HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Murphy Murphy Murphy
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:56:09 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
|Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
|>fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
|>> What does the Vice President do the next day?  Ignore it?  Say, "well, 
|>> we're over-looking the issues here?"
|>>
|>> NO!!!!!!
|>>
|>> He's still spending time on it!
|>
|>Leave it to our boy Dannikins to pick a fight with a fictional
|>character - and LOSE!
|
|Well, Bush took on the Simpsons (even worse, they're animated), and
|lost.

Could someone please define how one can "lose" such a fight? Is it:
a) when fictional character gives humorous retort to which real person
   does not respond?
b) when more people will watch fictional character and pay attention to
   character and not real person [I wonder what that says about our culture]?
c) when fictional character challenges real person to a debate and real
   person declines? [No, I'm not addressing Bill Clinton. :) ]
d) when fictional character will have an entire 30-minute episode devoted
   to slandering real person?
e) when more people on the network will pay more attention to such a
   "fight" between fictional character and real person than the issues
   that should be involved with political debate?
Suggestions may follow as you will.
-- 
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 life.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4345 alt.politics.clinton:4358 alt.politics.elections:12603
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Clinton makes Quayle look like a genius (was Re: A few things)
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:49:27 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]

In article <6BqRqB1w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>> In article <5162@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>> >     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!
>>
>>    I can't believe that the man whom Clinton accused of being connected to
>> the Mob in his conversation with Flowers a few months ago is now his
>> leading candidate for the Supreme Court.  And people talk about Quayle!
>> This to me is the best example of Clinton's pandering.  He is willing to
>> kiss Mario's *** just to gain the support of his followers.
>>
>
>Clinton said that Mario would make a good justice for the Court.  That doesn't
>mean he has any intentions of appointing him.  Can you provide references that
>say he intends to do so?

   Even if he doesn't intend to appoint him, how can he say that Cuomo
would make a good justice after earlier saying that he's tied to the mob.
I suppose next he'll say that John Gotti would make a good Secretary of
State {:^) .  His pandering really showed through when he made that
statement. 

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:16:16 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.037 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <1992Sep12.055553.4593@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>  mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
> What do you and people making over $200,000 a year have in common?
>
> 
>
> You'll all be paying more in taxes during a Clinton administration!
>
> Tonight on CNN's Crossfire Robert Novak asked senior Clinton campaign
> advisor Frank Greer point blank THREE times "Will Bill Clinton guarantee
> people making under $200,000 a year that they will not have their taxes
> raised during a Clinton administration?"  He ducked the question THREE
> times when all it required was a simple yes or no.  What's the Clinton
> campaign trying to hide?  Better hold on to your wallet, there's some
> 'slick' fingers trying to grab it!
>
> --
> Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
> NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        "I'm not a Bush supporter, I just can't         | These pontifications
>              can't stand Clinton." - me                |      are my own!

Hey Richard, who pays for your funding?

I just can't stand people who are on the dol(sp?) who complain about taxes.
Being on the dol(sp?)  includes the president, people who work for NASA,
a member of the military, a county garbage collector, a teacher, etc...

I could never understand, how,  someone who is on the dol, complain about taxes.  If we
cut taxes 50%, can we cut everyones dol by 50%?

Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:25:22 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <CINDY.92Sep13201431@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
]Re: Swedish 75% interest rate shocker.
]
]It has been called to my attention that i forgot to mention an
]important detail.  I hate when i do that!
]
]The 75% interest rate is the one-day, bank-to-bank interest rate.
]The normal interest rate for long term loans, such as normal consumer
]or business loans, remains in the 25% range - high but not nearly
]as high as some would apparently have you believe.  The purpose of

25% is an enormously high interest rate! It is certainly indicative
of some sort of problem. And, having to intervene with something
as rude as a 75% interest rate indicates some sort of problem with
the currency, or a central government that has wierd ideas about
how currency markets should be treated.
-- 
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
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Date: Mon,  7 Sep 1992 18:21:48 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
	<FiFqqB5w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>

An open letter to Edward J. Branley:

You point to three things he is for that are supposedly minority views.
>1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions.  He's not abortion on demand. 
While not
>a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.
 
>2.  He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.
 
>3.  He wants to reduce defense spending more than Bush.  Not popular among
>both the 'strong national defense' crowd and among all of those General
>Dynamics and Lockheed workers in critical states like CA and TX.
 

1.  Clinton is all NOW has.  Every single member of NOW will vote
Clinton.  Patricia Ireland will not be the next American president
because of her abortion on demand disagreement with Clinton.  As an
aside, Clinton is not asking for any restrictions on abortion.  He was
against the Pennsylvania Law, which as a pro-lifer I considered a very
fair middle-road compromise.

2.  All he wants is raising the top 2% (he says aloud).  Part of his
class warfare, nail the rich approach to politics says that he taxes the
hell out of them.  His divisive techniques have worked so far (due in
part to the GOP's lack of an adequate response), and most people want
that tax.  By the way, the top 2% goes down to 77,000 - that includes
many of our parents and friends - Clinton isn't just soaking the rich.

3.  Everybody wants to reduce defense spending.  By saying he wants more
than Bush, he's only arguing a matter of degree, something which in the
end will be decided by Congress anyway.

All in all, Clinton is the ultimate panderer, second to only H. Ross
Perot.  This country needs leadership and strength of character, and
Clinton's pandering along with his extra-marital flings show that he has
neither.

|Erik Witte                     ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu
|Box 3315                      (a conservative CMU student!?!)
|1000 Morewood Ave
|Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ...Tipper Gore
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:37:20 GMT

 
	I can't believe I am hearing these guys (Richard Mulac and company)
fess to "forget about hearing the presidential debate let's discuss Tipper
Gore and Hillary Clinton".  Sounds famillair, doesn't it ?   "Let's not
worry about the economy but we can talk about Murphy Brown and family values"
 
Hmm

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.misc
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Date: 10 Sep 1992 19:24:43 GMT
Organization: Read my Lips
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <1685EB6A9.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <18ns49INNd78@agate.berkeley.edu>
>bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>      [...]
>>Are these the same analysts who told us that the Patriots were 90%
>>successful during the PG War, then 80% then 70% then finally revealed
>>that there was only _one_ confirmed kill of a Scud by a Patriot and
>>that the Patriots had exacerbated the damage in Israel?
>>
>In fact, the Patriot was 100% effective in keeping Israel out of the
>war and preserving the alliance. Not all battles are won by firepower.
>  ... 

Balderdash!  The Israeli government and military were quite aware
that the Patriot was of negative value --the Scuds and Patriots
were exploding in Israel.

That the Israeli government used the Patriot as an excuse not
to enter the conflict only indicates that they had no intention
of entering it at all.  According to your own analysis it is
supposedly important for the government to keep the population
misinformed.
 
----
   --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Many are sure, few are right.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: I made a mistake Re: For those who missed it ...
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:09:51 GMT

In article <18t8bkINNql1@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <5262@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>|> I made a mistake about the phone number: it's 1-800-326-1200, not 328.
>|> The poster regrets the error.
>
>Heyy!! It is 1-800-368-1200. At least, that's the one I called  and got
>a recorded message asking me to leave my address and name.
>

  The winner is 1-800-368-1200.  At least, that is the number that worked
for me.

  Thanks.  I tried calling the other two and had no luck at all.  Now,
I know why. :-)



Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:27:04 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com>, by rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins):
> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
> |> The cure for a needed program with problems is not the elimination of that
> |> program, despite that being what Reagan's evil minions have tried to make
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |> us believe for twelve years now. The cure is to make it *work*.
> 
> Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
> wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
> disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
> never heard the term religious left?

Because religious people on the left do good, they don't just talk
about it.  It's only on the right that there are people who call
themselves "religious" and want to stick their noses into everyone's
business and tell them how to behave.

I could name a few very active, left-leaning religious organizations
but I don't want to disturbe your ignorance.  Or blow their cover.

--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me
From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:41:55 GMT
 <1992Sep9.134621.19407@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <JASON.92Sep9114044@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <JASON.92Sep9114044@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov
(Jason Austin) says:
>
>        I don't believe either of the Health plans are the answer to
>making Health care more available.  Any doctor will tell you, the

This is incorrect.  Except for a few specialties like OB/GYN malpractice
premiums make up less than 10 percent of the total costs of practicing
medicine.  Far more important is the costs of paperwork associated with
out multiple payor, mixed public-private system.  I don't have the numbers
here in front of me, but my recollection is that more than half of the
cost of medicine for the typical physician practice is non-medical personnel
labor costs.  In Canada, that is less than 15% of the total costs of a
physician's practice.  Estimates are that tort reform would save MAYBE
20 bilion dollars at the most.


>biggest expense for them is liability insurance due to the
>sue-the-doctor frenzy and the big settlements juries have been
>awarding.  There was mention of this at the Republican convention, but
>unfortunately it has not received the attention it deserves.

False again.  In fact, although the tax vouchers are the centerpiece of
Bush's reform, he has yet to make a detailed proposal.  On the other hand,
his malpractice reform proposal was the first thing he submitted.

I have a wonderful editorial cartoon on my door, by Horsey of the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer.  It shows a crowd of people outside the Oval Office,
each carrying a piece of paper which says "Can't Afford Health Insurance".
A doctor, carrying a golf bag, is at the back, with a piece of paper that
says "Can't Afford Malpractice Insurance." Bush leans out of the Oval Office
and says "My, My, So many problems.  Let's start with that fellow at the back
of the line." (the doctor).

It's characteristic of the Bush administration that given the choice of
addressing the problem of a low-income employed person without health insurance
and a physician making more than $100,000 a year with malpractice problems,
they rush to the aid of the physician.

I know of no major person involved in health policy, even those who advocate
market reforms, who argues that malpractice is the most pressing problem or
a major element in reducing costs.  While it is an important problem, it has
received far more attention than it deserves in the popular press.



Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4219 talk.politics.misc:43985 alt.politics.clinton:4203
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 6 Sep 1992 17:58:11 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <RLK.92Sep5204746@underprize.think.com>, rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep5.153736.6743@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|> 
|>    Wot no Quayle vs Gore debate!
|> 
|> Speaking of which, I'd love to hear Lloyd Bentsen or some other senior
|> Democrat tell Bush "Mr. President, you're no Harry Truman."

Margaret Truman has already done it; even George Will, in his Newsweek column,
has done it in a very oblique way (or so it seemed to me).

.
.
.

|> BTW, it's about time someone called Bush on the "tax and spend" issue,
|> particularly after the blatant handouts of the past week (the grain
|> export subsidy and the sale of aircraft to Taiwan).

How is the sale of planes to Taiwan a  tax or spend issue? I thought
that these were aircraft manufactured by the private sector and sold
to another country which paid the market rate for them, with the only
Govt. involvement being approval of the deal w.r.t. its foreign policy
and national security implications.

If I am right, the only way it is either of those issues is if it results 
in greater tax revenues from and consumer spending by those workers whose 
jobs are saved by the deal.




|> --
|> ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: realism & the deficit
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:53:42 GMT

In a *very* tasteful piece of journalism on Nightline last night, Ted
Koppel talked with Senators Sam Nunn and James (?) Danforth about the
country's possibly most important problem: the deficit. 

Besides emphasizing the importance of depoliticizing the deficit so
that we can make some real progress in reducing and eventually
eliminating it, each senator outlined the agenda of his respective
party's presidential nominee in regards to the deficit. Here,
according to my memory and understanding, are the two plans:

Clinton: erase the deficit by raising taxes to generate more revenue.
The objection was raised that Clinton's proposed new spending more
than outweighs his projected tax increase, the net result being a
*larger* deficit, not a smaller one.

Bush: erase the deficit by limiting the growth of entitlement programs
(with the exception of Social Security) to changes in the consumer
price index. The objection was raised that this prevents the deficit
from growing further, but doesn't do much to reduce it -- especially
given that Bush wants to lower taxes slightly, which will (at least in
the short run) *lower* revenue.

Comments? Please provide any relevant additions to the two plans as
well as evaluations of the effectiveness of each. Let's see if we can
get an intelligent debate going on this (i.e. no gratuitous flames).






-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:18:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <9018@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Sep5.153736.6743@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>>Wot no Quayle vs Gore debate!
>
>>I've been looking forward to that for four years now.
>
>Wow, you knew four years ago that Gore was going to be the democrats VP
>candidate.  So now your also claiming prescience.
>
>>Phill Hallam-Baker
>
>
>-- 
>--Mark
>


Hell, I'd look forward to seeing almost anyone debate Quayle.
Gore, Cuomo, Perot, Soupy Sales, Arsenio Hall... they could 
dig up Lyndon Johnson and he'd still beat Quayle in a debate
hands down. 


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:36:37 GMT

In article <BuKF4I.HFz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
 
>     [...]
>I think you're proving that the R-B-R bunch (Reagan, Bush,and the Republicans)
>managed to deregulate the banking industry to the point where the feeding
>frenzy was in the board rooms of the banks.  These "wise men" should have
>known that poorly educated (in economics) people would snap up multiple cards
>and get themselves in trouble.
>
...proving that he never read a newspaper before 1981 ;-). The first S&L
deregulation bill- note that's S&Ls, not banks- was signed by President
James Earl Carter in 1980. There was no banking deregulation bill. The only
changes in laws that facilitated the issuing of credit cards were the states
that repealed their obsolete "usury" laws.
 
If a poor education in economics should prevent people from owning credit
cards, we'd have to repeal a lot of those issued to participants on this
list....starting with the above poster. There's no money to be made in
issuing cards to people who default on them.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:14:48 GMT

While going home this evening, I was glancing through a WSJ that was
left on the next seat.  There was this interesting article in it about
how surprised the lawyers and insurance people in Arkansas are about
Quayle's accusation that Clinton is in the pockets of the trial
lawyers.  I don't recall the exact statistics (someone with a WSJ
handy can perhaps post them), but lawsuits or torts have decreased in
Arkansas since Clinton took office.  Both sides of any dispute on
legal reform in Arkansas said that Clinton tended to be fair to both
sides.

--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4954 alt.politics.clinton:5214 alt.politics.perot:1461 rec.humor:28527 talk.bizarre:29930 talk.politics.misc:45191 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5323