HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:38:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <l981hbINNg3b@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>
>        ``The trend says we're heading for a dead-even race,'' he said.
>        Goeas, agreed, saying ``We're now acknowledging from both sides,
>we're looking at an extremely close race.''
>


It not only a trend but in the end it may not even be close.  For any one that
watched PBS' coverage of the convention they spoke of several polls that didn't
directly deal with Bush and Clinton but still may have an impact on the race.

One of those polls tracked opinion on whether people thought that replacing
the Republican President with a Democrat to match Congress was the best way
to solve the nations problems or whether replacing the Democrats with
Republicans in Congress while retaining a Republican president was the answer.

The clear trend is that the majority of voters think Congress is the primary 
culprit in the U.S. economic problems and in polls taken before and during 
the convention showed more than 40% of respondants favored giving control
of Congress to Republicans as the best way to solve the problems.  That number
and steady trend in an increase in that nubmer suggest that we may actually
see the first President re-elected on the coat tails of Congress.

Clean the House!



-- 
Paul S. Galvanek |"I watched that giant masquerade ball at the Madison Square
(psg+@pitt.edu)  | Garden - where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed
		 | up as moderates and centrists - in the greatest single 
Arlen Specter '92| exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history"  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 18 Aug 92 11:53:24 CDT


In article <1992Aug17.190813.1645@technology.com>, judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
> Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
> poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
> years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
> opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!

Of course it was also Reagan that proposed raising the capital gains
tax (as part of the 1986 tax reform act).

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39224 alt.politics.clinton:1780 alt.politics.bush:1311
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:40:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.191134.20956@cs.cornell.edu>, allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
} ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
} >  Has anyone else noticed that Bill "let's reform health care" Clinton
} >  never mentions the overhead of tort mentioned above?  That's because
} >  he's the American Association of Trial Lawyers  and the American 
} >  Bar Association's buddy.  Bill (and Hillary) are against tort-reform
} >  of any kind and as a result have been given very strong endorsements 
} >  by both organizations.  How's that for "wanting to reform the system?" 
} 
} Both Clinton AND Bush have that as part of their health care reforms.
} They BOTH want Congress to pass laws limiting liability for
} malpractice.  See today's (12 August) New York Times, front page
} article.  It's actually a nice and concise summary of where the two
} differ (and where they don't).

Hmmm.  In Clinton's "National Economic Strategy for America", under health
care reform he mentions things like "take on the insurance companies, the
drug companies, and the health care bureaucracies", but nowhere does he say
anything about tort reform.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush the hypocrite
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:44:08 GMT
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division

>>>>> Regarding Bush the hypocrite; barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) adds:

barrett> Bush's acceptance speech:

>   That will especially help small businesses.  They create
>Two-thirds of the new jobs in America.  But my opponent's plan for
>small business is clear, present--and dangerous.  Besides new income
>taxes, his plan will lead to a new payroll tax to pay for a government
>takeover of health care, and another new tax to pay for training.
                                                         ^^^^^^^^
barrett>   And not 5 minutes later....

>   Here's what I'm fighting for...
>   --Job training.

barrett> Huh?

That's not inconsistent. You highlighted the wrong phrase. If you read it
like this:

>takeover of health care, and another new tax to pay for training.
                                                 ^^^^^^^

it's easy to see the difference.

Bush want's to fight for job training, not pay for it...

(Kinda similar to the way he fought for civil rights in in first congressional
term and fought for all those terrific domestic programs in his first term
as President ;-).
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: loel@bluemoon.rn.com (Loel Larzelere)
Subject: Re: The Republicans: Down in Flames
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 08:52:27 EDT

bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead) writes:

> 'jail the homless' 

Now there's a thought ...

> Then they unviel their 
> program, which i a compendium of the same drivel that has then 20 points 
> behind in the polls as it is.

If it is that far behind, it is only because folks with a LIBERAL
education can't read "Tax and Spend" when it's written with synonyms.

Face it:  The largest percentage of the income in the US is made by
the middle class.  Unless you tax hell out of the middle class, an
income tax will not work.

Which is why the only sane rpogram is offered by the Libertarians.
Tax less, govern less.


Loel H. Larzelere -- loel@bluemoon.rn.com

"I just want to be remembered for two simple words --
        -- Any two as long as they are simple."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:09:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.223221.32852@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>> No, Larry, you can't be charged in the cases you give examples of but
>> you certainly can be charged with negligence (even the negligent
>> treatment of animals) depending on the circumstances.  For example, when
>> parents refuse to provide food for their children they can be (and
>> sometimes are) guilty of neglect.
>
>> I think that my example is more in line with the mother/child
>> relationship we are talking about.
>
>Are there any cases in which a person can be charged for refusing to
>provide bodily resources (e.g., blood, bone marrow, organs) to another?
>Even if it's a parent/child relationship?

Not that I know of.  But I'm not sure that this is germane to the
discussion.  The question is when does one take responsibility for a
life that one has helped create?  And that I believe depends on when you
believe that life begins.  Parents are responsible for their children.
The question is when does one become a child?  I have already dealt with
questions of neglect to show how we are responsible for the basic needs
of our children.

>If the woman decides to withold her bodily resources, and has the fetus
>detached before viability, so its death is inevitable, but does *not*
>have the fetus killed (i.e., it's allowed to expire on its own), would
>you then have no objection to this type of abortion?

Again this depends on what assumptions one is willing to make.  If one
assumes that life begins at conception then one would necessarily argue
that this is objectionable.  If one argues from the standpoint of
viability then when viability is achieved one would find this
objectionable.  If one argues than only at birth does one become human
then one would argue that this is never objectionable.

Tim

Larry, on a personal note I must say that after tonight I won't continue
this discussion.  I will explain why in a separate post.  Please don't
take it personally.  Thanks.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tak@tazboy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tom Kreitzberg)
Subject: Re: Poll shows GOP convention giving Bush a bounce
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
	<clafpq8@Unify.Com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:16:45 GMT

In article <clafpq8@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
writes (regarding voting and polls):

> (one was that in all but 2 races, the taller man won; it was pointed out that
> while Bush is 6'2", Clinton is 6'21/2").

Actually, Clinton has refused to be officially measured, and his height
was supplied by his advisors (fear of a height gap, perhaps?).

> Every president since the first time
> polls were used to guage his approval rating over the length of his term in
> office received the same percentage of the popular vote, *within 1%*, as his
> average approval rating over his entire previous term. The reporter [...]
> then pointed out that Bush's average approval rating over his 
> term, including the 92% approval rating just after Desert Storm, is 40%.

I think it's the average approval rating over the year preceding the election;
since it's only recently that Bush's rating has slipped below 50%, I can't see
how his overall average could be 40%.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to Anita Bryant?
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:26:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.221058.42199@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Remember Anita Bryant - the first or one of the first public figures to speak
>for the separation of Sex and State?  Whatever happened to her?  Did she 
>become a "non-person" like Eric Hoffer?
>	- Ken Miner

How do you separate sex and The State?

With a crowbar!

Norm
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Public vs. private transportation
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:05:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <4245@wet.UUCP> editor@wet.UUCP (Eric Swanson) writes:
>In response to discussion on deficiencies in Atlanta's MARTA
>transit system, bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:
>|But weren't the freeways built first, when land values and construction costs
>|were lower?  

>joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) responds:
>>No.  Trains, still a common transit system predated cars.  In New York City,
>>the subway was built in the late 1800s or very early 1900s; before cars were
>>a big deal.

Roads predate trains.  Public land transportation is relatively recent in
the history of mankind, requiring the introduction of the horsecollar in
the middle ages.  Roads and city streets, even paved streets, were common
well before this time, when the only means of land passenger transportation
were by foot and on the backs of animals.  There was a limited use of wagons
for freight transportation, and it was slower than foot.

In fact, except for a few systems like the pony express, even written 
communication was done fastest by boat or runners until the invention 
of the train.  Smoke and other similar signals and drums, although limited,
were faster still.
			....................

>Trains go to train stations; automobiles go to parking lots.
>The train I take to my job in downtown San Francisco takes
>me a lot closer to my office than I could afford to park a
>car.  The station near my home is maybe a block or two
>farther from home than I would probably park a car.

Automobiles go to parking spaces, not parking lots.  Maybe the
time for downtowns of any kind is over.  It is only government
support which keeps them going.

>Never say never.  Trains take me where I want to go between
>two and ten times a day.

Even with the non-existence of any decent parking system at the
University of Chicago at this time, one can get as close by car
as by any public transportation.  Also, the car goes when you want
to go, and the cost of waiting for a vehicle to arrive does not
exist.  BTW, the University of Chicago has been at the same location,
although it has expanded in size, for a century.

Now I have no objection to a transportation system which can pay
for itself, as various train and bus systems did quite well in the
first half of this century.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.homosexuality
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:14:49 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug16.003020.1179@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
]
]
]You were talking about rights on the societal level.  I assumed you
]meant rights that apply to all Americans.  If they're not in the
]COnstitution, they don't exist except as found in the penumbra of
]the Ninth Amendment.
]
]Do please learn something about the law of the United States before
]you make these assertions about what rights we all have.  I see that

AHEM:

  "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

United States Constitution, Amendment 9.

-- 
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! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:28:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug21.121223.19764@eua.ericsson.se> euaaen@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Engwall) writes:
>Regardless of which kind of looney tunes they are honouring, one might
>point out that economics bears a striking resemblance to religion, in
>the sense that the theory one chooses to adhere to is a matter of
>faith to a large degree.
>In fact, having an economics prize is a bit like having a theology prize.


  Dammit, Anders, why'd you have to spill the beans?   Don't you know
  there are people on Usenet who actually believe that economics is
  more than just rain dances and witch doctors?   Next I suppose 
  you're going to tell them that there's no Santa Claus! (oops!)


---peter


  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Fetal tissue research (was Re: Another reason to vote for Bush
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:23:51 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug20.210202.13578@ncsu.edu>  dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <2317@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>
> > Did you happen to catch"60 Mintues" Sunday? A great story about a pro-life
> > minister whose unborn baby was diagnosed as having a genetic defect that
> > could be cured w/ a fetal tissue transplant. Of course the current
> > administration will not allow any government funds to do this with.
>
> That is not correct.  The Bush adminstration SUPPORTS funding of
> fetal tissue research, so long as the fetal remains are not obtained
> from elective abortions.  The remains from spontaneous abortions and
> ectopic pregnancies may be used in federally-funded research. The
> Bush administration feels that using fetal remains from elective
> abortions might encourage abortions.

For you to claim that Mr. Knight's statement is not correct, you'd
have to show that the remains from spontaneous abortions or
ectopic pregnancies could be used in the above case.

> There is legislation pending in Congress that would require abortionists
> to approach women about donating fetal tissue after they have already
> decided to obtain an abortion.  The problem with this legislation is
> that pregnant women will know that they will be able to donate the fetal
> remains before they reach an abortion decision.

Wait a minute - aren't you in favor of "informed consent" restrictions
on abortions?  You don't think that women know that if they don't
get an abortion they'll have a baby, but you do believe that they'll
have knowledge of fetal tissue research?  Something there seems
inconsistent...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39741 alt.politics.clinton:1945 alt.politics.bush:1595
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:29:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.185404.13309@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>In <92Aug14.134331edt.118@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> Yuanhui Liu states:
>
>|Disarming some assault-rifle touting ultra-right religious fanatics
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|and put them in concentration camps seems to be a good idea.
>
>No shit; you would put "ultra-right religious fanatics" into 
>"concentration camps" for the simple state of being so?

Please quote the entire sentence.  

>
>I'm sure glad I don't live in Canada.
I am sure.  You will miss home dearly for the lack of automatic gunfire  
and police sirens at night.  Moving to Bosina/Somaila is recommended.   
>
>|Pat Roberson can be the camp spirital leader.  
>
>Interesting; Neal Knox states in the Firearms Coalition Report of
>Feb. 20, 1988 that "Bush's firearms statements has been as strong
>as Pat Robertson's (whose 700 Club television program repeatedly
>had anti-gun segments)."
>
>So Pat Robertson is sympathiser of Handgun Control Inc., and certainly
>not of the U.S. gun owners.


Okay, okay, A lack of :-) in my original statements had lead some
people to believe my original post is serious.  Sheesh!  Sorry! 
The Redneckish tone in my original post is only in response
to the pathetic comparison between the National Socialists of Weimar
Republic and the Democrats of USA.  :-)   


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,misc.education
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:20:25 GMT

In article <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

[stuff deleted]

> 
> I see nothing to admire about a society that thinks it's admirable to subject
> its citizens to that kind of fear, uncertainty, and insecurity.  I see  
nothing
> to admire about a society which heavily subsidizes the insurance purchases of
> upper-middle and upper class Americans, while proposing a feeble voucher
> system for uninsured working Americans and an underfunded Medicaid plan
> for the poor.
> 
> I was without insurance one time for 3 months during a job change.  It
> completely changes your life-style.  Stopped playing racquetball becuase I
> couldn't afford it if I got hurt, not to mention the possibility of pre-
> existing conditions not being covered.  Used two forms of contraception,
> because there's no way we could afford to pay for a birth.
> 
> Dennis G. Shea, Penn State

Why would you admire a country that uses theft to solve all its "social"  
problems?  What are you going to do when there are no decent doctors left, and  
you have to wait in long lines to receive marginal, if not atrocious, health  
care?

Socialism always promises tremendous benefits, but always delivers poverty,  
helplessness, and tyranny.  You can only force so much production for your own  
benefit from people before they say "screw it" and quit.  This is what the Bill  
Clinton's, and other looters of the world never seem to understand.  They think  
we're all out here working our butts off just to enhance their political  
carreers.

You can push for National Health Care now, but don't be surprised when some day  
a bureaucrat turns you away with your mere "sprained ankle", because the lines  
are long and the other people are more "needy", and the black market is the  
only way for people without political  clout to be treated.

Jim Brownfield
#include <standard/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:22:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.193716.2758@muddcs.claremont.edu> irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
>In a prior article, John Schmidt (ednschmi@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au) writes:
>> The trouble with a voucher system is that it creates even more opportunities
>> for marketing than it does for education.
>
>Accepting this for the moment...
>
>> Consider the proposition:
>> Marketing is basically lying.
>> Education is fundamentally about NOT lying.
>
> (text deleted for brevity)
>Marketing is not about lying, it is about attracting customers, and in the
>long run, honesty and openness attract more customers than deception.


Gosh, Josh, have you ever watched TV? Read ads in newspapers or magazines?
Is the proposition that beer and cigarette ads lie without directly lying too
complicated for your mathematical models?

Perhaps you should enroll in an advertising class.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40194 ca.politics:6870