HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:49:07 GMT

In article <21.X92001@ramona.com> jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) writes:
>Los Angeles (UPI) - This morning, in a speech to Southern California
>aircraft workers, President George Bush announced the sale of 50
>ultra-tech F-15E fighter planes to Iraq. The fleet will replace Iraq's
>air force which was stolen by Iran during the Gulf War. Each plane
>will be delivered with a complimentary, specially-tooled version of
>The Club anti-theft device. "I want to be the Jobs President," said Bush
>to the cheering throng.

Cute.  One problem though.  Final assembly for the F-15E's is right here
at McDonnell-Douglas in St. Louis.  If Bush made this announcement to
Southern California aircraft workers, us people in St. Louis would feel
mightily snubbed.

Back to reality, when Bush spoke here last week, people were hoping he
would announce the approval of F-15E sales to Saudi Arabia.  He didn't,
and people were surprised.

If you're wondering, yes, I used to work there.  On the A-12.  You
remember, the program Cheney cancelled just before the Gulf War started.
Guess what happened to my job?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Yet another wager for the cowardly
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:27:31 GMT

Since no one had the courage of their purported convictions to take me up
on my first bet, I'll withdraw it and make a simpler one.
 
Clinton's ads promise three things:
 
1. 20 Million new jobs
2. People making over $200,000/year pay more
3. Everyone else pays less.
 
Who'll bet their hard earned cash on these promises? My $20 says he's lying.
Give me 5:1 odds and I'll bet that we have a higher unemployment rate in four
years than today, that Clinton will have raised taxes on people making
less than $200,000 dollars *twice*, and that the federal debt will be
higher in four years than it is today, both nominally and as %GNP.
 
Now, if you believe Clinton, sounds like the risk of losing $100 is
nil, and you can make an easy $20, right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:20:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.204314.20423@dale.ksc.nasa.gov>
sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
 
>
>  The fact that people vote from their wallets is nothing new.  The assertion
>that Carter single-handedly doubled inflation and unemployment is the subject
>of many debates.  Personally, I don't think Carter deserved all of the blame
>for stagflation any more than I blame Bush for our current economic woes.  But
>at least Carter took personal responsibility for the failings of his
>administration; he could teach Bush a few lessons in decency, if nothing else.
 
Well, I *do* blame both of them. But personal responsibility just isn't
hip anymore.
>
>> The "October Surprise" argument is pure bullshit, an attempt to criminalize
>> any and all acts by a non-Democratic executive branch.
>
>  The Iran Hostage crisis was one of the major issues of the 1980 campaign,
>along with the economy.  Can you explain why Reagan authorized the first
>shipment of arms to Iran in March of 1981, less than two months after he took
>office?
>
In the sense that Jimmy was unable to do anything about international
events. But Bush has been outstandingly sucessful internationally and
yet the economy is the only real campaign issue. Economics is trump.
 
We all know the arms shipment was an attempt to deal with what we thought
were the "moderate" elements in Iran and to play them against the clerics.
But it didn't work, did it? You may also recall that Reagan had the then
ex-president Carter go to meet the released Hostages in what was a very
generous gesture, letting Jimmy take some of the credit for their release.
 
You've got the argument backwards. The question is not why the release was
"delayed", but why it happened at all? A little reading shows that Carter
was completely impotent in all internation affairs. The Carter era was
the era of US impotence, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan knowing full
well that the US would not act. Similar events took place around the world.
Reagan had a very different plan, and he made it well known. The hostages were
released before Reagan acted unilaterally, allowing the Iranians to save
face. Before you can talk about a mythical "delay" you have to establish
why the Iranians would have considered releasing the hostages to an impotent
President like Carter in the first place- which you cannot do.
 
That's why all the "October Surprise" arguments eventually fall apart- they
start by assuming there was a "delay" without justifying why Iran would
have reacted to a weakling president.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: A positive agenda from conservatives (was Re: Clinton's plan )
Organization: nope
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:37:07 GMT

In article <17gviqINNc54@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.022654.5849@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>Someone else wrote
>|>On the other hand, the nuclear industry has been handed liability
>|>limitation on a silver platter.  If you favor market approaches,
>|>let's remove these limits so that the nuclear industry has to
>|>put up full liability insurance or bond obtained in a free market.
>|>My guess is that will strangle the industry as well.
>
>>No other industry has unlimited liability.  (GM's liability is limited
>>to its assets.)  Why should the nuke industry be any different?
>
>That's easy. (Was this a quiz?) The potential damage to tangible asset
>ratio is probably higher for nuclear power than anything else imaginable
>(maybe toxic chemical manufacturing plants.)

If it's so easy, then why did Lazarus get it wrong?  (Hint: it's bad
form to suggest a rule and a counter-example in the same sentence;
the rule obviously isn't much good.)

There are a number of industries that could kill EVERYONE in NYC and
those industries are located in NYC.  Modern nuke plants don't have
that potential, if only because they aren't in NYC, and Lazarus thinks
that the nuke folks are getting free ride.

Sure, nuke plant incidents could make some land unlivable for the
forseeable future; there's nothing unique about that.

>Inciidentally, do you have any proof tht GM's liability is limited by
>its assets? Surely they have various types of insurance as well: it is
>limited by the sum of its own assets and those of its insurers.

GM mostly self-insures.  Its liabilities are limited by the sum of its
assets and the value of its insurance (not the ASSETS of its
insurers), and that's still a FINITE amount.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12072 talk.politics.misc:43037
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: GOP violates Constitution
Date: 1 Sep 1992 02:24:30 GMT
Organization: United States of America
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America states:
  ...
    The senators and representatives beforementioned, and the members
  of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
  officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
  be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but
  no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
  office or public trust under the United States

The Republican Convention was treasonous.  Bush's continued embrace
with the religious right is dangerous to the survival of the union.
That Buchanan was not denounced for his viciousness and small-
mindedness is sufficient proof that parlous forces are being unleashed
by the GOP.

The defections of conservatives such as George Will and William
Safire show the execrable orthodoxy of Houston.  Even the snarling
Robert Novak is having problems stomaching this exclusionary and anti-
democratic trend.  Other thoughtful conservatives should think long
and hard about endorsing a Republican party that would allow the
spectre of religious strife to haunt our nation.
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

  As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government
  to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of
  no other business which government hath to do therewith.
    --Tom Paine
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:58:02 GMT

In article <1684FDA90.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>,
 MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
    :::::
  [discussions of the insolvency of Social Security deleted]
    :::::
> 
>The only way around this ponzi scheme is to limit payouts by raising
>the age of eligibility, eliminating or reducing the minimum benifit, or
>taxing the deferred retirement accounts of those who have planned ahead.
>None is particularly politic to do.

  There is another way!  It may be almost as difficult politically,
but the numbers work.  The proposal has been floated for about the
last 10 years or so by various groups, most recently the Libertarians
through their presidential candidate (Andre Marrou).  Very simply, it
consists of privatizing the system.  Those currently receiving
payments continue to receive them until they die; those within X years
of retirement (X is usually 10, but it varies) have an option between
receiving a lump-sum payment of what they've paid into the system or
retiring on SS and receiving payments as current retirees; and the
rest of us receive a lump-sum payment of what we've paid in and have
no option to ever receive SS payments.  Some proposals require that
the lump-sum payments be placed into a special "Personal Retirement
Account".  There are numerous details, such as whether to limit the
payments to new (within X years) retirees, and what to do with the
current payroll tax (usually, it's required to be placed into that
"Personal Retirement Account" mentioned above), but otherwise all of
the proposals are substantially identical.
  Since this is a one-shot expense, it can be funded by something that
can't be used for ongoing government operations: asset sales.  I'm not
referring to national parks here!  The government owns many billions
of dollars worth of land and buildings that could be sold to finance
such a system; if spread over several years to minimize disruptions in
the real estate market, even selling a small fraction of such holdings
would finance a "payoff" of the SS system.
  I don't claim that Mr. Marrou endorses every detail that I've
described above, only that his proposal is substantially similar to
the general approach described.  The best short analysis and
presentation of the idea that I've seen was a booklet distributed by
the Freeman Institute in the early 80s; they've changed their name and
are now called (I think) the National Center for Constitutional
Studies, or something like that.  Don't know if they still have the
Social Security Reform pamphlet available......
--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Subject: Bush on Education
Organization: NASA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:10:43 GMT


  I have only one question regarding Bush's "school choice" plan for improving  
our education system.  If it was such a good idea, then why didn't he propose  
it in 1989, instead of waiting until the next election year? 

  School choice could prove to be workable, but it would represent a _major_  
change from the way we've approached education for most of the century.   
Changes like this should not be made overnight, especially in the shadow of an  
upcoming election.  This decision should be subject to a proper amount of  
debate, with plenty of time to explore as many ramifications as possible.  I'm  
not sure if even a Republican-dominated Congress would pass such a measure as  
quickly as Bush would suggest.  The President's timing on this proposal only  
makes it look like an election year gimmick.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12010 talk.politics.misc:42946
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 31 Aug 92 09:08:12
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<92243.163225SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
	<1992Aug30.224700.15365@oracle.us.oracle.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mfriedma@uucp's message of Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:47:00 GMT

=o= Please note the new and improved "Newsgroups" header.  When
a thread has nothing to do with activism, there's no reason to
cross-post it to alt.activism, even if it started there.  Folks
in talk.politics.misc should, out of rather basic courtesy, make
sure that they're not cross-posting inappropriately.

>> Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
>> Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
>> Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...
> Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I
> just love the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to
> pretend that their idol always tells the truth.

=o= Read it again.  The 327 figure is *by* *Bush's* *criteria*.
To present a calculation *by* *Bush's* *criteria* as being *by*
*Bush's* *criteria* is not telling a lie, it's pointing out the
inadequacy of Bush's criteria.

=o= One needn't idolize Clinton (I certainly don't) to parse
this correctly; one needs only to use one's brain.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Flowers Question
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:46:56 GMT

In article <16854840B.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <Btt001.8KA.2@cs.cmu.edu>
>dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <athos-280892123302@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>>>Q: Did you sleep with Gennifer Flowers?
>>>A: Her story is not true.  I didn't have a 12 year affair with her.  I had
>>>   some problems with my marriage.
>>>Translation: Yes I did.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Rick Eames
>>>athos@apple.com
>>>My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
>>
>>No,
>>Translation: I had an affair with someone, but it wasn't her.
>>
>>david redish
> 
>Whichever gloss is correct, we might consider H. Ross Perot's remark when
>he was asked if it was true if he investigated top executives to see if they
>cheated on their wives: "If their own wives can't trust them, how can I?"
>          --mike

Why don't you ask Hilary Clinton if she trusts her husband?

I think that if you saw the interview they did, then you
would have to say that whatever happened is between them
and settled.  Perot's snooping into 
the private lives of his employees is one
of the main reasons why I would never vote for him.

Most of the best presidents we have ever had have had 
mistresses, some of them in them in the White House.

david redish

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci)
Subject: Re: Health Care & Canada
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:23:09 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>The two arguments put forward for Canada's health care system are
> 
>1. It has lower administrative costs
> 
>2. It covers everyone.
> 
>Seldom is it argued that it provides superior health care. The facts
>dictate otherwise.
> 
>Costs are lower than for US health care coverage for two reasons: First,
>Canada has a younger population. That accounts for perhaps 30-40% of the
>variance. Older people need more health care. Second, Canada limits costs

Where do you get your data?  According to the 1990 US Statistical Abstract
in 1989 the population of the US and Canada were:
			   1989			Projected 2000
			US	Canada		US	Canada
Under 5 years old	7.5	7.2		6.4	5.9
5 to 14			14.1	13.8		13.9	13.1
15-64			66.0	67.7		66.8	68.0
over 64			12.4	11.3		12.9	13.1

Life expectancy		75.4	77.2		76.7	79.3
(at birth)		

Infant mortality	11	7		10	5
(Number of deaths
 under 1 year per
 1000 live births)

Seems to me that Canadians have similar demographics and instead 
live longer, and have fewer infant deaths and the differences are increasing. 
There goes 30-40% of your argument.  Shall we look at the rest of
your argument? :-)

>by simply limiting health care. That's the secret. If you're 65 and need
>heart surgery, you just don't get it. You die. The Detroit Medical
>Center, down the road from my office, has an unbelieveably high percentage
>of Canadians who are taking advantage of the loophole that pays for any
>and all medical care for Canadians abroad.
> 
>Hospitals in Canada have strict limits on the number of procedures of a
>given type that can be performed per year. Doctors are similarly limited.
>There was a piece on CBC radio last month on an Ob-Gyn who had been banned
>from delivering any more babies at a certain hospital- he was going over
>his limit. Of course, women wanted him to do their deliveries and early
>child care, but the government said no.
> 
>If you'd like a preview of what universal government-controlled health
>care would be like in this country, look at the existing system: The
>Veteran's Administration's medical care system.
> 
>Instead of destroying a system that works very well, who not simply
>propose limited, subsidized health care insurance for the working poor
>not currently covered? The non-working poor are already covered, and most
>working people have some coverage.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:32:07 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <adams.715007831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>jacksonk@aaron.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>
@ In article <1992Aug27.011842.28335@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

	[TV evangelist and political activist Pat Robertson:]

@ >Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family,
@ >political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands,
@ >kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
@ >become lesbians."

@ I can see how he could get "kill their children" from his pro-life
@ (anti-choice) stance, but where the hell does he get "practice witchcraft?"
@ Anyone got a clue into this idiot's mind?

>According to many evangelicals, and 99.99% of the fundamentalists, "New
>Age" is witchcraft, allong with Wicca, etc.  Any 'pagan' rituals would
>likely fall under this.  Biblically, he'll point out the warnings against
>astrologers, etc.

	I'm surprised that he didn't go through the roof when it
turned out that Nancy Reagan was arranging her husband's schedule --
with its ridiculously large fraction of unlucky days -- by consulting
an astrologer. And also, when it turned out that she had White House
staffers cover it all up.

	As to Fundie intolerance, let us not forget that these fellows
are traditionally anti-Catholic, also. They usually believe Catholic
ritual to be riddled with idolatry, and some of them have considered
the Vatican a hostile foreign power bent on world domination.

>He's missed a MAJOR part of the message: love and tolerance.  Heck, Jesus
>hung around with 'tax collectors and sinners.'  And he also commanded us to
>love our enemies.  "Do not even the pagans love their friends"...

	I've always suspected a lot of Jesus Christ's teachings to be
Politically Incorrect by many common standards of Political
Correctness. I confess I don't agree with a number of them myself.

>He's hung up on the idea that God has somehow ordered a Christian Govt. for
>the US (and the world) when the Bible says no such thing.  But, alas, you
>won't get most evangelicals or fundamentalists to admit this.

	The Bible doesn't even mention the nation we live in.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Bush and Clinton Character Issue
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:12:59 GMT

DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>What can be a greater measure of a mans character than his honesty?
>I think nothing can, so who is the greater perpetrator of flasehoods,
>Bush or Clinton?  ...I'm soliciting examples, quotes, and facts.


We have it from Barbara's convention speech that her hubby has never told
a lie. 

By the way, is that really her picture on the dollar bill?

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: dorham_r@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: A CANIDATE FOR 96'
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:30:32 EDT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC



It seems that I have read someplace about another canidate that is not

getting any media attention...I wonder why?  I think that it could be that

he is not caught up in the media war, and is just interested in the American

people.  His name is David Link, and I will post more info as I come across

it.  
	If he can't win in 92, then maybe in 96'




		Link in 96'