HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Halcyon Predictions (was: Halcion
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:00:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban
Organization: Western Washington University

Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:

>In article <mjenkins.716221276@cunews>
>mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

>> Just recently there was a report in the papers from a psychiatrist or
>> a psychologist who claimed Bush was on a major downer, suffering from
>> clinical depression.

>Doesn't anyone know for sure? For something this important, it's
>worrisome.

	If nobody knows for sure, then you can be sure it's not true.  
If you want to know about Halcion, ask on sci.med, not on a .politics 
group where the only thing anyone knows for sure is that you are not 
going to get posts from anyone knowledgable.

	"a psychiatrist or a psychologist" has zero credibility as a
source, because if he were in a position to know for a fact what drugs
any particular person is taking, he would be in _no_ position to tell 
anyone about it.  

Followups to sci.med for questions on Halcion, and to dev/null for
flames.
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:11:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Mississippi State University

elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:

[Stuff deleted]

>The question I was addressing was your question of Clinton's factual
>errors vs Quayl's factual errors. You are objecting to Clinton's
>interpretation of those facts. When Quayl gets called to task by the
>press, it is because he gets his facts wrong. I re-posted the quote
>of Clinton to show that (1) Clinton got the facts right, and (2) he
>didn't omit any key facts. Contrast this with a classic Quayl quote
>like "there are canals on Mars." Clearly Quayl's level of ignorance
>puts him in a league of his own.
>					- Lee Campbell

HUH?  Are you joking?  I wouldn't know if there are canals on mars either,
(who really does, or CARES, or how does that affect running USA?).  I
submit that Quayle could hold his own one on one with Willie on any given
topic (without the press hollering, or interupting him every five minutes..
(see convention speech interuption)).  Bill Clinton blunders plenty,
Lincoln was at very least NOT 'called to service' and a Patriot missile
will NOT go 'down chimneys and through doorways'.  The Press has such a
zeal for trying to discredit Quayle that THEY screw up the facts to do it.

After Quayle pointed out that Bill was confusing a Patriot with a Cruise
missile I heard at least three commentators make statements like 'SEE..
Quayle messed up too, those are 'smart bombs' NOT cruise missiles that
do that!'...which is a bunch of crap...

'Smart bombs' DO go down chimneys, through doors..but they are bombs..not
missiles, the missile that is in the arsenal that does the same is indeed
called a 'cruise missile', since Clinton was talking missiles, a confusion 
with 'cruise' seems to be the obvious blunder.

Chad
l
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Just to keep things straight . . .
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:46:46 GMT

In article <CHRISF.92Sep11205523@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:

>>   Clinton's plan will raise maybe $15 to $20 billion (the top 3% earns about
>>   $300B and Clinton will take an additional 5%). In fact, it will be less
>>   than this since the added taxes will discourage the creation of wealth.

>Your statement that Clinton will raise "maybe $15 to $20 billion" takes a lot
>of force out of your arguement.  Got a source?

To extimate the wealth of the top 3% I took figures from the IRS on what
the top 4% make (which is 425 billion) and subtracted $100 billion to
eliminate the 1% Clinton claims he won't tax.

Take 5% of that (which is how much Clinton says he will raise their taxes)
and we get $15 B. Add another $5B for safety and you get the numbers I
give.

>>   $250 billion - $20 billion = $230 billion.

>>   Question: where does the other $230 billion come from?
>
>Wow!  You go further than Bush.  He said $230 billion - $150 billion.  Ever
>thought of giving some real numbers?

If you have specific numbers contradicting mine, post them. As to the rest
or it, what's your answer? Where is the extra $230B+ coming from?

>When the best you can do is make up numbers, you are stupid.


One thing about USENET, when the other side resorts to personal attacks
like that you know it's because they can't deal with your arguements.
It is far easier to insult your opponent than deal with his arguements.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------224 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 21:57:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.000005.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>, matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
> 
> LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
> 	   paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
> 	   and believes homosexuality is normal.

Please cite your reference for your definition.  *My* dictionary has something
quite different:
	(Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd. ed., 1978, pp. 813-4)
	... 1. orig., suitable for a freeman; not restricted ...
	2. giving freely, generous  3. large or plentiful; ample;
	abundant ... 4. ... not strict [a liberal interpretation of
	the Bible]  5. tolerant of views differing from one's own;
	broad-minded ...  6. of democratic or republican forms of
	government, as distinguished from monarchies, aristocracies,
	etc.  7. ... favoring political reforms tending toward demo-
	cracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive ...

So an anti-liberal like the person hiding behind the matrix address is (def.
1) restrictive; (def. 2) uncharitable, miserly; (def. 3) parsimonious; (def.
4) strict, repressive; 5) intolerant of views differing from his/her own,
narrow-minded; (def. 6) anti-democratic and anti-republican, preferring mon-
archical government to the form of government we have in the USA; (def. 7)
against democracy and personal freedom for individuals, possibly even in
favor of suppressing democracy and eliminating individual freedoms.  Lovely
person, the person hiding behind the matrix email address.  No wonder s/he's
hiding.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		        ------------+
|   You can choose to do housework or to do things.  I have chosen to do    |
|		things.					-- Anon.	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:04:31 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
: Dr. Norman Lefave writes:
:  
: >We have had 12 disasterous years due to these sheep. Ronald Reagan presented
: >them with flags, bombs bursting in air, mom, apple pie, and baseball and they
: >bought it hook, line, and sinker. The sad thing is that they have been the
: >ones to suffer the worst due to his policies and they are still falling for
: >these substance-less smokescreens. And now, here they are falling for
: >a brand new set of smokescreens.... (family-values, draft records,....).
: 
: Oh, really? 12 disastrous years? What country do you get your news from? 

The U.S, and its news media.  Of course, we all have heard what at least
one PhD on the net thinks of his local news media....
: 
: In the U.S., we started 1980 with 12% inflation, 20+% interest rates,
: unemployment nearly double what it is now, and a resurgent, aggressive
: USSR. 

According to my almanac, the unemployment rate for 1980 was 7.1%. Unless
things have changed dramatically in the past few days, without my noticing,
the current unemployment rate is not in the neighborhood of 3.5%.  I'm
pretty certain that the current rate is in the 6-7% neighborhood.  No
matter how you cut it, that is not nearly half of what it was in '80.

: Inflation is now essentially zero. Interest rates haven't been this low in
: decades. The only reason that we're having this recession now is that
: the democrats in congress (I capitalize neither "democrat" nor "congress",
: because they don't deserve the honor) enacted (yes, with George Bush's
: connivance) the biggest tax increase in history, which forced many
: businesses into bankruptcy and caused countless others to scale back. 

The low interest rates are not helpful to everyone.  They hurt
people (like Grandma, who makes us all apple pie?) who rely on
their savings and interest on that savings for their incomes.
And we can thank george bush (I capitalize neither "george" nor "bush",
because he doesn't deserve the honor, even though it is poor grammar
to do so) for this?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Anybody who knows Dan Quayle
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			knows he would rather play golf
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			than have sex any day."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Marilyn Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to....
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:05:22 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Someone somewhere asked why we never hear about Bush and his flag burning
amendment.
   The reason probably is that it is not an issue that discriminates the
two candidates.  Clinton signed an Arkansas law against burning the flag.
So Geo does not have the higher moral ground.
   I, personally, am disappointed in Bill.  But I guess he and I can't
agree on everything.  Guess no one is going to call him a card carrying
member of the ACLU.  Gee, I am cynical.               Melissa Brown

Clinton/Gore '92
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5247 talk.politics.misc:45226 alt.rush-limbaugh:4735 alt.politics.bush:4990 alt.politics.elections:13029
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.thlingon
Subject: Re: Election '92
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 14:10:06 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

> In article <1992Sep4.205813.15877@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.e
> >In article <1992Sep4.203926.1843@natinst.com> bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne)
> >>In article <RBQIWZ2@taronga.com> kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) wr
> >>>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
> >>>- Does anyone know where this came from:
> >>>-
> >>>-          If I fool you once, shame on me!
> >>>-          If I fool you twice, shame on you!
> >>>
> >>>   It's a bastardization of an old Klingon saying:
> >>>   "Fool me once, shame on you;  Fool me twice, prepare to die."
> >>>
> >>How can this be an "old" Klingon saying?  The Klingons won't exist for anot
> >>couple hundred years or so!
> >
> >     Yah? Yah? Well, how do you know Worf won't visit 1920's Earth
> >in a future of ST:TNG, like Captain Kirk did in one of the TV
> >shows? Huh?  And another thing-I liked the intro the way it used
> >to be, 'man,' not 'one.'  Sheesh. Like an alien is not a 'one.'
>
> Ooh, you forgot the season finale for ST:TNG!  They all travel back
> in time to around 1870.  Worf didn't go, I think, but Picard went,
> and he knows Klingon.
>
>
>
> --
> Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
> Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
>                       -- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"

Somehow, I'm trying to come up with a JDQ tie-in for this thread, but it eludes
me at the moment...



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:39:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <PA146008.274.716077157@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>     It would be nice, though, if the national television media occasionally
>acknowledged the *existance* of minor parties.  There's a big difference
>in "balanced" reporting you suggest and occasionally mentioning they
>are even out there.'
>     But it's their air-time, I suppose.


   Which is exactly the point.  

   Back in 1988 I called several networks to complain about lack of coverage 
   of the L.P.  They gave me all the usual stuff about "not enough people are
   interested", "too many bigger stories", etc.  Mostly a lot of BS, considering
   that they usually manage to find time for cutesy human interest stories about
   train engineers dressed up as Santa Claus and The World's Oldest Lobster. (etc)

   The truth of the matter is that it's their network and they can run whatever
   they want.   They're a business; they are beholding to their shareholders
   to run profitably, and to their customers (the advertisers) to provide a 
   large enough and sufficiently qualified audience to justify the rates they
   charge. 

   I agree it would be "nice" if they mentioned minor parties once in a
   while, but obviously they've decided that being "nice" doesn't pay the
   bills.


---peter

   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4793 alt.news-media:1222 talk.politics.misc:44631
From: shibumi@joes.garage.com (Kenton A. Hoover)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:51:12 GMT
Reply-To: shibumi@joes.garage.com
Organization: Joe's Garage, San Francisco, KA

mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
[general comments about pro-Clinton bias]

>No, I think its quite obvious from watching much of the network
>reporting, the Emmys, and the state of the US in general. I don't
>think its any kind of organized conspiracy to support Clinton, but its
>just the natural biases of the people making the decisions.

Molly Ivans gave some comments on pro-Clinton bias in the press in a talk 
she gave a few months ago.  She said that during the primaries, every time
a reporter got put on the Clinton 'bus', they would end the trip as a 'true
believer'.  She said that she started looking for pods on the bus.  She was
very skeptical of Clinton when he got rolling, but became something of a
true believer herself, over time.  But mainly due to an unwillingness to
accept another four years of Bush in the White House.

Offered as spoken, her views, not mine.

| Kenton A. Hoover                                                            |
| P.O. Box 882643                                             +1 415 957 3614 |
| San Francisco, Kalifornia 94188-2643                shibumi@joes.garage.com |
|==============442.075+100=146.850+=444.625+131.8=440.900+114.8===============|
|             Na Rusi rodnoy, na Rushi bol'shoi, nye byvat'vragu.             |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:41:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.140025.8343@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

|> The statement I made with regard to your double standard was based on the
|> post I commentied on.  You were saying something like, it doesn't matter
|> if Clinton skews the truth his way, because I agree with him and I think
|> Bush should burn in Hell for breathing today.  

	I'll bet that you don't even remember what I said, do you?

	I said that I thought that it didn't matter if Clinton dreamed
up his economic plan or if he copied it out of a book. I also said that
having people support his plan was desireable, even if he adopted it
from the people who now support it. Either way, he's pushing it and they
support it.

	The only time that I mentioned Bush was when I said that I didn't
think that Bush authored his stuff either, and I don't think that that is
a bad thing, that's what advisors are for. 

	I did critisize Bush for a lack of vision: IMHO he doesn't have
a clear vision for the future, and I don't think that his "go along, get
along" approch is the right one. Clinton, on the other hand, has a clear
vision of what he want to do, and his economic plan is consistant with that.

|> All this free advice!  If you keep giving this stuff away, us dumb
|> conservatives might just start winning a few arguemnets with you, Alex.

	In time. practice, practice, practice. You'll do better to wait
until '96, though: when there's less of a handicap.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:23:51 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep9.200608.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.213953.8710@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>  
>> One thing about our health care system.  It perhaps is true that we
>> excel at providing exotic, highly technical medicine, but we are
>> closer to the bottom among industrial nations in, say, infant mortality,
>                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> preventive care, and so on.  Preventing an illness before it gets
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> serious is generally cheaper, and our medical system tends not to
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> favor this approach to treating patients.  Doctors make more money
>> as specialists, treating the exotic.
>> 
>     What you say about about the tragedy of infant mortality in 
>the US is true.  The statistic would be even worse if you include
>the 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the US.  We could
>then modify one of your sentences to read: 
>
>     Preventing an unwanted pregnancy by birth control is generally
>     cheaper (in monetary and psychological terms) than having 
>     an abortion...
>
>So, I do agree with you -- responsible, preventative "medicine" 
>should be preferred over reactionary "treatment."

OK, I agree.  There are too many abortions.  You'll find many
pro-choice people who will agree, also.

So, what has the Bush Administration done to promote sex ed,
distribution of birth control, etc?



--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4264 tx.politics:4891
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:49:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <B2jDr*xX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <1992Sep03.223737.13040@NeoSoft.com>, Joe Mullally writes:
>
>> In article <qMQBr*0W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >      explain how a President can get a totally HOSTILE House leadership to
>> >do the right things?  The single most important goal of Speaker Foley and
>> >friends for the past four years has been to get the President out of office!
>> >How do you "lead" people like that?
>> 
>> 	Are you saying, then, that unless we can be sure a Republican
>> Congress will become reality, that we shouldn't vote for Bush, since,
>> after all, you say he can't lead our current pack? 
>
>No, of course not.  Someone has to restrain Foley and Company.  One thing is
>certain - Clinton won't!
>

Well, Wilson out in California seems to have gotten just what he
wanted out of a democratic state legislature. Seems that he's
looks quite a bit more Presidential than George does these days.
Sounds like 1996 is going to see the republicans return to their
"big business" roots when Wilson tries to run off all these
religious fanatics that have hy-jacked the party....
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 09:17:40 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The debates about health care
 <1992Sep12.024848.21222@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>

One problem with a huge deductible is that some studies show that
poorer people are very senstivie to health care costs.  I seem to
remember one study that showed a $5 co-payment reduced visits by
low-income people by 24%.  Your plan may solve that by including
the most important types of care in the government program, but
I'm leery of any deductible that doesn't take into account
economic circumstances.

In addition, the typical deductible in an emplyer plan has risen from
almost zero to $200 in the last decade.  Since that effect has had little
impact on costs, why should I believe that another $300 will?

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Content of Recycled Paper (Was Re: A Dearth of Jobs)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:37:23 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <acner3o@Unify.Com>, ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>  
> Oh, cdpert01 thinks s/he's a comedian.  S/he went to great lengths the other
               ^^^^^^
> day to inform me that s/he had intended to amuse.
> 
>
     I guess ceb@dbrus knows exactly what cdpert01 thinks.  I could 
pull a "ceb@dbrus" and ask you to "prove your statement" with
"at least two references," but I will not.  Cdpert01 also went
to great lengths with some substantive arguments, to which
ceb@dbrus has been deafly silent.  Cdpert01 believes
that one who has to continuously include "he/she"
in one's responses is not really addressing the issues,
but rather is more interested in personal attacks.  Nevertheless,
I hope you have a nice day -- I know I always do!

     cdpert01,  "President of the ceb@dbrus fan club  :-)"
                                                         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics