temps.  If they have been retired for
more than a couple of years, then their knowledge is outdated.

Smaller companies may not have any retirees with the right skills, assuming
they can talk the retiree into coming back.
Newer companies will not have any retirees anyway.

Temps and retirees would handle few if any cases.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51073 alt.politics.clinton:9845
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:18:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1b5fdcINN93v@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>Below list what these groups did historically
>if manufacturers denied them access.

>1.

I imagine that they did, or at least could have told the consumers that
company A was refusing to be inspected.  Anybody who cared was then free
to boycott company A.

>And last, explain below why workplace injuries and fatalities appear to
>have dropped after OSHA.

>1.

Would you care to explain how workplace injuries and fatalities appear
to have dropped before OSHA.  The truth is that workplaces have been
steadily getting safer since the time that such measures have been taken
and recorded.  I suspect that workplaces were getting safer before then,
but since the numbers weren't recorded ...

Care to explain why the rate at which the workplaces have gotten safer
has not accelerated since OSHA.  If the only number you look at is increased
workplace safety, OSHA has been ineffective at best.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:52:38 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct8.160501.7332@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
]From article <ld6luvINN1cl@spim.mti.sgi.com>, by mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen):
]> Typical simplistic bull shit.  In Dallas or Houston or San Antonio, you can
]> buy a nice house in the suburbs for less than $100,000.  That same house
]> in Silicon Valley is over $500,000.  Do you become rich because you work
]> in Silicon Valley?   Actually, it works the other way around.  More of 
]> your income goes to housing and you have less to spend/invest in the
]> economy.
]
]The government, and more specifcally the taxpayers across the country,
]should not be subsidizing outrageously inflated housing costs any more 
]than they should be subsidizing million dollar homes.  

This is true. However, any change in this that isn't glacially slow will
cause serious economic damage. Those who bought homes with the rules
the way they are now would be hurt badly by a change. Removing the
home mortgage deductions would drop about 30% off the value of houses.
It was this sort of nonsense that caused the sudden collapse of most of
the S&L's in the country.... the 1986 law removed the deductability
of mortgages, etc on commercial property, and BLAM, the bottom dropped
out of the market and the S&L's asset values dropped accordingly.

Even removing deductability at the top of the housing market would cause values
to drop all down the line. Since many people have most of their net worth
tied up in home equity, such a change could be disastrous to anyone
who saved and invested that money in their houses... resulting in
economic disaster.
-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:44:24 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <CB.92Oct7124527@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
]Mr. Vietnam Veteran, the pathetic issue that you're flogging is what's
]known as a red herring.  Have you ever heard of being a tourist?  I know
]quite a few people who visited Moscow in that era--AS TOURISTS.  

It's red, but it ain't a herring. Do you really think that we should not
care about how a prospective president behaved towards his country
while his country was at war? Do you know anything about going to Moscow
at that time? Did you know that the Soviets investigated you before giving
you a Visa? Did you know that you were accompanied at all times by an
Intourist "guide" who was a KGB informer? Did you know that if the Russians
felt that you weren't favorable to their cause, they didn't let you in
even as a tourist? In fact, do you know ANYTHING about what was going on
at that time?

]Why
]don't you apply your cold-war mentality to something productive, such as
]trimming your hedge with napalm.

Do you deny that there was a cold-war at that time? Do you deny that
someone's past is relevant to their character?

I'll be glad to trim my hedge with napalm (I prefer 2.75 rockets, however),
but only if you are willing to sit on it while I do so.

As far as your tone of response....

BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!

-- 
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
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Transcript of Sunday's Presidential Debate
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:57:00 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct14152142@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes...
>In article <1992Oct14.194409.27596@utagraph.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
>> Except that Perot is showing that the fact of Party Politics is that
>> they can be bought, and that's been his point all along. 
> 
>To the extent that politics can be bought, all that means is the
>people or groups with a lot of money have a disproportionate political
>influence.  

"All that means."

>Perot, who gets as much attention as he does merely because he is
>rich, is not a solution to this problem; he is an example of it.

"Merely because he's rich."

In the meantime. There's still this matter of the Federal Government 
overspending to the tune of $1.5 trillion dollars this year (fy '93),
without any offort to control spending or borrowing. The Democrats and 
Republicans are directly responsible for that, no matter who pays them 
off. 

They should be taxed at double the rate of the rest of us for being 
crooks and con artists or subsidized by the Federal dole. And I don't 
mean out of fairness, it should be punishment. Make that triple taxed.

>Matthew Austern
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu

Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas   

Radio Ad:  "Congressman Martin Frost went to work with Senator Lloyd
            Bentsen to save the Superconducting Super Collider and
            Texas jobs....  $1 Billion dollars has already come to
            the North Texas economy because of this project..."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:34:43 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct3.031102.1065@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
> 
> But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be the only
> choice they want to discuss.  Here's a good choice for couples: abstinence
> until they are fully ready for children.

I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but non-consummation is
grounds for annulment.

> I mean, in all the arguements that concept always gets lost.  And some folks 
> think you just beamed down from a UFO when you bring it up.

I hope that if you'd just beamed down from a UFO, you'd make better sense.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:15:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.162351.5680@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:

>dsholtsi@csl36h.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>> fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>> nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>> nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>> cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>> hypocrisy?

>	"Now, live on prime time: The Surgery Hour!  Real broadcasts of
> open-heart surgery, gangrenous limb removal, cancer operations, hemorrhoid
> removal.."
>	What, you don't think children need to watch this?  And yet you still
> think surgery is acceptable?  What are you, some kind of stiking hypocrite?

I said nothing about operations to remove human tissue, I was talking 
about the tissue itself.  There's nothing upsetting about viewing 
a heart, a limb, or a piece of cancerous tissue.  If the pro-aborts
can say that a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells" just like
any other human tissue, then they shouldn't have any objections to 
letting children look at this "clump of cells". 

> Get it now?  This is another strawman.  Another pointless non-issue.

No, it's just another example of the hypocrisy demonstrated by 
the pro-aborts.

>Chuck


Doug Holtsinger