HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: None
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:57:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.060138.887@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>
>The Reagan era will soon bite the dust.  Unfortunately, the debt left 
>behind because of the Voodoo Economics practiced in the last 12 years 
>will not.  
Too bad in some ways...it was the longest peacetime expansion in history.

>It turns out that one thing even worse than the "tax and 
>spend" policies we had in the 1970's is the "borrow and spend" 
>policies of the 1980's and 1990's.  

Agree 100% with you - vote Perot - cutting spending and the deficit is
his primary goal.

>Frankly, it makes me mad to 
>realize that I will be paying HIGHER TAXES FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE to 
>make up for the debt run up in the years 1981-1992. 
The debt increases at $9,000 PER SECOND. Every American (man, woman and
child) owes about $20,000 as of now. It grows at the rate of about
$4 per day, per person. Take out $4 from your pocket and give it away.
Do this every day and you will realize how fast it adds up.

>Also irritating is the realization that the quadrupleing of the 
>national debt that occurred under Reagan and Bush's watch is now so 
>massive it is has become the country's 2nd biggest threat to the national 
>security. 

Lets not forget that the (democratically-controlled) Congress has to
approve ALL spending, revenue-raising, taxes. The President has no
power to spend money unless Congress gives it to him. Only the Congress
can borrow money and go into debt. Its in the Constitution (Article 1, 
sections 7,8).

Not that I don't blame the Administration some - where was their leadership
to encourage Congress to cut/slash spending and reduce the deficit? But I
hold Congress more to blame than the Administration.

If you truly blame the Administration 100% for the debt/deficit, then
go read the Constitution carefully.

Joe
joec@morgan.com



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17348 talk.politics.misc:52496 alt.conspiracy:11348
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Gore an Imposter!
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:19:18 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

In article <1birqmINN8k1@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
> labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche) writes:
> 
>>A few final comments:
>>Gore seems like he went to the Robert Tilton school of how to look
>>schmaltzy on TV.
> 
> Ah, so you've noticed.  We all know that much of PMRC's money came
> from religious right front organizations.  I think Gore is an
> imposter!  He's really a fundie!

Actually he is the High Priest of a Tennessee (sp?) based Mithraist cult.  All
of his moves are carefully planned to make him not look like one.  All except
his enviromentalist fanaticism, that is.  This exposes him as the Mithraist
that he is.
--Ray Cote 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:44:39 GMT

In article <FOX.92Oct14205851@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.193820.28066@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>   >>I looked at page 304 in Gore's book.  Quayle was right.
>   >
>   >CNN also reported this morning that the $100 billion figure on page 304
>   >refers to the cost of the World War II Marshal Plan, not Gore's
>   >environmental "Marshal" plan.  Gore was right.
>
>   But I thought Gore used "Marshal Plan" in the context that we should
>   dedicate the same amount of resources today on an environmental "Marshal(l?)
>   Plan" as we did on the WWII Marshal(l?) Plan.
>
>He was talking about a global effort, not a U.S. effort.

ABC News and CCN Special Assignment both reported on Quayle's numerous
misstatements and distortions tonight.  They note that there is nothing in
Gore's book to support this assertion about $100 billion.  Gore advocated
an international effort, with multiple participants, in which the US share
of the costs is not discussed.  Both news organizations found Quayle to be
playing fast and loose with the facts.

Guess you have to when you don't have  record.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: DEBATE: OPINION FROM AN UNDECIDED
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 23:54:53 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@delta.eng.umd.edu


In article <1bcv0bINNguo@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>Bush is famous for his blathering.  It would be nice if we could have
>a President capable of speaking in complete sentences. 

   While not speaking in complete sentences may grate on some people's
ears, it's far, far, more common for people not to speak in complete
sentences.   Sure George Bush ought to be better since he is a politician
and politicians ought to be able to speak well, but good public
speaking is something of a weakness for many Americans.   And, some
possibly don't care to learn to "speak properly".  I recall columnist
Carl Rowan (I think) offering scholarships to African Americans 
in writing essays and public speaking.  He wanted a positive way
of letting African Americans know that it's not wrong to want
to speak "correct English" (i.e., it shouldn't be thought of as
"white English").   It's also well known that Bush isn't exactly
very comfortable at debating.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rg9538@ehsn13.cen.uiuc.edu (Ronald E Garnett)
Subject: Re: Presidential debates. What time televised?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:29:38 GMT

wchen@oreo.berkeley.edu (William Chen) writes:

>Someone please post the times and dates for the presidential debates,
>or reply by email. 


>Thanks, 
>Bill


Me too!!  rg9538@ewshp.cen.uiuc.edu!!!


Either post or EMAIL me the debate times.
Please tell what time zone you are referring to!!!!



Much thanks,

George Bush


(heheeheehee... actually I really would like to know the
times!


Even more thanks,

Ron Garnett
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: More Corruption in the Executive Branch
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:06:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections

In article <1bk900INN4ul@overload.lbl.gov>, bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley
K. Sherman) wrote:

I see.  And the Democrat Congress doesn't use any of it's resources to hurt
the president in *favor* of Bill Clinton?  Uh Huh.
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
From: sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: After Debate Press Coverage
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:57:45 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1bfrisINN6pp@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>Does anyone else get sick of the after debate coverage that the press
>gives.  As soon as the debate is over, they tell you who won and who
>lost.  Why don't they let the American people figure it out for
>themselves instead of giving us their view?  Are we not smart enough to
>decide for ourselves what was said and who came out ahead because of it?  
>I'm not against press coverage, but I'd like to see them give the
>American people a couple hours to work it out for themselves and to be
>able to discuss the debate with family and friends before we get their
>viewpoint of it.
>
>Just a thought,
>

  And a very clever thought it is.   I think it was CNN that did a
bit on the pre and post debate coverage.  Among other degrading things,
they showed a newspaper editor from the San Fransisco Chronicle (?memory?)
saying that people will forget what they really thought and believe what
the press writes throughout the next day.  I'm sure he and the politicians
believe that.  Is he right?

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Veto Override
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:58:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.050303.23654@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>  If you haven't heard already, the Cable TV Re-regulation bill became the 
>first bill to be have a veto by President Bush overridden.  The votes were
>something like 75-24 (Senate) and 308-114 (House).
>
>  Any comments on possible effects on the upcoming election ?
>
>Greg 
>Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debat

	Hello. I think it could help President Bush since this will
take the 'but he's never been vetoed' excuse from the mouths of people
who would negate any of Bush's efforts as completely self-voluntary. This is
an example of a case when he overstepped his bounds and got vetoed. Why would
a president sign something he did not concede to? The Democrats would
reply before when told about the Republican's goal to eliminate spending
an taxation. Well, it becomes quite obvious that when there will be a veto,
politics can be played; one can sign one's soul to the devil for goods
rendered so to speak, and political bargains can be made.
	For example, many politicians will agree to sign another's pet bill if
in turn the other politicians will sign their own in their own time. This
works if the political goals are not mutually destructive. Bush had hoped
to be able to compromise with teh Democrats and that would give him the
bargaining power to further enact change. However, Democrats as we all
know are a very slick and two-faced breed; they have used these deals
and have not followed through on the trade. They bit the hand that
fed them. Now Bush is realizing their nature and does not trust them. I think
he was naive to ever trust a Democrat, but now he finally learns. Good.
All the more reason for people to vote for him.

			John

P.S. Say hello to Eric Shry for me, eh?
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Expectations??
Date: 16 Oct 1992 14:51:52 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <Bw6on8.65s@eis.calstate.edu> jpucket@eis.calstate.edu (James Gerard Puckett) writes:
>Just what do you people expect Bill Clinton to do when he gets in office??
>Just like every other democrat this nation has ever seen... he will add
>more "gift" programs to the budget.  This will cause him to have to call
>for a tax increase....
>
I just love this! making generalities based on the fact the Clinton
is a Democrat. Isn't that kinda like assuming that because Nixon had
the most corrupt administration this century that another Republican
(George Bush) will also have a corrupt administration...wait a minute,
maybe there *is* something to this...

John



Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Subject: Re: The only pre-election poll I trust...
Reply-To: labiche@crchh561.BNR.CA (Maurice LaBiche)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 21:03:50 GMT

In article <BvuuzL.1Fs@unx.sas.com>, rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com (Randy
Whitehead) writes:
|>
|>The poll conducted by _My_Weekly_Reader_ of children in grades 
|>Kindergarten through 6 has been released. It shows Mr. Bush
|>winning with 55% of the votes.
|>
|>The _Weekly_Reader_ poll has correctly predicted the outcomes 
|>of every presidential election since 1956.
|>
|>-- 
|>Randy Whitehead         And now, back to your regularly scheduled day...    
|>SAS Institute Inc.                     
|>rkw@unx.sas.com                        
|>     

Sadly the repuboNazis(paraphrased in rush limbaugh style) have to rely
on propagandized children to feel good about their choice in presidential
candidates.  Next we'll be subjected to polls of the unborn.
             
--------------------------------------
Maurice LaBiche   |   labiche@bnr.ca 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:29:56 GMT
Reply-To: pawlicki@kodak.com (Ted Pawlicki)

>|>Eric Sieferman :
>|>As soon as I am satisfied that
>|>no voucher (tax) money goes to religious schools, then
>|>I'll pay attention.            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>|         
>|Ted Pawlicki:
>|Look, the problem is education, not religion. The fact of the matter is
>|that a lot of religious schools do a very good job of education. Can't you
>|put your hatred of religion aside in the interest of quality education? 
>|Preoccupation with these kind of issues are one of the reasons that the US
>|educational system is in bad shape.
>
>Eric Sieferman :
>I don't hate religion, but I also don't want my tax dollars
>supporting it.  Fund your church yourself.  I refuse to fund
>it for you.

Certainly, you are the only one who can judge your own heart, but I
think that most people can detect hatred when they read it.
Senselessly oppossing a group or an insitution to the point where it
hurts society as a whole is a pretty good definition of hatred in my book.
One thing seems certain, however: you don`t seem to care much for education.
It is in society's interest that children learn to read. A lot of religions
run some very good schools. I am sorry that you don't like it, but welcome
to planet Earth. You can choose to ignore, you can even oppose this fact,
but you oppose it to the detriment of education in our society. Sending tax 
money to religious schools is a method of purchasing quality educational
services. Plain and simple. It is no more funding a religion than buying 
a sandwich from a Koser deli would be. I think that your quickness to equate 
a religion with a school run by a religion, and your inability to accept the
fact that religious schools can do a good job of education, shows where your
heart is at on this matter. 

Ted Pawlicki
pawlicki@kodak.com  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16823 alt.politics.bush:9182 alt.politics.clinton:10463 alt.politics.perot:2157
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Date: 14 Oct 1992 21:52:28 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <1bi2lfINNij6@fido.asd.sgi.com> root@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Super-User) writes:
>
> Quayle was right?!?!  This is patently false.  This also points out that
> the republican tactics seem to be working -- lie about something and
> eventually people will believe it.

YES!  The way that Quayle was jumping up and down I was sure that
he had caught Gore in a misstatement about his own book.  I couldn't
believe that Quayle would be so vociferous about something questionable.
But he was!

> Here is the sentence in question:
>
>	Charles Maier points out that the annual U.S. expenditures for
>	the Marshall Plan between 1948 and 1951 were close to 2 percent
>	of our GNP.  A similar percentage today would be almost $100
>	billion a year.
>
> CNN reported: "nowhere in the book does Gore propose $100 billion of 
> foreign aid for environmental projects.  [...]Gore writes that the money 
> the United States spent on the Marshall Plan to rescue post-World War II
> Europe would equal $100 billion a year today, but he does not urge
> spending that much now." [Knight-Ridder, 10/13/92]

Quayle was equally vehement about Gore flip-flopping on abortion,
but the evidence was a Gore letter to a constituent that said that
abortion was "arguably" the taking of a human life.  This implies
that it is open to discussion.

If these were Quayle's major points in the only head-to-head-to-head
meeting of the VP candidates, I would wonder not only about Quayle's
intellectual strength but about that of his debate coaches as well.

Unlike Stockdale, Quayle had been in the public eye for about 16 years.
There is no excuse for his pathetic performance.  Only those who
thought that he would pull a George Bush and vomit on the moderator's
$1000 alligator shoes were impressed.
----
    --Brad Sherman

When asked about his role in organizing an anti-war demonstration
in London 23 years ago, Bill Clinton stated that he was "out-of-
the-loop." The press found that an adequate response, and never
raised the issue again.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:29:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.141850.9611@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>So do I.  Unfortunately neither Bush or Clinton are.  Just from THEIR
>numbers which are over optimistic about the rate of recovery, IMHO,
>Bush's 300 billion deficit reduction really add up to a 70 billion
>deficit increase (surprise), Clintons numbers, as I have been saying all
>along, are even more optimistic that the Presidents and he ends up with
>an actual reduction in the deficit, not 130 billion as he states, but 10
>billion.  Perot is the only candidate whose numbers really add up to do
>what he says they will do.  Of course, none of these numbers include any
>type of projections of the cost of the impending banking crisis.

Clinton's numbers are not that badly wrong.  The 130 billion savings
(actually 142 billion) are GROSS CUTS, not deficit reduction.  The CNN story
you probably got your numbers from committed a glaring misrepresentation
on this point.  I haven't been able to find a statement of immediate
deficit reduction goals, although I have heard a goal to cut the deficit
in half by the end of his first term.  That goal is not represented in
his spending plan for next year.  Clinton believes (as he stated quite
well in St. Louis) that immediate large reductions in the deficit are a
bad idea; that is the primary difference between his position and Perot's.
-- 
Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: USA Today/CNN tracking poll 10/15
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:43:29 GMT

USA Today/CNN Tracking Poll:

P = Perot,  B = Bush,  C = Clinton,  x = other or undecided

                          % preference                          % plurality
      5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50   55    5   10   15   20
      |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|    |----|----|----|
 9/30 |xP                           B                C       |           o  
10/01 |x P                          B               C        |          o   
10/02 | xP                           B            C          |       o      
10/03 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/04 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/05 |   xP                         B        C              |   o          
10/06 |   xP                        B          C             |     o        
10/07 | x P                        B               C         |          o   
10/08 | x  P                       B              C          |         o    
10/09 |x   P                       B               C         |          o   
10/10 |x   P                      B                 C        |            o 
10/11 |x    P                     B                C         |           o  
10/12 | x    P                    B              C           |         o    
10/13 |  x   P                    B             C            |        o     
10/14 | x     P                    B           C             |      o       
10/15 |x        P                B              C            |         o    

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: 2 questions
From: Joelle Ann Mellon <jm7w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:57:01 -0400 
Organization: Senior, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

First, does anyone have a list of major canditiates for the presidency?
I know enough about the big 3 plus Marrou, but I'm really not strongly
commited towards anyone. (Except maybe strongly against Bush)

Second, just to watch out for something else that could throw a twist
into this years election, what are the chances that and elector would
vote against his candidate? I know it's illegal in some states, but not
all, if I recall? Does anyone have anything specific on this, like when
the last time it happened was and if anyone has said anything about the
possibility?

Danke.

-Robert Chesnavich
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:14:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.173557.12797@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>Just thinking...
>
>With President Bush now quite willing to debate, I miss the "Chicken" moniker.
>
>How about a replacement: "Tail-gunner George."
>
>Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
>
>OK, maybe it's "Torpedo-bomber George," but you get the point.

Pilot.  He was the pilot of an Avenger.

Actually, the tail-gunner of the Avenger flying in front of his
claimed that Bush bailed out prematurely when GHWB's plane was hit.
And Bush's story about his bail-out has changed a number of times.
Joy.



--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:19:43 EDT
From: <JCT3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle Should Be President

In article <1992Oct14.135531.1182@umr.edu>, jeff@don't.want.email says:
>
>The only bad thing about the fact that Bill Clinton will probably win (to
>my great dissappointment), is that Dan Quayle will not really have a
>chance to be president.  If George Bush wins, I think that Dan Quayle will
>be able to turn his image around and be one of the greatest presidents
>ever.
>
>If you look at the beliefs of Dan Quayle and his corresponding actions,
>you will find that he is a mirror of Abe Lincoln in modern times.

Dan Quayle?  Abe Lincoln?!?!?

Unlike Clinton, you obviously DID inhale . . .

Jim Thomas

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15724 talk.politics.misc:50416 alt.conspiracy:11088 sci.skeptic:17691