HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Hold on to your wallet!
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:55:53 GMT

What do you and people making over $200,000 a year have in common?



You'll all be paying more in taxes during a Clinton administration!

Tonight on CNN's Crossfire Robert Novak asked senior Clinton campaign
advisor Frank Greer point blank THREE times "Will Bill Clinton guarantee
people making under $200,000 a year that they will not have their taxes
raised during a Clinton administration?"  He ducked the question THREE
times when all it required was a simple yes or no.  What's the Clinton
campaign trying to hide?  Better hold on to your wallet, there's some
'slick' fingers trying to grab it!

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       "I'm not a Bush supporter, I just can't         | These pontifications
             can't stand Clinton." - me                |      are my own!
From: Buck Godot <bgodot@halcyon.com>
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Originator: bbs@halcyon.com
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 09:04:09 GMT

> : Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
> 
> Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
> write bad checks?
> 

 
 but, the checks WERN'T bad, the house bank honored them.
 
 they didn't do anything illegal there.

 
  I wouldn't even consider it immoral... at least, no more immoral than 
their HUGE paychecks!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:43:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.222612.16163@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.192329.28707@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Let's try the obvious experiment.  We'll let the experts from Canada
>>run health care in NYC, DC, Chicago, and/or LA.  They get to pay for
>>it using whatever money they can extract from the region covered,
>>which won't kick in for health care costs for other regions.  (If the
>>Canadian system doesn't allow tax deductions for medical payments,
>>they disappear in the region, but if the system uses taxes, so can
>>they.  In other words, they can set up the same paying system.)  We're
>>promised savings, so let's see the system pay for itself in the US.
>>Note that the experts don't get to change the malpractice system
>>and have to do it with the populations in those regions.
>>
>>Since those regions have more people than many of the countries that
>>are so successful, they're obviously big enough.
>
>Such an experiment exists in the United States...a crude type of pay-or
>play is in place in Hawaii.  Better health outcomes and lower costs
>are the result.

"Better health outcomes and lower costs" were true in Hawaii BEFORE
the experiment, so it is somewhat strange to call them a result.

BTW - if we believe that the Hawaii experience is conclusive, there's
no reason for a national program.  Let 51 flowers bloom.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:51:28 GMT

In article <FOX.92Sep14052257@graphics.nyu.edu>
fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
 
>
>But consider, what could have persuaded the banks to grant all
>this credit?  It was a combination of three things:
>
>        1. Cheap federal guarantees of virtually all bank deposits
 
Not quite true. Only individual demand deposits are guarenteed, and only up
to a certain level. But it is true that federal guarentees at below market
rates are a destabilizing influence.
 
>        2. Removal of most regulation of the banking business
 
Nope. Didn't happen.
 
>        3. Refusal to enforce the few remaining regulations
>
Wrong again. Can you cite *any* sort of evidence whatsoever?
 
>This produced the feeding frenzy we called the 1980s.
 
Also no such thing. The "frenzy" of the 1980s gave us a record number
of new business starts, with many of the largest (Sprint, Turner Cable)
financed through non-traditional- i.e., non-bank- means. This in turn
helped fuel the tremendous growth in jobs.
 
Are you sure you're talking about banks?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4280 talk.politics.misc:44052 alt.politics.clinton:4270 alt.politics.elections:12562
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:04:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

> The fact that the trial lawyers are overwhelming supporting Clinton
> and putting huge amounts of money into his campaign.

It seems to me like the last time I saw actual numbers on this, Bush
led Clinton in number of dollars raised from trial lawyers.  Of
course, that report was about a month ago and may be out of date.
Does anyone have more recent numbers to back up or refute this claim?

--Scott
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5283 alt.politics.elections:13250 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3820 talk.politics.guns:21005 talk.politics.misc:45685
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:41:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Sep15.161152.11305@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu
(Kent Williams) writes:
>In general, I don't believe people need to own guns, especially
>handguns.

Aside from the fact that it's not the government's business to determine
whether we "need" various machines, guns are an effective means of defending
yourself...especially handguns.

>I'm not sure how far I would go in restricting access to
>them if it was up to me, but the NRA position is cynical and self
>serving.  Guns are big business.  Many of the people involved in the
>NRA manufacture, sell or trade guns. People stand to lose money if we
>as a society try to limit gun ownership in some rational way.  We'll
>never resolve what the rational limits to gun ownership should be
>because the NRA is such a powerful lobby against any limits to gun
>ownership.

Gun control, at the state and city level, has already gone beyond the
rational, keeping violent felons and mental defectives from buying guns,
and has been extended to perfectly decent people with no record of
violence or mental disturbance.  Some of those laws should be revoked.

>Guns engender violence.  Fights that used to be settled with fists and
>bandaids are now being settled with bullets and funerals.  

Speak for yourself, buddy.  I've spent some time practicing various
martial arts without settling an argument with my fists; I've also
been a gun owner for several years without hurting myself or anybody
else.

A gun isn't doesn't possess ordinary people, inspiring them to shoot
family members; a gun doesn't creep into your bed at night and say
"Kill the bastard".  A gun is a brainless construct of metal and
explosives that puts a hole in what you point it at.

>There has to be a better way than the status quo, but no one on the
>pro gun side seems to want to find it.

Maybe that's because we have our hands full, dealing with the idiots
who think no one should be allowed to own a gun?

    don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To quote James Wright:
    "Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter
    gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds.  I have
    nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom
    I have come in contact over the past years.  They are, for the most part, 
    sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to
    reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized
    person must share.  I have, however, come to be convinced that they are
    barking up the wrong tree."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: michael@adriaan.bu.edu (Michael Chaplin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:52:03 GMT
	<JASON.92Sep8151229@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> <pjs7us@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>
	<JASON.92Sep9113133@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Boston University
In-reply-to: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov's message of 9 Sep 92 16:31:33 GMT

In article <JASON.92Sep9113133@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

  =Look at the facts.  Bush and Reagan has vetoed bill after bill
  =in an attempt to stop the growth of the government.  The Conservative
  =ideal is keeping government out of the individual's life and out of
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  =business.  

I suppose that's why Bush has (since 1980) been
"pro-life/anti-choice". Get with it. The (now) few republicans
who truly want less intereference in *both* individual life
*and* business certainly have nothing to look forward to
in another 4 years of Bush. He's *far* short of representing the
ideal you've set up, as is Quayle. 

One wonders if he truly admires the Chinese for the way 
they've (so far) been able to free up
their trade w/o giving two shits for civil liberties and individual
freedoms. Given his tenure there, and the way China has been treated,
it certainly gives one pause for thought.

As for attempting to stop the growth of gov't, ask somebody
explain to you how we went from stupid tax and spend policies under
Carter to even more stupid borrow and spend policies under
Reagan; who is it that's now expected to pay for these policies,
and what effect it has had on the growth of gov't.

P.S. Bashing a Democratic Congress doesn't count. Neither Bush Nor
Reagan ever submitted a balanced budget.

Chaplin. 

P.P.S. Politics is fine, but leave it out of alt.fan.dan-quayle.
Unless he *really* pulled *another* gaffe.

--
===========================================================================
Michael Chaplin                    Language is a virus from outer space.
michael@albert.bu.edu                     - William S. Burroughs

The Einstein Papers Project        The opinions contained herein reflect
Boston University                      neither those of the project, 
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.          nor those of Albert Einstein.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Clinton's anti-Vietnam efforts
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:59:38 GMT

In a previous article, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) wrote:
>>>> If all these things are true, wouldn't such a
>>>> man have thrown himself into the forefront of the anti-war movement and
>>>> demonstrated what a great leader he was?

In article <7SEP92.16220722@vax.clarku.edu>, htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>> What are the facts regarding Clinton's involvement with the anti-war 
>>> movement? Is it certain that he didn't partake in it to any degree?

In article <1992Sep8.171807.9359@ll.mit.edu>, ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba) writes...
>>   For the record, and a bit of care in such records is often lacking in
>>posts seen here, here's a relevant piece from Clinton's 1969 letter to
>>Col. Holmes:
>> 
>>[A very revealing and informative letter deleted]

In article <1992Sep8.222025.5725@ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>Thanks for posting that letter.  I'm a Clinton supporter anyway, but it
>was nice reading this letter because it reveals the extent of Clinton's
>character, at a time when the Republican wackos are having a field
>day with the draft issue.   You know it always amazes me that people 
>come up with opinions of other people without knowing the complete story.

  It's Clinton's fault if the public doesn't have his whole story
concerning the draft.  For the last week the major networks were prepared
to throw his responses at the top of the news, but all he could do is
answer with "I have no comments to make on that subject".

>The republicans speak of a liberal media bias, but the truth is the
>mainstream media doesn't do a very good job of reporting the news
>indepth on either side.  It's too bad, but it probably doesn't matter
>anyway, since the majority of the voting masses are nitwits to begin with.
>(Explains how Reagan and Bush got elected in the first place)

  Ooooo!  Sounds pretty elitist to me.  I guess next you'll be saying that
nitwits shouldn't be allowed to vote (actually, I agree with you - most
voters are pretty ignorant on the issues {:^) ).

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, judging by his outlandish attire, he's some sort | These pontifications
of free-thinking anarchist." - Charles Montgomery Burns |      are my own!    
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4357 alt.rush-limbaugh:4356 alt.politics.elections:12609
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Get ready ('cause here I come)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:21:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

bx822@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ben Hansen) writes:
-In a previous article, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
Someone else said:
->>Bill Clinton is not the perfect candidate but George Bush is a 
->>proven failure.  Bill Clinton will probaably not do anything 
->>effective about the deficit, but George Bush will definitely not.
->
->Probably? PROBABLY? How in the world do you even have a hope that Clinton
->will balance the budget, tax the rich, cut defense, boost existing
->entitlement programs, create a new health care program, increase funding
->for AIDS research, and pour money into the Washington bureaucracy
->simaltaneously? P.J. O'Rourke was right: Santa Claus is a Democrat!
-
-By the process of elimination. George Bush has proved he cannot do
-anything with a Democratic-controlled Congress. The Congress is not
-going to change this election. He expressed no interest in doing
-anything until his political butt was on the line. He has promised
-us real action, after we re-elect him. Specifics to be made public
-later. George Bush is now traveling around the country making Santa
-Claus look like a piker. Don't worry. I wasn't being facetious. 
-George Bush said he would do whatever it takes to get re-elected
-and he meant it literally. It will work too. I'll vote against him
-and you can vote for him, but four years from now he'll be back
-whining about how nothing is his fault, Congress wouldn't pass his
-bills. Why do you look forward to four more years of gridlock?

Well if 100 new members of Congress means Congress won't change, then
I don't know what is.

No one remembers Ron Brown of the DNC saying regarding this election,
"We [the Democrats] don't care if we're right, we want to win." Why
doesn't that surprise me.

As for why I could look forward to four more years of gridlock, it's a
lot better than four years of quick changes for the worst and making
this government nothing more than a self-perpetuating entitlement program,
the new American deity from which everyone wants everything.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4222 alt.politics.elections:12518 alt.politics.clinton:4206
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:43:09 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>>
>>>And again this silly claim that spending money is going to help the economy!
>>>We know this is ridiculous for a number of reasons. For one, we know that
>>>spending doesn't improve education. That's been established by many studies.
>>
>>Spending money certainly does improve education.  Not spending it randomly -
>>it has to be spent well, but there are certain badly needed changes in our
>
>Reminds me of Friedman's comment on Clinton's plan to save x billions by
>eliminating waste- i.e., it's not a line item. SO if you spend money and
>education doesn't improve- as the statistics shown again and again- you just
>didn't spend it on the right things.

So, where are the consistent statistics to show that if you cut the
amount of money spent on education, it does improve?  This is one
of the least intelligent arguments I've seen lately.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4697 alt.politics.clinton:4891 alt.politics.elections:12830
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:00:17 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep10.191233.5330@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1685EB6A9.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>> 
>>>people even think that Bush stated half a dozen times that it was
>>>a war "with Saddam Hussein, not a war with the Iraqi people."  A
>>>quick survey of the corpses would seem to indicate that he could
>>>not possibly have said that.
>> 
>>This is a silly argument. Either you're talking about the civilians,
>>in which case you're flat out wrong about numbers, or you're talking
>>about soldiers, in which case you have some astoundingly naiive ideas
>>about what happens in a war!
>> 
>>Rather than talking to the corpses (you do have quite a gift there!)
>>if you'd read interviews with the Iraqui non-combatants in the major cities
>>that were published in the world media you'd have discovered that they
>>were amazed at how *little* collateral damage they received. One prisoner
>>told a WSJ reporter that his officers had told him not to worry, the
>>Americans were very accurate and were only attacking aircraft, gun emplacements
>>and so forth. If he stayed dug in he was safe.
>> 
>
>I suggest you read some non-American newspapers about collateral
>damage...

I suggest you travel to the area, as I have.  Iraqi bunkers peppered the 
the Kuwaiti landscape, schools, and residences, yet none of these were 
destroyed, only communications and command-and-control centers (and 
beachefronts) were really hit.  Driving through a neighborhood in 
Kuwait, you'd see very little damage until you'd turn a corner and
see a ministry building absolutely flattened, with littel or no damage to 
neighboring buildings.  This, depite the obvious presence of gun 
emplacements in neighboring schools, clinics, and homes.

>the claims about how smart a fair number of the American bombs were
>are about as true as the incubator scam perpertrated by Hill and
>Knowlton for the Kuwaiti Royal family.

The incubator scam really doesn't compare to the tomes of first-hand,
post-liberation eyewitness accounts of the horrible crimes the Iraqis
committed against Kuwaitis.  I refer you to Michael Kelly's terrifying,
and award-winning, accounts in The New Republic.

Also, the one falsehood regarding the incubators hardly compares to the 
incredible number of lies and distortions the left resorted to in opposing
military action.  Care to repeat Iraq's "historical" claim to Kuwait or
the claims that Kuwait was encroaching on Iraqi territory for us again?

>
>Gerald
>

anwar


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Subject: Re: "Family Values"
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:56:48 GMT

In article <Bu7KLx.1xI@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>I'm sure the Republican party is strong on Family Values, I just get the
>feeling that the "family" is the Corleones.
>

quick, very quick.  to bad that most of the crisp'ets won't get it.

>Larry J
>
>PS, somebody explain it to Dan.
>
>-- 
>#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu # 
>#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
>#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
>#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4858 alt.politics.clinton:5087 alt.politics.elections:12940 alt.rush-limbaugh:4654 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5302 talk.politics.misc:45067