HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:08:01 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Sep11.101456.27348@sinix.UUCP>, by ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone):
> 
> So, what is exactly do with we do with a 15 year GIRL that intentionally
> gets pregnant?  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> - but the point remains, just what the fuck do you do with people
> that have children but can't afford to cloth/feed/adequately shelter them?

You help them clothe/feed/shelter them.  The more you do to help them
raise healthy, well educated children, the more you avoid the social
costs of their unhealthy, ignorant children.  You want to pay a little
now, or a lot later?

> 
> What do you do with borderline idiots who just continue to have children,
> and consequently get increased welfare and child care payments.
>

To quote a statesman of our day, "Too hypothetical."  If there are
people actually doing this, they are a statistically insignificant
number.  You probably have never actually known anyone on welfare --
no one chooses that life.  Being on welfare means being continually
humiliated by people who don't care if you live or die, but who have
the power to decide if your kids eat next month.  You don't increase
your AFDC payments enough by having another kid enough to make it
worth your while.

>  I am _not_ talking about a women or families that have recently hit
> upon hardtimes,
> I am talking about the chronically poor, and clueless. People that do not
> think about how they are going to feed these children, they just mindlessly
> continue to crank out these unfortunate welfare babies. 
>
You aren't talking about people you have any right to judge.

> Where do you draw the line between their freedoms and the tax payers's
> checkbooks?  Should they get welware if they continue to spew out children
> like a bunch of fornicating rabbits?

Who are you talking about???? Name three!!!  Even if there are some
people that fit your description, they constitute a tiny minority
of people on welfare.  You have millions of people living below the
poverty line.  You want to penalize all of them for the behavior of a
few?

> I know most of you are hot to hit that 'F' key.  Go for it.  You tree-huggers
> on the left, you bud-chugging, hairy backed redneck conservatives on the
> right, what is your solution?  Huh?  Well?
> 

We need a government that sees our children as a valuable resource,
worth investing in.  Even children of welfare mothers.

--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: "Family Values"
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:41:56 GMT

I'm sure the Republican party is strong on Family Values, I just get the
feeling that the "family" is the Corleones.

Larry J

PS, somebody explain it to Dan.

-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:13:49 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <1992Sep11.192329.28707@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.200546.2045@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep9.180602.24891@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> >>In article <1992Sep9.134621.19407@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> >>>Real reform would ultimately not cost anything since the elimination
> >>>of the waste in the system would pay for the increased coverage for
> >>>the poor.
> >>
> >>Not so fast.  There's no guarantee that a single-payer system will, in
> >>fact, have less waste.  (There's also no guarantee that a single payer
> >>system will have lower malpractice costs.)  The expense problems with
> >>the US system have little to do with the payer system.
> >>

The truth is that a single payer system will have more waste (especially
if that payer is the gov't).

It is the gov't sponsored medical insurance that has driven the cost of
healthcare through the roof.  Take a look back to when health care
costs started rising dramatically: then look at when the gov't got into
providing healthcare costs.

Gov't has made the medical profession an accounting business.  The big
bucks from gov't insurance has created patients that don't care how
much it costs and doctors who aren't hurting their patients when they
overcharge.

Now that gov't has made a mess of the healthcare business, they want
to get into it deeper and mess it up more!

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
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: 11 Sep 92 15:52:55 GMT
	<1992Sep9.191920.23650@technology.com> <BuD7sq.K08@apollo.hp.com>
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

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. And Sweden,
the country which probably fits these criteria best, had unemployment between
1.4% and 2.8% through 1985-1990.

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_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:46:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.034853.27507@wri.com>, walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep4.123555.11553@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
|> >The truth is:
|> >
|> [biased and broad general characterizations of two major parties]
|> 
|> [Now, about Bill Clinton, I presume:]
|> 
|> >He did inhale. 
|> 
|> How do you know?

	Ever smoked.  If you are in a room with dope you have to breath.

|> 
|> >He lied about the draft.
|> 
|> I do not think so.  What was the lie?

	The man was drafted.  He then went applied to the ROTC after he was inducted.
	These are facts.

|> 
|> >He did sleep with Flowers. 
|> >He did cheat on his wife.
|> 
|> If true, so what?  She supports him; it's no one else's business.

	If he lied to his wife he will lie to you.

|> 
|> >He will raise taxes.
|> 
|> I hope so!  I am not looking forward to the gov't going bankrupt.

	It is ok if you want more taxes just send them in.  As for me I want to keep
	my hard earned buck.  I know better than the government how to use it.

|> 
|> >He will put people out of
|> >work. 
|> 
|> And Bush won't!?

	The Clinton/Gore economic program will make the economy worse than just about
	anything Bush will do.

|> 
|> >He is LIBERAL.
|> 
|> Ooooo!  Scary!  Not Moderate, or even Liberal, but LIBERAL! 
|> Seriously, to quote Ronald Reagan (August 8, 1992):
|> "America needs leaders, not labels."

	America needs Conservative leaders not ones who will rob the worker for more
	government programs.

|> 
|> >You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.
|> 
|> Sure you can.  Bush is a decent man, but a lousy President.

	Yes I can be sure.  Bush is a good President not a great one.  He is and will be
	far better than Clinton.  Bush on a bad day is better than Clinton/Gore on their
	best day.

|> 
|> >Fred Seals
|> 
|> ----------------
|> Jer.
|> walsh@wri.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4362 alt.politics.clinton:4382 talk.politics.misc:44156
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:41:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
> 	If he lied to his wife he will lie to you.

Were we talking about Bush or Clinton here?

This reminds me of a political cartoon I saw last year.  It had two
panels.  In the first, we see a picture of Bill and Hillary.  The
caption reads, "if he lied to his wife, will he lie to the country?"
In the second, we have George and Bar, and Bar is giving George a
nasty look.  This caption reads, "if he lied to his country, will he
lie to his wife?"

As to the question in the header, I suspect that most people ARE
telling the truth, as they see it.  Both candidates have strong and
weak points.  Who you choose depends on how you weight these qualities
and positions (ok, so it's a lousy pun--but I couldn't resist a target
like that).

--Scott
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: economics, swedes, and fantasies (was Re: Bush is a ...)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:17:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep14.225504.4498@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>The German bank was trying to stem their own inflation, but at
>a cost that was ready to send to world economy into a tailspin.
>They were creating interest rates so high they forced other Europeans,
>in order to support currency parities, to go along.
>Anyway, I heard on the news today that the Bundesbank (finally) cut
>their interest rates. The U.S. dollar jumped sharply higher today;
>last I heard the stock market was up 65 points.
>It's good news all around, as some of the other European countries
>will be able to ease up on their own interest rates.

  (in the short run it *is* good news for me since it will strengthen
  the dollar and I'm going to Europe next month, but just to show that
  I don't only think of myself . . . )

  I'm not sure it's good news all around.  The high mark effectively
  prevented other nations from lowering their interest rates, or in
  the case of Sweden forced dramatic increases.   This encourages
  savings and DIScourages borrowing.  Yesterday's drop will reverse
  this.   The BBC said that the French, for instance, will probably 
  react by lowering their rates to try to stimulate their way out of
  their 11% unemployment rate.  The UK at 9.5% may do the same.

  The George Melloan (sp?) column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal 
  was about an Austrian-school economist who believes that the huge
  debt build-up of recent years, a debt build-up way higher than
  the one preceding the Depression of the 1930's, is going to result
  in a worldwide depression that will make the 1930's one look like 
  a stroll in the park.    

  High interest rates, especially when coupled with low inflation,
  encourage savings.  Moreover, high interest rates discourage inflation
  which was the Bundesbank's goal in the first place -- the Germans 
  have a healthy fear of inflation after that of the 1920's and again
  just after WWII.  

  Moreover a weak dollar is good for US exports.  

            
>As Newsweek says, this is economic fantasy.

  Although it should be noted that economics in general is fantasy,
  especially as practiced by politicians.  Bush's economic ideas
  are no less fantasy based, and neither are those of any other "ism"
  I've heard.  bBsically the economy is so complex that no one can
  lay claim to being able to model it reliably enough to make useful
  predictions.  Right now among professional economists there is 
  no consensus on what must be done to improve the economy or what's
  going to happen over the next few years.
 

---peter

  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Life, problems
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:53:34 GMT

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>	I think from reading this net I have discerned the two major
>philosophies which prevail.

No, you possess no clues.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4381 talk.politics.misc:44191 alt.politics.clinton:4407 alt.politics.democrats.d:22
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:11:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep8.204746.21165@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> msl@hpcvlx (Mark Laventhal ) writes:
>Robert Krawitz (rlk@underprize.think.com) wrote:
>> 
>> Speaking of which, I'd love to hear Lloyd Bentsen or some other senior
>> Democrat tell Bush "Mr. President, you're no Harry Truman."
>> 
>
>Actually, Margaret Truman (Harry's daughter) wrote a column to this effect that
>appeared in the New York Times; it was entitled "I knew Harry Truman...."


  Frankly, I think Truman must be rolling over in his grave to have 
  either one of these clowns (Clinton or Bush) trying to grab his mantle.


---peter
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: johore@auto-trol.com (John Orendt)
Subject: Re: Jobs
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:44:34 GMT

The most important thing one learns in higher educations is how to
think. How to set goals and determine what information is needed to
achieve those goals and what actions are required to make the goal a
reality. During this process roadblocks and problems arise. One must
find a way through or around the roadblocks and break down any
problems encountered into smaller more easily solved problems. These
problems can then be worked on or assigned to partners. 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is in school we learn to take a
systematic aproach to solving problems which is well worth the effort.

As for everyone going to college I think it's good; if everyone wants
to go to college. Of course the true test of whether a person wants to
do something it if he's willing to pay to do it. IMO all schools at
all levels should be privatized. I don't believe in steeling from the
rich (or anybody) to send lazy people to school. 

If you are worried about everyone being College educated I think you
don't have much self confidence in your ability to compete.

It's competition that makes the world interesting.



-- 

------Any resemblance to the views of Auto-trol is purely coincidental-----
johore@auto-trol.com
John Orendt          Auto-trol Technology Corporation
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4289 alt.politics.clinton:4283 alt.politics.elections:12568
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A few things in Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 12:50:37 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
> :elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> :>1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions. He's not abortion on demand. While n
> :>a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.
> :    Once again, I have to ask, who the hell else are they going to vote for?
>       Ok, I assume we're talking about Bill. He may not be personally
> in favor of abortion on demand, but why is he publicly advocating that
> he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court justices regarding choice?
> Saying that Mario Cuomo is qualified to be on the Supreme Court to me is
> one of the most stupid things I've heard Clinton say!

Oh, I don't think so.  Talk about the perfect sop to Mario's ego.  Clinton
didn't say he would appoint Mario, just that he'd make a good justice.  It's
hard for that asshole in Albany to keep mouthing off about Clinton after such
nice things have been said about him.  That's one less problem behind Clinton's
back.  Now, if someone could just shut up Charlie Wrangel...

> :>2. He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.
> :    Obviously not, looking at the polls.  Popular perception is that he's on
> :for raising taxes among the upper 2% who aren't paying enough now.
>       Sorry. I don't like this "class envy" politics that Clinton is
> using to "buy" votes from middle-class Americans. I am not a member of
> this upper 2%, but I sure want to get there! As I've said, if you soak
> the rich, you drown the poor.
>

Hmmm...and the Republicans don't play on class differences?  Bush tries to
'buy' votes from the middle class with all of this 'family values'
fearmongering.  One is no better than the other.



|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|
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4664 alt.politics.clinton:4843 alt.politics.elections:12807 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3560
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:45:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
->>   Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
->> missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimmenys (?)'.
->> Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
->> thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
->> Dukakis tank ride all over again.
-Oh, and I suppose you never make any mistakes when speaking...
-Repeat after me...this has NOTHING to do with the real issues in this election
-or the records of the candidates. Now, don't you feel better?

-Dr. Norman J. LaFave

After I finish eating my potatoe.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig.
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:47:26 GMT
 <5159@news.duke.edu> <1992Sep7.191407.8999@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <5168@news.duke.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <5168@news.duke.edu>
eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> But when do you draw the line?

a) It would really help if the V.P. and P. would ever actually watch
the shows they criticize in public. The same goes for books, as in the
V.P. and Salman Rushdie's famous book.

b) Social commentary is one thing; sitcoms are quite another!

Seriously, was Murphy Brown ever supposed to be social commentary? Was
there a message, that Dan didn't give to it himself?

[...]
>>No argument here, either - look what one actor did, in the role of his
>>life as President of the United States of America.
>I don't think Ronald Reagan ever testified to a Congressional panel on
>the plight of the cowboy in today's society, asking for more money to go
>to the endangered cowboys of America.

Substitute Cold Warrior for cowboy, and yes he certainly did - to the
tune of $2 trillion WE are now in the red for!

[...]
> I like some of his gaffes. I particularly love his "What a terrible thing
> it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true it is."
> Granted, some of the things he says completely cracks me up.

Not me. I prefer intelligent humor.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Smarter question
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:39:24 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

[I apologize if this shows up twice at your site.  I was having some
trouble with this machine crashing on me, and my first post of this
article does not seem to have made it out.]

stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight) writes:

: First assume that there is 100% turn-out on vote day. Now what is 
: the smallest % of the popular vote that could get a person elected?

No guarantees about how accurate all this is (my figures are "preliminary;"
they predate the official release of the 1990 census data and resultant
reapportionment), and this makes an impossible assumption (100% of
a state's population will vote), but just for the sake of argument....

538 electoral votes possible, so 270 are needed to win.

In the U.S., an individual vote is "worth" more in the Electoral
College when that individual vote comes from a small state.  So,
to get the most electoral votes with the fewest popular votes, 
you would focus on the smaller states.

Using this idea, a check shows that the smallest 38 states plus DC
have a total of 256 electoral votes.  Georgia is the smallest state
with 14 electoral votes.  (This leaves CA, NY, TX, FL, PA, IL, OH,
MI, NJ, NC, and VA as the "other" states).  The total population
in these 39 states, plus DC, was estimated to be 105,986,000.  That
means, in this scenario, you need a minimum of 52,993,000 "popular
votes" to be elected President.

According to the 1990 Census, there were roughly 245,836,000 people
living in all 50 states, plus DC.  That would mean, in this scenario,
the theoretical minimum percentage of popular vote a person would
need to be elected President is 21.56 %.

Like I said, there are some unreasonable assumptions made in this
setup, but it should be fairly clear that, in theory, a person
could be elected President with as little as 25% - 30% of the
popular vote.

I sometimes wonder about the concept of the Electoral College.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I didn't live in this
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 century."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher