HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: The Myth of the Spendthrift Democrat
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:24:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.234758.10260@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>Well, the real problem is that regulation makes businesses do stupid
>costly things and prevents them from doing intelligent thrifty things.
>
>Simple example:  Current immigration law says that if Oracle is trying
>to get someone a green card they can't change their job for the two
>years plus that it takes for them to get it.  Result?  We have smart,
>intelligent people who are being underutilized because we have them in
>the positions they were qualified for two years ago instead of the
>positions they are qualified for today.

What solution do you propose?  Throwing out all regulations, or just the ones 
that have problems?  If the former, you're throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.  If the latter, why not try to fix them first?

>Simple example:  The reluctance to allow pollution trading.  Why not?
>As long as we cut down the total amount of pollution to the amount
>the government mandates who cares which particular sources generate
>it?

The people living near those sources care!  TVA just bought some credits from
someplace like Wisconsin or Minnesota so they could pump more pollution into
the already severely damaged Smokey Mountains.  Jeeze, how naive.

>Simple example:  OSHA regs - they are so damned complicated that you
>can't understand them without a passel of lawyers.  They are also
>ridiculously detailed, right down to the number of inches allowed
>between rungs on a ladder.

Sounds like a good idea to me.  Without such a regulation, unscrupulous ladder
makers could opt for wider-than-safe spacing to save the cost of a few rungs. 
Also, it ensures uniformity, which also improves safety.  And at a negligable
burden to the manufacturer.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: barbehen@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Barbehenn)
Subject: Quayle is VP
Summary: so says Bush
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:05:45 GMT


UPI-Radio: >US & World headlines (Jul 22 2 pm PDT)        Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:28
           -0-
        President Bush today dismissed speculation that he's dropping Vice
President Dan Quayle from his re-election ticket. During a Cabinet
meeting called to quell the rumors, Bush said Quayle's position is 
``very certain.''
 
        Meanwhile, vice presidential spouse Marilyn Quayle says her husband
has been told to write his acceptance speech. To rumors her husband will
be dumped from the presidential ticket, Mrs. Quayle says -quote- ``it
aiN'T going to happen.''

--
-Michael Barbehenn
 AI Group/Beckman Institute
 U. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Barbara Jordan
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 18:19:10 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1992Jul16.180232.9922@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>

The New York times printed an edited versionof the speech. As a
conservative republican type, it even impressed me. What struck me
was "there is no room for separatism ... or political corect

ness", or for white racism, or black racism. Not another basic
Afrocentric Farrakhan "all whites are devils", or Spike Lee
"blacks can't be racist because they don't have the power "
bull shit.

That's NYT July 14, 1992 for somebody willing to do the typing.
I didn't care for the other speeches.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Billy and Foreign Policy
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:21:49 GMT

In article <1682CAA45.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu> EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.054725.4512@lclark.edu>
>larryw@sun.lclark.edu (Larry Westdahl) writes:
>...
>>It should also be noted that if we lose George Bush, we lose Jim Baker also,
>>and there is no way that Clinton can come up with a better replacement.
> 
>So who is Bush going to replace him with after Jim comnes home to run
>Bush's campaign? Or does Bush not think Baker is that important to foreign
>policy?

The answer to the first question is Lawrence Eagleburger, who will be
"acting" Sec of State.  The answer to the second is probably "no."
-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:30:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.185646.6198@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dtl8v@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Heraclitus) writes:
>
>Bush has vetoed fewer than a dozen
>bills in his term, as did Reagan before him and so on into the past.

I thought that Bush had something like 23 vetoes, all sustained.
However, my memory could be faulty.  Anybody got a solid number?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: chrisb@wixer.cactus.org (Chris Blandy)
Subject: Re: Sex Rumors
Reply-To: chrisb@wixer.UUCP (Chris Blandy)
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 04:31:18 GMT

In article <14pg1qINNcv1@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K.
Sherman) writes:
>
>These rumors just in over the transom:
>
>1) Someone will announce that he had an affair with Hillary Clinton.
>
>2) James Baker and Margaret Tutwiler are an item.
>
>--------------
>    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)


One more...Gennifer Flowers is reportadly posing for a spread in an upcoming
issue of Penthouse.  Along with the spread will be an article about Flower's
allegations of her 12 year affair with Bill Clinton.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:53:41 GMT

In article <2076@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM writes:
>Anybody catch Bush's "press conference" yesterday?  The one where
>he praised Perot, calling him "wise", and saying how he and Perot
>had much in common, and he welcomed former Perot supporters to his
>camp?
>
>How can the king of status quo/budget deficits say he has _anything_
>in common with R. Perot and what he stands for?

