HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:08:52 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:

>One other item I forgot to include in my last post is that the
>allegations about Clinton's help from his dead uncle come from
>none other than a former Republican candidate for Governor in
>Arkansas. Now there's a reliable ( not to mention unbiased )
>source. And another thing, why are the republicans always basing
>stories on the actions of dead people that can't speak for
>themselves? 

The draft board records are easily obtained.  That was where it was
evident that his delayed physical (10.5 months) was "special".
If it were nothing else but the word of a Republican, it would
certainly not be worth bringing up.  The LA Times must have thought
there was some validity to it or I doubt they would have run the
story.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:57:44 GMT

In article <92248.080841JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov
|> (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:
|> >
|> >I am sick to death of Republicans using crystal ball arguements (Bill Clintons
|> >X policy WILL cause y). These arguements are usually overly-simplistic, devoid
|> >of facts, in direct opposition to statements by experts, etc. Furthermore,
|> >Bush hasn't given us anything close to the detail necessary to decide if his
|> >"plan" is any better and he has had four years to do so.
|> >
|> 
|> Yeah, but there's a great Republican tradition of doing this:  remember
|> the "Laffer Curve" that brought us the trickle-down economics of the
|> 80's?  Simple concepts for simple brains - in this case Reagan's.
|> 
|> It's a con job.  It's a lie.  Call it either one - you'd be right.
|> 
|> Jeff Luck                              *Standard Disclaimer*
|> CES Systems Office
|> Penn State University            "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
|> JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                  -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988


The Laffer Curve simply stated said that once taxes exceeded a certain point revenue
went down.  Reagan believed that a tax cut would increase revenue.  The fed cut 
taxes and revenue went up that is a fact.  Debt went up to only because the fed
spent the increased revenue faster than it came in.

Congress has shown that regardless of revenue they will spend more.


fred

##############################################################################

He did inhale.  He lied about the draft.  He did sleep with Flowers. 
He did cheat on his wife.  He will raise taxes.  He will put people out of
work.  He is LIBERAL.

You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

Bush/Quale 92

Fred Seals

##############################################################################
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3209 alt.politics.bush:3147 talk.politics.misc:42271
From: sundar@fiber-one.ai.mit.edu (Sundar Narasimhan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Secretary of state Baker
Keywords: partisanship unemployment
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:38:47 GMT
Reply-To: sundar@ai.mit.edu
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

Speaking of Baker, can someone in the know regarding the 1980 
Campaign enlighten me as to his precise role vis-a-vis Carter's
notebooks before a debate with Ronald Reagan? (I saw a reference
to this in the TNR editorial last week and was curious).

IMHO, I'll personally never forgive Baker for what he did while
he was Treasury Sec. It's a pity Americans have such short political
memories.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:17:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <46931@shamash.cdc.com>, rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)
wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Aug27.181128.3547@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> |> > = (Rick Eames) writes:
> |> 
> |> [...]
> |> >Last night on PBS, I watched Gore say that they were going to tax the rich
> |> >(punish them) for doing well in the Reagan years.  
> |> 
> |> You know Rick, I'd like to read more of your ideas, but after you
> |> stop these baloney statements.
> 
> I watched Gore as well and he most definitely did not say anything of the sort.
> What he did say was that he was convinced that Bush/Quayle had the interest
> of the wealthiest Americans as their first priority.  He said that, based on
> their policies and their actions, Bush and Quayle would rather help the 
> privileged few become richer and more powerful than support the poor 
> and the middle class in their struggle to survive in this failing economy.

Horseshit.  He said that they wanted to increase the tax rate on the top 2%
because they did so well in the 80's and it was time to pay their "fair
share."  I have it on tape if you'd like a copy.  That is PUNISHING those
who become rich now.  

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4013 tx.politics:4793 alt.politics.bush:4055
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 4 Sep 1992 05:31:31 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <DYQBr*2W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

Basically, here Jim descends into the irrational....
>In article <17ttqmINN9fr@agate.berkeley.edu>, Andrew J. Lazarus writes:

>> Democrats didn't put a tax increase because they are Satanic (Buchanan
>> and the Quayle in-laws notwithstanding), but because they couldn't find
>> any other way to reduce the deficit -- AND NEITHER DID BUSH. However,

>The Democrat leadership couldn't care less about the deficit!  They wanted the
>tax increase so that they could embarrass the President by forcing him to break
>his promise.  (It worked.)

Besides being historically untrue, we can see this is silly. If it were
true, then Bush could have either (1) kept the Democratic spending
and said "but we don't even need new taxes to pay for it" OR (2)
kept to his no-new-taxes promise, and SAID WHAT SPENDING HE WANTED CUT.

Of course, in case (1) the deficit would have mushroomed. Do you
really think that the Demos only did this to embarrass Bush? Then
why did Bush go along? (Answer: because he had no clue how to cut
spending.)

I have now asked three times for you to list the spending cuts that Bush
asked Congress to make instead of raising taxes. You
have not done so, which I
understand, because there was no such list. I have also asked, three
times, for your personal list of spending cuts, with dollar amounts,
which you have been too busy criticizing the existence of any health
insurance programs at all to type in. In view of

>I'm tired of typing (great shouts of joy resound across usenet...)

I assume that your fingers wrote a check your brain couldn't cash.

andy
From: garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THIS GOVERNMENT IS BEING RUN BY A BUNCH OF NAZIS!!!
Keywords: aliens, clones, stollman, reagan, bush, clinton, invasion
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:25:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:

>In article <n1ln#0c.garys@netcom.com> garys@netcom.com (Gary Stollman) writes:
>>
>>I am Gary Stollman, the person who pulled the toy gun on Tv Consumer
>>Advocate David Horowitz on live television at the set of KNBC in 1987,
>>forcing him to read a statement on the air about how the CIA and aliens
>...
>[major weirdness about aliens, clones, Reagan deleted]
>>-- 
>>Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN

>	Please let this be a VERY bad joke!  If not, this fellow
>REALLY needs help.  Anybody who's read the postings on sci.research
>by V.I. Fabrikant just before he started shooting people knows what I
>mean.

>-- 

>Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
>rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
*****
It is a known fact about what I did, and I have told the truth.  Who are
YOU to tell me I need help??  Are you a trained clinical psychologist?? 
Do YOU know the difference between Pyschotic and Psychosis??  I don't
either, but I DID take a psychology class at TCC in 1981 in which I got a
"B"...And I ain't gonna run out and shoot people cause I know damn well
better!!  I am going to SUE THE PANTS OFF EM'!!!

-- 
Gary Stollman    Internet: garys@netcom.com     GEnie: G.STOLLMAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
          The world is your playground.  Keep it clean! 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: "Environmental" Clinton (Was: CNN/Crossfire)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:40:25 GMT

<In article <1992Aug27.155656.22740@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
<   >fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
<   >
<   >
<   >>Personally, I'm voting for Clinton not so much for Clinton (who is at
<   >>least as pro-business as Bush) but for Al Gore's environmental proposals.
<   >
<   >Hmmm. I'm not so sure you're going to get what you want. 
<   >
<   >The choice of Al Gore as Clinton's running mate was a rather deceptive move
<   >to create the illusion that Clinton would be as strong on foreign policy, the
<   >military and the environment as Gore is, claiming that he admires Gore's
<   >agenda. If you think Gore will have much of an effect on Slick Willie's
<   >presidency, then you may be in for a shock. 
<   >
<   I have no illusions about the extent of Clinton's probable agenda,
<   but I don't think it will be as bad as Bush's gutting of the Clean Air
<   Act. I hope not anyway: I have relatives in the Los Angeles area.
 
	Then you must know that the Air Quality Authority already
	in place in L.A. has much more stringent (and anti-business)
	regulations in place than were ever proposed in the Clean
	Air Act.


	Got any relatives who live downstream of the Arkansas
	chicken farms Clinton is so proud of?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:18:52 GMT

In article <vycBr*qV0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>Let's see if I can make it clearer for you.  Imagine a hypothetical press interview.
>(Hypothetical because the press won't press Slick Willie with any embarassing
>questions.  They want him to win.)
>
>
>[Slick Willie]
>  I am going to provide universal health insurance within 100 days of my
>  inauguration.  It won't even cost anything!  I'll just make business pay for it.
>
>[Press]
>  Yeah, free lunch indeed!  It is estimated that your health plan alone would
>  cost half of the entire profits of all the businesses in America!  I wonder
>  how many jobs that will cost?
>

The well-off are already receiving a free health care lunch with with
the current massive tax-subsidy program for health insurance.  The
health care industry through this tax-subsidy program is raiding the
public treasury of billions of dollars...the theft is akin to another
S&L scandal.  $100 billion dollars in public and private funds can
be saved by health care reform, and it is absolutely essential for
the competitiveness of American industry (other than the health care
industry, that is) that this be done.  Health care reform is the
single most important step that needs to be taken to bring the
federal budget into balance, and is the single most important step
to stimulate the US economy.  Bush's health care plan is a total
fraud, and Clinton's is really an inefficient half-measure.  If
the right doesn't seriously address the health care issue, they
are going to end up with a health care reform package from the
left that they don't like.   

>  What about your other programs?
>
>[SW]
>  I'm going the make the rich pay for them.
>
>[Press]
>  What was that again?  If you take all the assets of the "rich" it won't be
>  enough money (and there won't be many jobs left, either.)
>

Marginally better than Bush's plan which is "I'm going to borrow the
money to pay for them".

>[SW]
>  Oh, we'll take it out of the 'peace dividend' and spend it on...
>
>[Press]
>  What about the defense workers who will be unemployed?
>
>[SW]
>  Oh, we'll spend it on retraining.
>

Defense is going to be downsized...if you were a soon to be unemployed
defense worker, whom exactly would you trust to deliver a training
program.  The concerned of the worker isn't exactly how the program
is going to be paid for (Bush lies on the issue, at least Clinton is
honest about his training tax).  Clinton's plan does offer the
business the choice of deciding how to spend this money...
upgrading work force skills is essential to American competitiveness...
Clinton is basically telling business do it your way or you will 
force the government to have to do it.  Germany is not exactly
a basket case because of a similar training tax.

I would have much preferred Tsongas or Kemp to Clinton, but even
Slick Willie is preferable to Bush.

Gerald
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush and Baker
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:17:53 -0500
Summary: for pol important?
Keywords: State
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Once again, I raise the spectre of "trust".

It's a dangerous world out there, Bush tells us, no time for people w/o
experience.  This is one of those times I might agree w/him.

We have the stronger-than-ever Hussein, Haiti, the Middle East, Bosnia,
 and (as many seem to have forgotten) China out there to worry about.

Why then, is is at all prudent to withdraw our Secretary of State from his job
and turn it over to someone who says that he will not serve after January,
regardless of the election outcome?  

The Sec of State is, after the President, the individual with the greatest
impact on our foreign policy.  He (although it could be "she") is the person
involved in more of the detail work than the Pres, and (of late) has been the
one who sits down with other leaders to try to make the world safer, more
peaceful, more democratic (small d).

Let's say I ran a corporation, and you were my personnel director.  Your job
(in this scenario) includes dealing with labor relations, etc.  At the moment,
I am facing a possible ouster by someone else (a stockholder, takeover, what
have you).  I warn that the CEO should be able to deal with personnel,
including the very real danger of a strike.  Now, I take you out of your job to
help me to keep mine.

This is not a move that would inspire confidence in business.  Instead, it
would be seen as a very short-sighted and self-centered move.  Such a move, in
fact, might be a good reason for me to lose my job.

I submit that if foreign policy is as important as Bush gives lip-service to,
that allowing Baker to run his campaign instead of continue at State is a move
that shows that to GHWB, politics is more important than governing.
From: skrishna@cocoa-pebbles.ai.mit.edu (Sarath Krishnaswamy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:44:35 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:

|> I just noticed something. This whole election the Republicans have blamed
|> Congress for the deficit and the recession, Bush was just along for the 
|> ride. During the 80's, the growth we had was caused by Reagan. Why doesn't
|> Congress get credit for that? After all, if someone is going to flack
|> for when things go bad, why don't they get credit for when things go good?
|> I'm interested in hearing what the conservatives have to say about that.
|> 
|> -Garrett
|> Disclaimer: My opinions are my only my own.


More importantly (in my opinion), when are we going to elect a president who
will come out BEFOREHAND and say that he/she will _take_ the blame for the
nasty stuff?  I like Clinton's ideas and I'll almost certainly be voting for
him come November, but I'd feel a whole lot better about our political
leadership in general if he'd make the explicit promise to be totally responsible,
especially given that he'll have a majority Congress if elected (almost certainly).
I certainly wouldn't mind bringing the "buck stops here" sign back to the Oval Office.

I'm a little tired of this whole process of scrambling to find someone else to
lay the blame on at every setback or every policy failure.  I have no problem
voting for someone who claims to want to make changes; the economy is in fact
tough to understand or "fix" (even by economists, I imagine) and it makes sense
to try different types of fixes rather than stick to one which is clearly not working.
It would be nice to have the President be adult enough to come out and say "Well, we
tried to fix things but it didn't work, so we're going to look at the data and
devise a new hypothesis using the best ideas as our foundation."  I have this
nasty feeling in the back of my mind that each party has claimed a given style of
economic policy, and feels that to alter their basic approach in any way would be a
major sign of weakness.

On an only-slightly-related side note, it'd also be nice to have a candidate
acknowledge that there can't be any quick fixes to the economy or to American
competitiveness in general, and that maybe, just maybe, it might take longer than
the first hundred days of the administration to get things going again.  Heck,
maybe it'll take longer than a Presidential term.  Gosh, maybe we could get elected
officials to ignore term-related politics and plot some long term strategies...

Doubtful.


Sarath.

-- 
*********************************************************
*     Sarath Krishnaswamy                               *
*     MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory            *
*     545 Technology Square  room 828                   *
*     Cambridge, MA 02139      (617) 253-1513           *
*     skrishna@ai.mit.edu                               *
*********************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Spending comparison between Bush and Clinton
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:21:52 GMT

In 1990, Bush had to compromise with Congress by giving them 
$40 billion dollars in new domestic spending over 1991-93.  

Clinton plans on spending over $200 billion dollars on new 
domestic spending over 1993-1996.  

During the 1990 budget talks, Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert 
Byrd, a Democrat, was reported as telling Bush's budget director,
``You may not think you need me.  But there will be no [budget] 
agreement without me.''
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3593 tx.politics:4667
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:58:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <G8EAr*rU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.140434.3640@sun44.synercom.hounix.org>, Allan Maxwell writes:
>
>[lots of stuff deleted. . .]

>Don't you people know anything about how our government operates?  Every bill
>is a compromise.  Each side trades this for that to get what they want.  The
>President traded the tax increase to the Democrats to get something else that
>he wanted.  He now realizes that that was a grave mistake.  However, the tax
>increase was a DEMOCRAT idea forced upon the President by holding his other
>programs hostage.
>
>
>                                                Jim Pritchett
>
>

Jim, you missed the point again!  You are correct; compromise is the only
way to get most things done. If Bush knew how to lead, he could get what
he wanted in ways other than at the point of a gun (ala Noriega and SHussein).
Unfortunately for George, he is not allowed to force Congress to his wishes
at gunpoint, and since he seems unskilled in any other form of persuasion,
he can't manage Congress.  

	Judy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
Keywords: allegations, draft
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:18:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.144053.11873@bnr.ca> yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:
>One other item I forgot to include in my last post is that the
>allegations about Clinton's help from his dead uncle come from
>none other than a former Republican candidate for Governor in
>Arkansas. Now there's a reliable ( not to mention unbiased )
>source. And another thing, why are the republicans always basing
>stories on the actions of dead people that can't speak for
>themselves? 
>
>jeff.

We ought to keep in mind that the press and networks decided this
story about the actions of a dead person made a nice splashy
headline.  Not long ago, they jumped on that footnote about
allegations of a Bush affair--based on something said by a man
who is now dead.

Maybe Bush and Clinton need to say something new and substantial
to give the papers something to print that is worth reading.

----------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jones@fred.cis.udel.edu (Mark Jones)
Subject: Re: Intelligence issue
Keywords: brain power
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:07:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.123348.6260@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>We seem to hear a lot about "character issues" in elections.  Why is it that
>so few people seem to talk about intelligence issues?  
>

It is my understanding that Andre Marrou has challenged the other presidential
candidates to an intelligence test.  No takers to my knowledge.

-Mark
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3306 alt.politics.bush:3261
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 28 Aug 1992 02:46:38 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.021928.21270@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>A balanced budget occurs over time, not in a single leap from $250 billion
>deficit to instant balance. Congress has consistantly returned higher
>spending bills than executive-branch-originated to Bush for endorsement.

It has been observed on the net several times that in 8 years Congress
passed a smaller budget deficit than Reagan/Bush had proposed. Sure,
some of the spending bills have been higher. But their is no reason to
blame tthe OVERALL problem solely on Congress.

andy