HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Strange Bedfellows (was Re: Scary thought for the day)
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:52:09
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu's message of 30 Aug 92 13:55:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.135542.18156@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>(1) Consider Mary Matalin, George Bush's deputy campaign manager.

>(3) Consider the possibility of Mary Matalin holding a position of
>    real power in a second Bush Administration.

>  "We've barely suited up and the guy's hyperventilating.  Wait till
>  we're on the field with him.  The guy's knees are going to buckle."
>
>	   -- Mary Matalin on Bill Clinton, Boston Globe, 8-29-92, p.11.

One of the stranger elements of an already strange election is that
Mary Matalin's boyfriend is James Carville, Clinton's chief
strategist.  I suppose their personalities should be compatible --
politics is politics, sharks are sharks.

On the other hand, the security implications should be enough to give
nightmares to campaign staffers on both sides of the battle...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Bush, Owls and Trees
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:14:41 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

arild@ims.uni-stuttgart.de writes:

>George Bush is now going to veto any extension of the law that protects the
>spotted owl (i.e. preventing timbering in areas with this endangered
>species). This to save jobs in the timber industry. 
>
>This is the first time I've been thinking that Bush actually may loose this
>election. 
>
>How much of a difference will this really make for the economic situation?
>And does it mean that it is now OK to hunt whales again, to save a few
>Norwegians jobs?

He's campaigning for the out-of-work loggers' vote in the Northwest by
obscuring the fact that jobs were being shaken out of that industry
before the restrictions on old growth logging took place. It is a con
for Bush to imply that all of those folk will start milling toothpicks
again if only the big timber interests could barbecue the owls. 
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 0-3 Lifetime: 0-5 
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you all to repent from your sins.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4361 talk.politics.misc:44155 alt.politics.clinton:4381 alt.politics.elections:12613
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:55:43 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Karl Dussik) writes:
|> Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
|> >Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
|> >>
|> >>  Why is the school, esp. Public schools the one doing the sex ed, and not
|> >>the family where the primary education should be.   
|> 
|> [ stuff deleteed ]
|> 
|> >Why don't I ever hear this argument used against drivers ed? After all
|> >if we didn't teach our kids to drive they wouldn't have accident.... RIGHT..
|> >
|> 
|> Children are physically capable of driving a car at age 10 or less.
|> What do you think would happen if we were to start teaching driver's ed at
|> age 10 and left the keys to the family car easily accessible?
|> 
Good analogy.  The problem is that with sex, the keys are easily accessible.
There is no way to stop that.  If the keys to the family car could not be made
inaccessible, maybe it would be better if 10 year olds learned to drive.  They
do just fine on farms.  Maybe we are just talking about the age when the
education starts.

Also, the assumption is that the education occurs somewhere at some age.  The
is plenty of data to show that parents and churches do not teach about sex
-- at any age.
|> 
|> And 2) the "media elite", mainly through television and the movies, have -
|> not coincidentally - been waging the exact same war against "family values".
|> And they have been winning big time to the severe detriment of society as a
|> whole.
|> 
|> How can a family sustain its values when they are continually undermined
|> everywhere they turn?
|> -- 
If religions were that powerful and valuable, people could be told to stop
going to the movies and watching television.  The "media elite" are delivering
exactly what chuch goers want to see when they get out of church.  If they
weren't, Murphy Brown would be married.

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 04:49:00 GMT

In my nonprofessional opinion Bush has the right idea; however he does
not go far enough.  He should phase out Social Security.  If memory
serves me right, the government has borrowed more from Social Security
than it has from banks and the such.  Social Security is just a tax
in disguise.

Also with the baby boomers retiring, and thus receiving SS, the base
for the now transfer payments will shrink in proportion to those
receiving SS payments.

As always, canidates avoid the controversial issues.

What do you think?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4997 alt.politics.clinton:5259 alt.politics.perot:1466 rec.humor:28567 talk.bizarre:30013 talk.politics.misc:45239
From: ahummel@ems.cdc.com (H. Austin Hummel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:02:22 GMT
Reply-To: you@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Sep12.200956.27800@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, cbergren@comm.mot.com (Craig Bergren) writes:
|> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|>    The opinions I hold are not mine nor are they those of my employer.
|> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This person could go far in politics, and probably does not inhale either.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FEMA and Hurricane Andrew - Forwarded post
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:32:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.190916.29890@cabezon.uucp> larryh@cabezon.uucp (Larry Huntley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.170623.5432@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>I was just watching some CSPAN coverage of hearings regarding FEMA.
>>Both the Congresscritters and the FEMA officials testifying said that
>>FEMA has no where near 20k employees; I remember the real number
>>as being closer to 2,000.
>>
>    Yes, but do we have *reliable* testimony?  What do these 2K employees
>    do?  Were they on break when Chiles asked for help?

FEMA was in Florida before the wind stopped.

The only feds who were "late" were military, who aren't a dominant
part of the relief effort (despite the fact that they're the most
spectacular to cover).  They up "late", but only because Chiles said
he didn't need them until long after it was obvious that Chiles was
wrong.  The only time the Feds send troops without permission is when
the feds are going to war.  The last example was during the civil
rights wars in the 50s and 60s.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5308 alt.politics.elections:13266 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3837 talk.politics.guns:21019 talk.politics.misc:45737
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Cuomo
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:35:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.022320.19012@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>
>>   I can't believe that the man whom Clinton accussed 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!

In article <1992Sep10.102102.5392@wri.com> walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
>Speaking of media distortions--
>I heard a playback of that conversation.  The part about the

  You mean you called that 900 number!  {:^)

>Mafia went very much like:
>
>GF: That Cuomo seems awful tough.  Is he connected with the Mafia?
>
>BC: Boy, it sure seems like it.
>
>From the casual tenor of the conversation, and recalling that
>GF was not a district attorney or anything, this was not at all
>a serious accusation, and it was most definitely GF, not BC, who
>raised the subject of the Mafia.

  But Clinton apologized profusely to Cuomo after the tape came out.  Some
might say he was just kissing *** for political reasons.  If that's so,
then will he act the same way as President when dealing with foreign
governments, apologizing for the US when it has done no wrong.  By
apologizing to Cuomo he's damned himself as either a false accuser or as
someone who doesn't have the courage to stand up and say he's done no wrong.

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With our combined strength we can end this destructive | These pontifications
conflict and bring order to the galaxy." - Darth Vader  |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5031 alt.politics.clinton:5305 talk.politics.misc:45313
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:13:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <lb29ffINN20c@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>No.  They did not spend our money, the spent their money.   Congressperson
>A covered Congressperson B's check.  If you consider that your money, then
>you must think that your money still belongs to your employer, even after
>you receive it.  Wrong

Yes.  They DID spend our money.  An ordinary bank invests its deposits.  The
income from these investments goes to pay things like upkeep amd salaries.

Since these deposits were not available to be invested, They were being
used instead to cover the overdrafts, congress had to vote public money
to cover the operation of the "bank".

BTW, from my understanding of IRS code, such overdrafts constituted a form
of interest free loans.  The IRS considers all the interest not paid to
be form of income.  At the very least these guys should be investigated
for tax fraud.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:05:46 GMT

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.
>
>I note that any provider can basically decide on how much it wants to
>spend on overhead (read "waste").  People who think that a much lower
>overhead system is possible in the US without changes that have
>nothing to do with payer systems can prove that any time they want.
>
>Such a proof consists of establishing a health care payer that does
>things "right".  That will drive the evil wasteful companies out of
>biz, lower health care costs (the savings can be spent on the poor or
>returned to the customers), and make a lot of money (which can be
>spent on other good acts) for the people who do it.  That sure looks
>like a moral obligation, so I really doubt people who insist that its
>possible yet are unwilling to risk their money to prove it.
>

Health care has a non-market component if one has a goal of insuring
everyone including the poor and the sick.  Even the current so-called
private American system has huge tax subsidies for the well-off for
their health care insurance.  It is not a profit-making enterprise
to insure sick people or people with pre-existing conditions, so
the people advocating NHI of one form or another don't have to
prove that it is profitable...only that a system with financial
check and balances can be put in place to control costs and that
the basic health decision of a patients right to choose their
doctor is retained.  Most every other Western Capitalist democracy
has demonstrate that such systems are possible at enormous cost
savings.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:20:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.010305.28786@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>
>	Clinton and Gore promise everyone the world,
>	mumble a line or two about how they're going to pull it all off,
>	and you can claim that we don't have any evidence!
>
>	Clinton says he's going to:
>	1)	cut taxes
>	2)	balance the budget
>	3)	reduce the federal deficit
>	4)	institute national health care
>	5)	start a jobs and worker retraining package
>
>	Where's he going to get the money from???
>
>		Social Security Cuts???
>		More Defense Cuts???
>		Double Digit Inflation???
>
>	Open your eyes and see the light, Paul.
>
>		Something's got to give somewhere.
>And one of those somethings will be NASA and the space program.
>
>pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA
>

Bush promises everyone in the world (I'll leave Quayle out of this).  And
doesn't mumble a line or two about how he is going to pull it off.  And you 
can claim that we don't have any evidence (look at the past four years).

	Bush says he is going to:
	1)	cut taxes  {I won't repeat what I said when I heard this.  And I 
			    am not one to normally use harsh words.}
	2)	balance the budget
	3)	reduce the federal deficit
	4) 	institute national health care
	5) 	start a jobs and worker retraining program
	6)	institute a system of school choice

Where is he going to get the money from???
	
	Social Security Cuts???
	More Defense Cuts???
	Double Digit Inflation???

Open BOTH eyes and see the light.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are approaching the end of a political campaign.  What
you have been hearing from boths sides contains a liberal (pun, I so rarely make 
them, so enjoy) dose of politics.  The candidates will now say and do almost 
anything to obtain more votes.  It is now up to you to decipher what parts of
the candidates promises you believe are true and what parts are pure politics.
And now for Final Jeapordy, the answer: this is the person I, the informed 
voter, want to be the president.  Daa da daa da, daa da da, ...


patricia

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:47:02 GMT

In article <9095@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <lb29ffINN20c@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen):

>>No.  They did not spend our money, the spent their money.   Congressperson
>>A covered Congressperson B's check.  If you consider that your money, then
>>you must think that your money still belongs to your employer, even after
>>you receive it.  Wrong

>Yes.  They DID spend our money.  An ordinary bank invests its deposits.  The

But this IS NOT, WAS NOT, and NEVER WILL BE an ordinary bank.  It was
NOT A BANK.  Let me repeat that.  NOT A BANK.  It was simply all the
Congressmen pooling their money to make their lives easier.  It did not
pay interest.  It did not make car or mortgage loans.  It wasn't a bank.

>income from these investments goes to pay things like upkeep amd salaries.

>Since these deposits were not available to be invested, They were being
>used instead to cover the overdrafts, congress had to vote public money
>to cover the operation of the "bank".

This is a red herring, since they were NEVER available to be invested,
whether or not there was any overdrafts.  The operation of the bank was
paid for by the taxpayers, true.  Just as it always has been.  It's a
perk which you may or may not like, but the "bouncing" of checks didn't
change anything.

(How come the president never complains that the White House staff is
too big?  How come he never complains that he has a gym in the White
House for his own use?  Or a plane that flies him everywhere?)

>BTW, from my understanding of IRS code, such overdrafts constituted a form
>of interest free loans.  The IRS considers all the interest not paid to
>be form of income.  At the very least these guys should be investigated
>for tax fraud.

Well, they are being investigated...

However, very few people pay taxes on their credit cards -- even though
the credit cards give 20 day grace periods.  Very few people pay taxes
on their overdraft protection.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:15:58 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
: >In article <BuKF4I.HFz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
: >jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
: > 
: >...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.
: > 
: 
: 	I've heard this before, and it's a bit misleading. Didn't Reagan
: sign another S & L deregulation bill in 1982? Which one do you think is
: more responsible for the S & L's failure?

Neither one is as responsible for the failure as the S & L folks 
themselves....  Isn't it interesting that in this society, so much
effort is taken to deny responsibility when things go wrong, and
to take credit when things go right?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I deserve respect for the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 things I did not do."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                   

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:00:08 GMT

In article <3#4y6dc@rpi.edu>, blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.164731.8994@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
> |> [lots of good stuff deleted]
> |> 
> |> >	So what should we do in the meantime? Discriminate against
> |> >people with AIDS?
> |> >
> |> >				J. Wagner
> |> 
> |> How 'bout treating them like anyone else who has a deadly infectious
> |> disease. Naw can't do that.
> |> 
> |> 				mike
> 
> BZZT.
> 
> Infectious implies that by standing next to someone with a disease, I can
> contract it from them. In the case of AIDS this is FALSE. Too bad, really. I mean
> that you couldn't have read this the hundred or so times it's already been posted.
> 

So you're telling me that I can't get AIDS from my dentist and that any
infected dentist has a right to continue his practice without notifying
any patient?  Same goes for surgeons -- do you think that they have 
a right to operate on you without letting you know that they have AIDS?

That attituded is why AIDS is going to be the plague of the 21st century.

-- 
"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.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: UMCC
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:48:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.003934.5476@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <cluther.715298240@morticia> cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu (Clay Luther) writes:
>
>	[bush should have sent troops in early, deleted]
>
>>If Mr. Bush had done this, he would have been in deeper shit.  Every anti-
>>Bush critter would crawl out from the woodwork and proclaim Bush's total
>>disregard for states rights and federal law.
>
>	I don't think so. It would be hard to make the charges stick, since
>Bush would be acting soley for the good of the people, as opposed to personal

Hi Alex,

The left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth, it seems.

Those who slam Bush for sending troops to Florida, saying it is all for
personal gain, would not allow Bush to get away with a flagrant violation of
the Constitution. 

And there are also those who forget that Bush picked up 100% of the cost of
the Hugo disaster recovery effort as well, and that was certaily no election
year.


------------------////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\------------------
| Patrick Draper           Disclaimer:  I can't control my fingers,        |
| draper@umcc.ais.org                   I can't control my toes! - Ramones |
| University of Michigan                                                   |
| Computer Club                We are a nation of laws, not people         |
------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////------------------