And just the other day he echoed his famous 1988 slogan "Stay the Course".
I sit and watch this man in utter amazement. One day he talks about 
being an agent for change, and the next he says stay the course. 

>I hope the Perot people are smart enough not to fall for it.

He's counting on them not being that smart. It's very insulting, IMO,
for him to talk out both sides of his mouth like that and expect
people to believe him, but he DOES! It just shows how little respect
he has for the American people.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
>
>--f2
>
>----------------------------------------------
>  If abortions are outlawed,
>  only outlaws will have abortions.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: drw41888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Wiltz)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:31:26 GMT
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election

dtl8v@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Heraclitus) writes:
<<stuff deleted>>
>  Bush's record on diplomacy is outstanding, whether you consider way
>a method of diplomacy or not.  He's not Richard Nixon, perhaps, but
>he's been lucky enough to avoid a Watergate such as Reagan, Carter,
>Kennedy, and even LBJ had.  Of course, it's an anachronism to go that
>far back in the past, but all Presidents in all places on the
>political spectrum have had problems under public scrutiny.  And some
>fared better than others during but not after their terms, after but
>not during their terms, and even neither.  Few in history have fared
>well both ways.

I'll give you Bush's foreign policy triumphs, he is a very good 
at the overseas stuff.  That way, he doesn't need to worry about
the domestic problems which have been worsened by 12 years of R&B.
(Read other posts for specifics, I'm not about to start that war
again :))

Two years ago, I spent a few weeks in what was still the Soviet
Union.  Everybody I talked to had the same opinion of Gorbachev,
that he had a wonderful foreign policy, but his domestic policies
sucked.  Look what happened to him.

Maybe George will have some luck on the lecture circuit.
Or maybe Millie can write another book.  George could go
on the talk show circuit supporting it. :)

-->As always, my opinions are my own.<--
-Dave
-- 
David Wiltz                                 wiltz@after.math.uiuc.edu
Calculus&Mathematica Development Team
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  NeXT Mail always welcome!
-Doing business with the government is a lot like playing poker with God-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:18:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.160828.5292@aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>#BTW, the more I learn about NTU's CBTS the more impressed I am.
>#It's a fine piece of work that seems to be making a lot of
>#Congress-critters take a hard look at what legislation they're
>#sponsoring.  And as soon as I've had time to play with the software
>#(they send you their whole data base, not just reports) I'll have
>#some more specific things to say.  I'm renewing my NTU membership
>#(which I let lapse a long time ago when they got hung up on fighting
>#for calling a constitutional convention to pass a balanced budget
>#amendment) so I can get the updates cheaper.  I think the price was
>#$29.95 for members and $50 for non-members.
>#
>#/June
>
>It might be worthwhile to quote some of the facts and figures on
>the net.

I'd love to but I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have to do
it.  Basically I'm already holding down two full times jobs
(programmer and candidate) and trying to keep up with the net as
well. NTU sells all this stuff at very reasonable prices.  Bill
Duncan who is in charge of CBTS can be reached by email at
70007.5330@COMPUSERVE.COM.  I promised to post anything he sends me
to the politics lists but I may not have time to extract and upload
from the database the particular reports you may be interested in.

Also, I think the graphs are a lot more informative than the numbers
and there isn't any good way to handle those on the net.  (Maybe one
of you unix gurus can talk to Bill about making some available as
GIF files or something.) Perhaps if he hears a lot of interest from
USENET folks he'll get an account somewhere that gives him direct
access rather than by using me as a mail conduit.  Besides, if you
really find this kind of information useful, the best way to make
sure that it will keep coming is to support NTU's effort to provide
it by buying it directly from them.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Poor maligned Reagan (was Re: Predictions for USA campaign)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:52:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.140939.3594@spdc.ti.com> dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Bill Dostalik) writes:
>
>Ah, the deficit.  I agree Reagan gets the "blame" for the part of the deficit
>due to the military build-up.  However, the events of the past three years,
>particularly last Aug., have completely vindicated that spending.  RR's build-
>up hastened the inevitable collapse of most monstrous empire the world has 
>known, (the USSR, not the USA, smart-ass).  Certainly more monstrous than the
>third reich, if you want to count bodies.  If it fell one year sooner than
>it would have without RR, then the money was well spent, but it appears it
>collapsed many years (decades?) sooner than if Carter had remained.  Remember
>the arms race we "cannot afford?"  If we couldn't afford it, certainly the
>USSR could not, or did RR have nothing to do with it?  Make up your mind.

Quick comment about this.  Was a trillion dollar arms build-up
worth it to bring down the Soviets in a decade?  Would this have
saved money, or would a $400 billion arms build-up over two
decades have been better economically?  Would a smaller Reagan
build-up have accomplished the same thing, if we had spent more
sensibly over the decade (for instance, what is the rationale for
a 600 ship navy?  Where did that number come from?  Was it chosen
because it was a round number, or because of military expediency?
In the early decades of this century, the US wanted a 48 battleship
navy.  This number also happened to be the number to states in the
Union at the time, and, golly, these ships were named after states.
One feels that someone in the Navy thought it would be a cool idea
to have a sort of "Fleet of States", and this overrode any strategic
considerations.  The 600 ship navy is a symptom of the same disease
among defense planners).

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:12:08 GMT

In article <22522@oasys.dt.navy.mil> tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) writes:
>In alt.politics.elections, lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>
>>>I hope the Perot people are smart enough not to fall for it.
>
>>He's counting on them not being that smart. It's very insulting, IMO,
>>for him to talk out both sides of his mouth like that and expect
>>people to believe him, but he DOES! It just shows how little respect
>>he has for the American people.
>
>    Well, historically he's right.  He was elected in '88 as the education
>president, the environment president, the civil rights president, the
>jobs president, the labor president, the whatever president; he was 
>going to end the trade imbalance, create new jobs, etc, all while not 
>raising taxes.  And a significant enough majority of Americans believed 
>him. Why should he have any respect for the American voters?
>    This was after Ronald "teflon" Reagan, the president who was very
>popular even though the majority of people disagreed with the actions
>of his administration.  People were not connecting what he did with
>what he said. After Reagan, why should anyone have any respect for the 
>American voters?
>
>Tim Smith

Good point. But Bush is NOT Reagan. Reagan had an amazing ability.
The man could say utter nonsense and it would come out sounding good.
Although I am not a big fan of Reagan, at least he had some idea
of the direction he thought the country should go in. I didn't agree
with it, but at least he thought he was doing some good. Bush doesn't
even have that. He's publicly acknowledged that he's "had some trouble
with the `vision thing'". Personally I can't wait for the debates.
Sure, Bush looked good next to Mike Dukakis the human qualude, but
next to Clinton people will see how bad he actually is.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.174806.24942@advtech.uswest.com> rray@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Randy J. Ray) writes:
>
> [...]               A vote for the Democratic candidate is to encourage
>isolationism in a time when a lot of overseas markets are on the verge of
>opening. And until the Dems realise that we have to export products in order
>to maintain our economy, they will probably continue to wrap themselves in
>the cloak of "being American == buying American" and ignore that even if we
>stopped importing completely, we would still need to export to fuel the
>economy. The Dems will not do this.

I don't see this at all in the platform.  Clinton specifically
addressed exporting new technology to help the economy.  Is there
anyone out there who believes we _don't_ need to export goods?  We
can't buy everything we manufacture ourselves.

Moreover, "buying American" is not an isolationist sentiment.  It's
just populist, and common to bith parties.  The most isolationist
candidate this year was Pat Buchanan, the Republican Jerry Brown.
-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,soc.women,talk.politics.drugs
From: btwomey@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (william.tw0mey)
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Election Strat
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:49:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In article <l7djatINNd07@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
...
>The difference between abortion and the death penalty, is that one is a 
>personal decision, unless society interferes, and the other is is a societal
>decision.  In the end run, pro-choice is simply the position that says
>society should not interfer in personal decisions.  Abortion is only one
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of the *choices* under attack.


Does being pro-choice extend to choosing what substances one
puts in their bodies?  According to Mike Polen, its should and I
am glad to hear it.

But do pro-choicers (with respect to abortion), act
pro-choice when it comes to other issues of self-determination,
especially illegal drugs?

If you are pro-choice re abortion, but not re drugs, why not?
How can you not be pro-choice with respect to drugs?

Should pro-choice imply anti-"War on Drugs"?  Keep in mind that
a war on drug abuse should be a separate matter.

Bill Twomey
-- 
bt@violin.att.com

Bill's Law on Netnews discussions:
"If a participant's name is in the Subject, its not worth reading."
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: A clear choice
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:50:50 GMT

Dave Sill writes
> Carl Edman writes:
> > Gore was the biggest spender in the Senate. Arguably
> > somebody as malicious as   that is worse than a village
> > idiot. 
> 
> What do you mean "Gore was the biggest spender in the
> Senate"?  He was able to appropriate funds
> singlehandedly?  Didn't other senators and
> representatives have to agree?  Didn't Bush have to
> approve it?  And since when is government expenditure
> considered "malicious" regardless of what the money was
> spent on? 

Sorry for not being clearer. When I said that Gore was the biggest spender in  
the Senate I meant that in the years 1989 and 1990 the total of all spending  
which Gore voted for was larger than the total of any other members of the  
Senate. This is quite a distinction considering that the Senate contains some  
many seasoned over-spenders like e.g. Senator Robert Pork Byrd of West  
Virginia. 

As for spending being malicious, I'll concede that there are forms of  
government spending which could conceivably be construed as not being  
malicious. But to beat 99 determined Senators in spending requires a devotion  
to this pursuit which I find hard to imagine without malicious disregard and  
contempt for the rights of the american people.

	Carl Edman

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Bush's syntax (Was Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:38:24 GMT

In article <BrwAwE.222@news.cso.uiuc.edu> drw41888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Wiltz) writes:
>Maybe George will have some luck on the lecture circuit.
>Or maybe Millie can write another book.  George could go
>on the talk show circuit supporting it. :)

This is kinda funny, since I always thought Bush would have
been better as a case study by linguists on how language
deforms with time.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Causes of the "Cultural Elite"
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:23:19 GMT

mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>I would say that in today's world libertarianism has taken the
>place of socialism as the trendy ideology. The same sort of
>nerdy types who a few years ago would have been loony
>socialists are today loony libertarians.

Oh yeah, those who advocate the destruction of freedom would make just
great defenders of freedom.  Libertarianism has been around for at
least 200 years.  Socialism only 100.  You're seeing the retreat of it
because it doesn't work.
-- 
Once you accept his assumptions even a madman seems reasonable.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8978 alt.politics.clinton:400 alt.politics.bush:79
From: wlamonac@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:30:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Jul22.203023.19958
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Jul22.185646.6198@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dtl8v@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Heraclitus) writes:
>
>  I agree; it would be stupid to make more war to win an election, and
>I think George Bush, while cunning, cares enough not to do something
>that inhuman.  We have to admit that politicians are another animal,

Well, he sure cared a lot about those Iraqis that he bombed back into the
Stone Age.  And the Tianmen Square massacre really moved him- it moved him to
restore trade with China.  (Could it be a coincidence that his brother
benefited from that move?)

>men dedicated to carry out public policy which no person alone can
>interpret and whose interests will never lie in everything in which he
>is forced to deal.  He likes foreign policy, and he's good at it.  I

  That's true-  his use of diplomacy in ousting Noriega was a landmark in
statemanship.

>wish he'd appoint a domestic czar like Kemp to run his domestic
>initiatives in the mean time, although short of another LA Riot, Kemp
>won't have any more support in the House than Bush does.
>  Frankly, I think Clinton might have some domestic ideas, but I
>prefer having a President who is a Head of State and pushes
>initiatives like Free Trade and United Nations Resolutions.  Congress

Bush only seems to listen to the UN when it suits his purposes- if the UN
comes out against the US, they are ignored or denounced.

>is elected to make the laws, and they haven't been doing a good job.
>It's easy to find a major disagreement with any bill that is on the
>table today because of the size and complexity required (via political
>maneuvering, logrolling) today of the simplest proposals.  I think
>CONGRESS needs a Paperwork Reduction Act.

>Doug Lamb
>University of Virginia
>dtl8v@Virginia.EDU

Actually, Bush seems more interested in the POWER that comes with being
President than actually leading-  Didn't he say that one reason he would not
be attending the environmental summit in Rio was that he would be too busy
running for president?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush