HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser)
Subject: Re: cable tv
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.200050.3057@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>
>Hey, let's regulate McDonald's.  I love Big Mac's and McDonald's has a 
>monopoly on Big Mac's.  I think they charge too much and I hate Burger 
>King.   We need to regulate and set minimum standards for Big Mac's.
>
>Mark T. Evert
>Friendswood, TX
>
>My opinions are strictly my own.

Your analogy is meaningless. Imagine that McDonalds is the only 
restaurant in your town. In fact, imagine that it's the only source
of food in your town.  In order to eat other food you have to 
move to another town. Now imagine that McDonalds decides to start
charging $5 for a Big Mac. Next month they up the price to $7. 
Then $10. Then $12.  Are you gonna move or are you gonna ask for
someone to control their prices?  And as far as setting minimum
standards, since you only see the big white McDonald's supply truck
pull in behind the building, and Big Macs come out the front door,
aren't you the least curious as to what's in the ingredients
if it isn't "100% pure beef"?  If the cooks get drunk and decide
they want to piss into the vat of secret sauce, do you want someone
to stop them? 

Some regulation of the cable companies is damn long overdue. 
It's a shame that the House & Senate couldn't get their act
together to override Bush's veto of more important legislation
like the family leave bill.  My cable company's service stinks,
the prices have constantly escalated for years, they're non-
responsive and arrogant towards customer complaints and I'm
happy as a clam that the Bush veto was overridden.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8153 alt.politics.clinton:9042 alt.politics.elections:15604
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - Important
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:37:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

>In article <Oct.7.13.48.35.1992.26105@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>>detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:

>>By now you must know that Bill Clinton addressed this on Larry King
>>on Monday night.  When asked about both items, he cracked up laughing.

>   That was the worst attempt at a sincere laugh that I've ever seen.  He
>was more nervous about this subject than the Flowers affair.

Yeah right.  There's no point arguing about it because it all a matter
of personal interpretation.

>  His trip (which wasn't made up) was probably totally innocent.  The

I know that the trip wasn't made up, but Bob Nornan, himself, when
questioned further on his allegations, admitted that he had no 
basis for his claims that Clinton met with the KGB.  He defended 
himself by saying that it might have happened.

>problem is Clinton doesn't trust the public, though he wants the public to
>trust him as President.  For someone who has practically no foreign policy
>experience, isn't it a moronic move of his NOT to list this great
>educational opportunity in his resume?  Unless, of course, he doesn't trust

Maybe he didn't think it was so great.  Maybe he didn't think anything
happened that was worth bragging about so he didn't bring it up.  So
what?  Whats he supposed to do, get up and say "I spent 40 days touring
Eastern Europe.  Nothing really exciting happened there, but I just 
thought you'd like to know"  Whats the point?

Should Bill Clinton make a list of every vacation that he's ever taken
and publish it in the newspaper?  He made no attempt to hide the trip
and he obviously didn't think that it was so special he should bring
it to our attention.  Some things simply aren't important.  So why
waste time on them when there are important issues to address?

>the public to judge him based on his full background.  Maybe Bush has one 
>thing right - who are YOU going to trust?

I already know for a fact that I can't trust George Bush.  He let his
son get away with swindling this country.  Aside from that, even if
he really intends to carry out his campaign promises this time instead
of sitting in the Whitehouse with his thumb up his ass, doing nothing,
I STILL don't want him there!  I don't LIKE what he stands for!  I
don't LIKE his philosophies!  Trust has nothing to do with it.  Trusting
that he'll do what he says makes me want him out all the more.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8180 alt.politics.clinton:9072
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush- a sleazy scumbag!
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:59:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>In article <92281.231404RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
><RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:

>I agree with Bush: protesting your country from another country is sleezy. 
>Lying about it is worse.

(I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes...)

Why is it sleezy?

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9613 alt.politics.clinton:11152 alt.politics.elections:17470 alt.rush-limbaugh:7701
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Will we even know on November 3: Split electorate?
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:34:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <1992Oct16.223106.20593@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>What do "you people" (sorry, Ross) think of the possibility of a split
>electorate on Election Day?

	I don't think that there's a snowballs chance in hell of it 
happening.

	Realistically, Russ Perot probably won't get vote 1 in the 
electorate, because he probably won't get 30% of the vote in any state.
He may get 20% nationwide, but it'll be pretty evenly spread, with
a small bump in Texas.

	Clinton has a reasonable lead in almost every state, and may
even take Texas and/or Florida. Bush supporters are going to be very
depressed come election day, and with many not voting at all, or voting
for Perot. Clinon won't have much trouble taking 270 votes, and 
could concievably do to Bush what Reagan did to Walter Mondale.

	(Hint: California the North east is about 130 votes)
-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Oct6.181637.26841@unet.net.com> <1992Oct7.124910.26308@ornl.gov>
	<1992Oct9.181851.24811@unet.net.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:04:43 GMT

<In article <1992Oct9.181851.24811@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

<   Oh which of the 100s maybe 1000s of possible scenarios should I start
<   with that would enable us to destroy all life on this planet. 

	Pick one. Any one.

	When you're done, post it.
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: inaccurate pols before British election,parallels to US election?
Keywords: maybe
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:54:28 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

ira b ekhaus writes:
>I believe we're seeing a similar political situation here in the US; 
>When people finally get in the booth a substantial percentage of voters
>will err on the side of conservatism and conservatives.
>
There were reasons for the inaccurate polling. One was the carry-over
anger that the British general population felt toward Margaret 
Thatcher. The early polls showed that dislike and it was commonly
felt among pollsters that even though the gap had shrunk
considerably by election day that John Majors would inherit
those feelings: he didn't. In this country, for there to be a true
parallel, the Republicans would have had to nominate, say, Jack
Kemp to defuse the general animus which the public feels toward Bush. 
The Republicans didn't. The polls may be wrong -- I too dislike the 
incessant, neurotic "temperature" taking -- but the current margin between 
Clinton and Bush is far larger than the final margin which Majors faced. 
It would have to shrink to around 3 pts by election day. Perot may
provide the catalyst for that, but early indications show that Perot
is picking up the undecided vote, leaving Bush and Clinton's margin
static. Mea culpa. Sorry for bringing up a poll.
-- 
Coach Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Season: 1-5 Lifetime: 1-7
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8789 alt.politics.clinton:9944 alt.politics.elections:16324
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:02:43 GMT
	<BvwtBI.EDw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Oct12.050859.10782@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Oct12.050859.10782@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

   There will be ice floes on the River Styx if Clinton becomes President.

This sounds like a good thing!
From: jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:22:58 GMT
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Oct8.200743.15382@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>Ordinarily I'd let this go, but I just love the way the asterisks
>are used here, as if to make the arguments seem more valid or important.
>Here we go...
>
>In article <9210081734.AA21278@MIT.EDU> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>>
>
>"-30-30-" ????  How impressive.  Gives it a real ring of authority!
>Seriously, I'd like to know if Clinton participated in anti-war 
>demonstrations overseas.  I'd find it hard to distinguish such events from
>"anti-American demonstrations."

Has your government ever done anything you've disagreed with?  Is is possible
to oppose a war the U.S. is involved in without being vilified as an
"anti-American demonstrator?"

If you're really such a closed-minded pinhead that in your view no citizen
can disapprove of his government's actions without hating his country, you
really should find somewhere nice and oppressive to live.  Your unthinking
mind would probably be fuelled nicely by a steady supply of lowbrow 
pro-State propaganda.


-- 
 Jerry Kuch (jerry@cs.mcgill.ca) ----- SOMETHING NEAT SHOULD GO HERE.
 "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
  Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
                  --- M. Burns  "Treehouse of Horror II"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:16:38 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

:   In regards to point 2), during the eighties Reagan claimed an enormous
: number of jobs were created.  The Democrats continuously hammered him
: saying that most of the jobs were low wage.  BINGO!  The same thing has
: been true of the economy in Arkansas.  Who wants tremendous job growth if
: the jobs will all pay minimum wage?  

Having a low paying job is certainly a helluva lot better than not having
a job at all.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: How bad is the deficit/debt? (was Re: The essence of Clinton)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:17:24 GMT

In article <BALDWIN.92Oct7123657@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:

>If you are going to discuss these issues in an international forum,
>you might wish to first educate yourself on the difference between
>"deficit" and "debt."

Should have been more clear.  Sorry!

>
>Also, there are a number of ways to measure dollars and you have
>picked (like Mr. Perot) the absolute most misleading and least useful
>way of doing so.  A gallon of gasoline, by your measure, costs five
>times as much as it did in 1972 (because the 1972 price was $0.25 and
>today's is $1.25).  Does this mean anything?  Of course not.

However, since the debt (total, not yearly deficit) is money borrowed for a 
wide variety of services, it IS fair to compare the debt today against the 
debt in 1979 as long as inflation is taken into account.  Inflation (in
general) has not totalled 400% since 1980.

>                                           I consider the deficit/debt
>problem to be a major national issue and regard a balanced budget as a
>highly desirable goal, but I am also capable of putting things into
>perspective.

FYI:  The last balanced budget was under Pres. Johnson.  The next closest was
Pres. Carter.

>
>Now, the *service* on the national debt as % of GDP is a genuinely
>alarming number.  

Definantly.  Every dime of the fed. taxes collected in 1990 from the period
representing January to April 19  went to paying the INTEREST on the debt.
That's 30% of our tax money.

Another way to look at it:
1990 TOTAL SPENDING on public education :$199 billion
1990 TOTAL INTEREST on the national debt:$184 billion

sources: Internal Revenue service
	 Federal Reserve board

>--
> From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
>   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
> _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
> \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-Howard

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
Do what keeps thou from wilting shall be the loophole in the law.
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:13:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.044535.10375@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>IMHO, I see Bush as someone who realizes he's getting up in years
>and knows that if he raised taxes a second time he would be branded as the
>biggest liar in history, with it being the only thing remembered about his
>presidency even if he lifted the US economy, gave us world peace, and
>solved the AIDS crisis during a second term.

He's already done it (that is, raise taxes, rather than solve the AIDS
crisis).  Bush's latest set of budgets calls for a $35 billion
increase in fees and taxes.  This is as opposed to $45 billion under
the Clinton plan.  The difference?  $10/year/person.  Assuming that they
each tax per capita, and Clinton's tax is bound to be much more progressive
than Bush's...
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Private School Re: Public Education
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:26:51 GMT

In article <BvqH1r.9KA@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>In article <5770@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>
>>lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>>
>>>Hmmm. Last I saw, a Bush voucher was worth about $1000. But private
>>>school tuition (secular) runs at least $6000. I don't see the poor
>>>scraping up the other 7K. Sure, a few people on the margin will be able
>
>   6000-1000 is 5000, not 7000.  And the vouchers would be a lot
>more than $1000, since no state in the country spends that little
>per student, not even Arkansas.

Except maybe California.  One public school teacher was interviewed on TV the
other night; she said that for the 1992-3 school year, her school was alloted
$34 and change per student for everything from microscopes and computers to
pencil erasers and textbooks.  The teachers at that school were being asked
to pay for anything the $34 didn't cover out of their own salaries.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com		x 6244  ----------------+
|  I don't belong to any organized political party:  I'm a Democrat.	|
|						-- Will Rogers		|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Voting for the Hometown Kid (was Another example...)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:16:29 GMT


In article <1992Oct2.182059.28278@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, 
cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) said:

> >(Btw, if any of you out there are unfamiliar with ex-Texan John
> >Silber, just picture a Ross Perot with three billion less dollars,
> >one less working arm, and none of the charm, charisma or social
> >skills.)  [wdstarr]
>
> ...and a heck of alot more brains, reasoning, and arguing potential.

Probably true... I'll say this for Silber: I've never heard of him
backing down from a good argument or running away from a fight
(unlike some Texas billionaires I could name...).  Still, though, the
man does have a rather, um, *abrasive* personality and style.  (And if
he didn't, he'd probably be Governor of Massachusetts today instead of
William Weld.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:37:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <1992Oct10.074717.1533@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I wanted to see what it would be like to vote for Clinton,
>so I went into the bathroom and flushed the toliet.

Gosh... that's so clever.

>I had this dream that Clinton was President, the Internationale was
>played at his inaguration.

Wow... that's pretty clever too.

>While walking down the street I saw a house decorated for Haloween
>and I was wondering why they had a likeness of Hillary Clinton riding
>a broom.

Gosh... that's incredibly clever and utterly ad hominem.  Do you write
your own material or does someone really clever do it for you?

If you don't like the candidate, bash his wife...  ah, yes...  if Clinton's
elected Hillary will run the country.  And when JFK was in power the US
was probably controlled from the Vatican too...


-- 
 Jerry Kuch (jerry@cs.mcgill.ca) ----- SOMETHING NEAT SHOULD GO HERE.
 "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
  Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
                  --- M. Burns  "Treehouse of Horror II"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:50:33 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

William M. Everett writes:
>>
>the S&L bailout was hardly the sole work of George Bush. You make it sound
>like it was all just one big scheme of his to fund his son.

Well, considering that his family sells equipment to help put out oil
field fires, there are some who feel that helped stiffen Bush's 
resolve to blow off Saddam and his threat to torch the Kuwaiti fields.

And there's his family's hotel interest in Peking....

And his son's ability to manage a sizeable loan from the Small Business
Administration...

Some people think that conflict of interest is a kind word to describe
GB's dealings in his office. Some don't.  Makes elections so interesting.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> No one -- from sea to shining sea -- 
can tell us why we are having all this trouble with our Republic.
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 1992 16:10:37 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

>>In article <9210081734.AA21278@MIT.EDU> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>
>>Speculation is not necessarily a bad thing.  I don't know what Clinton
>

Rep. Dornan spent some time with small children recently.  What was he
doing with these children.  Well, I'm not going to say he molested
them, but it certainly is a possibility.  We have no proof to the
contrary, and Rep. Dornan will not come clean.  What were the
names of those children, and what was his business with them?

George Bush was seen handing papers to James Baker, and, although
I have no idea what the content of these papers is, it is not
inconceivable that it was pornographic love poems from George
to his good buddy Jim.  Neither one has come clean on the
contents of the papers, and I have a right to speculate aloud
as to their content to my heart's content.

Look at any event, in all of it's possibilities, examining it
out of context, and it could be anything.

Years later, if I asked Jim Baker what the paper said, he might
remember one thing.  If I ask George Bush what the paper said,
it would be another thing.  Then I could loudly ask, "What
is the president hiding?  Why won't he come clean?"  Perhaps
it was a love poem after all.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth