HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Intelligence issue
Date: 28 Aug 1992 13:24:18 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Aug27.221016.19085@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug27.174959.1438@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> >> = wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >>> = fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> >
> >[...]
> >>>After 11 years, I would guess that Arkansas would have found out if 
> >>>Clinton is an anti-Christ.  And I'm even going to assume that Bush is 
> >>>a good man.
> >
> >>In Arkansas it is a 'customary' rather than 'internal' goal of people
> >>to be Christians.  He may go to church, and thus the people will
> >>elect him, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is Christian.
> >
> >Oh, BROTHER.
> >
> >C'MON with this bullshit.  You people are really getting desperate,
> >ain'tcha?  You want to talk about fake christians, try Ronnie and
> >his dress-stealing wife.  
> >| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
> >steven@advtech.USWest.Com
> 	I am not claiming that Clinton 'is' a non-Christian; nor do
> I assume that he is a 'Christian.'  In Arkansas, it would be very hard
> to be elected governor, as, say, a Moslem due to the high public opinion
> of Christianity more from a cultural rather than ideological standpoint.
> 	For example; Ronald Simmons, a man from my home town in Arkansas,
> may well have regularly attended church.  But when he went on a 17 victim
> killing spree, he seems to have forgotten the Judaeo/Christian law of
> 'Thou shalt not kill.'  Thus, due to his habit of attending church, the
> Arkansans will have had nothing religiously against him; that did not
> imply that he was a Christian.  Similarly, Clinton attending Church and
> being supported by the Arkansans does not imply that Clinton is truly
> a Christian, either.  It is common for people to confuse culture
> with ideology.
> 
> 				J. Wagner
> 
> 

This amounts to meaningless speculation, unless you have proof that Clinton
is not a Christian (did he go on a killing spree?), or has somehow violated
the precepts of Christianity. This would be difficult because, as a christian,
we are expected to sin. We should try with all our hearts not to, but we are
human and sometimes falter. So let's end this meaningless banter. Good
Christians do not throw stones.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:16:58 GMT

In <1992Sep4.130143.12988@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:

>##############################################################################

>He did inhale.  He lied about the draft.  He did sleep with Flowers. 
>He did cheat on his wife.  He will raise taxes.  He will put people out of
>work.  He is LIBERAL.

>You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

>Bush/Quale 92
        ^
        y
>Fred Seals

>##############################################################################

Not a flame; I enjoyed your post but want you to avoid getting flamed.
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
So many newsgroups, so little time...

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3142 alt.politics.bush:3075
From: dm@think.com (dave mankins)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: how many...
Date: 27 Aug 1992 01:17:35 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA (USA)
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: wingit.think.com



How many Bush campaign aides does it take to change a light-bulb?

None.  If it's dark, it is because of the Clinton-Gore gridlock
Congress.



How many Bush economic advisors does it take to change a light-bulb? 

None.  The light-bulb is on its way to recovery.



How many Bush military advisors does it take to change a light-bulb?  

500,000.  Only the light-bulb has to be in Baghdad, it will cost $56
billion dollars, they'll tell you it only took one mid-level Pentagon
aide to do it, and when it's over the light-bulb will still be burned
out.



How many Bush domestic-policy advisors does it take to change a
light-bulb? 

500,000. Re-elect George Bush and he'll do for domestic light-bulbs
what he did for the light-bulbs of Iraq.



How many Bush tax-policy advisors does it take to change a light-bulb?

If Congress would pass Bush's capital gains tax cut, rich people would
be freed to invest in new light-bulbs, allowing the rest of us to use
the ight-bulbs we glean from the rich people's trash.



How many Bush tax-policy advisors does it take to change a light-bulb?

None.  Re-elect George Bush, and there'll be a box on your tax-form that
you can check if you want 10% of your taxes used for darkness
reduction. 



How many Bush family values does it take to change a light-bulb?

Five.

	- One to deny that the light-bulb needs changing.  
	- One to claim that he wasn't in the room when changing the
	  light-bulb was discussed.
	- One to figure out which son has made an ``unbelievably sweet
	  deal'' resulting in the loss of the light-bulb (plus the
	  lamp and other furnishings).
	- One to find a Democrat to blame it on.  
	- And one to call Jim Baker to come change the light-bulb.



How many Bush family values does it take to change a light-bulb?

Bush family values don't change light-bulbs, Bush family servants do.



How many Bush Vice-Presidents does it take to change a lite-bulbe?



-- 
david mankins (dm@think.com)
			Gregor Samsa awoke one morning to find himself 
			transformed into an enormous software defect.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:36:20 GMT

In article <athos-260892095252@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

[Lots of arguments deleted...]
>> >> Bush said: "Under Clinton's health plan, you won't be able to choose your
>> >> own doctor."
>> >>
>> >> The Truth: This is simply a lie. Clinton's plan offers all citizens the
>> >> normal choice of doctors. It will also cut down on health care costs by
>> >> taking on the insurance and drug industry giants.
>> >
>> >Good luck.  Eventually, it'll be like Kaiser and we all know that.
>> >
>> We do? I seem to remember a poll of Canadians (universal health care topic)
>> that asked them if they would want to change their health care system to
>> America's. 97% of them said no. (poll was about 2 months ago)
>
>Let's talk British, who are moving toward our system.  I am from New York...

Sorry, my friend, we are NOT! We certainly are in the process of
radically changing our health care system, but we are definitely not moving to
your inhuman monstrosity, where only the rich can afford decent health
care. The UK system, where health care was perceived as 'free', led to a great
many abuses, and is not economically viable. People are being made to perceive
the cost of health care, but in a way which does not undermine their rights to
basic care. The burden of funding will largely remain with the State, as it
should, rather than with profit-making insurance companies and hospitals
who are responsible for a far less satisfactory health service costing
about twice as much as a percentage of GDP.

Our system is not perfect, any more than any of the other systems in operation
around the world. All have their drawbacks, the major one in the UK being
waiting lists, occasionally including life-threatening conditions. We're
working on it, and the length of the lists is slowly reducing. Like I said,
no-one's perfect. The problem with the US system, though, is its basic greedy
inhumanity, with all its crippling side-effects on workforce mobility and
on the general health and morale of the population.

Later,

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:04:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <4837@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger) writes:
>=
>=I find it extremely unlikely that Bush will appoint such a person.  And, 
>=from how his convention went, it appears as if he would appoint a 
>=far-right justice.  This would swing the balance too far from the 
>=middle.  Too far from mainstream America, whose values they should hold.
>
>He didn't, and if the Senate stays Democratic, he won't. (Okay, Clarence
>Thomas has ruled along a conservative philosophy most of the time, but
>Justice Souter is a lot less predictable.)

Portion of Supreme Court decisions last term in which David Souter did not
vote with the majority: 1/13.
Portion in which Clarence Thomas did not vote with the majority: 1/4.
(Source: Harper's Index, September 1992. Their source: U.S Library of
Congress)

What is it about Cuomo that makes you think he's less qualified for the
Supreme Court than Thomas? Or, for that matter, Souter?

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Ratio of the number of plastic flamingos to the number of real ones in the
United States: 700:1
	- Harper's Index, February 1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:43:35 GMT
 <QiRBr*5W0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Sep3.040531.1597@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep3.040531.1597@athena.mit.edu>, jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G
Federspiel) says:
>
>I saved this post when I saw it--I knew it would come in handy:
>
>This data is taken from a Wall Street Journal article detailing the
>congressfolk who would spend the most if everything went their way, as
>well as the dollar amount of the total of spending _increases_ and _decreases_
>said folk sponsored.  All amounts given in billions.  Enjoy, democrats!!

 [Much Blah Blah Deleted]

>This shows pretty conclusively that under a democratic president who would
>have vetoed decidedly _fewer_ democratically-pushed bills, our debt (and
>deficit) would be MUCH bigger.  Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten all of
>the miraculous growth that would occur with all this spending, and the tax
>revenues would roll right in, right?  Sure.
>
>Midway between the highest and lowest spenders is $224 billion.  If
>those expenditures were authorized by a democrat president and _no more_,
>we'd still be $224 billion more dollars in debt, ignoring the petty cuts shown
>in the fifth column.
>
>Jude Federspiel
>jfed@athena.mit.edu
>
>(thanks to Pat Sugent for the stolen article)

Actually, *assuming* that all these spending requests went forward
*accounting* for the debt left by Jimmy Carter, and *excusing* the
fact that Republicans have been carefully left out, we'd still be about
$3,000,000,000,000 less in debt had we had a Democratic President for
the last 12 years.  A Democratic President would never have agreed to
the tax decreases of the early 80s because there were not commensurate
spending cuts - and, as Reagan found out, there was no stomach *even in
the Republican-controlled Senate* to support such cuts.  Now, we have
no growth and a $4 trillion national debt.

David Stockman, Reagan's first Director of the Office of Management and
Budget who oversaw the railroading of the tax cuts, explains all of this.
Read his book.  Learn.

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University              "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                   -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
From: kreed@telesys.tnet.com (Kevin W. Reed)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Take Note: Victory for Bush on another front......
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:00:43 GMT
Organization: TeleSys Development Systems, Mesa AZ

VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu writes:

>	Gang Violence was one of the serious problems in LA.  President Bush,
>as promised, eradicated  gangs from LA area.  Members  of various gangs take
>part in picnics and baseball games together. They no longer kill people, but 
>are in community service.  This is a great victory for President Bush in the
>decades long war against gangs.  Street War has been won by Republican White
>House.  People can walk in the streets without any fear of a cross fire.  Mr
>George Bush, the great President of USA after Ronald Reagan  made LA a safer
>place to live.  Of course, there are few (gang looking) groups around.  They
>have "favorite group" status anyway.....

Could you please enlighten us on what exactly President Bush did to
"eradicate gangs from LA area"?  As you see this as a great victory for
President Bush, What did HE DO??

While I beleive there is a so called truce among some of the gangs in
the LA area, I don't beleive that this is true in other parts of the 
country nor are all the gangs adhearing to this truce in LA.

I think the riots in LA had more to do with the truce than anything
President Bush has done.  Unless President Bush wants to take credit
for the Riots in LA :-) I can't see any program that he has advocated
that has gone into effect since the riots to cause any changes with
the gangs.

>Vicky:
>Aug 26, UMass

-- 
+-------------+
|   TeleSys   | Kevin W. Reed  ------  Public *NIX Site and Newsfeed Source
| Development | kreed@tnet.com   UUCP:   ...!ncar!noao!enuucp!telesys!kreed
|   Systems   | SCO Xenix/Unix Support       Data/UUCP/BBS: +1 602 649 9099
+-------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:27:48 GMT

karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna) writes:

>I vaguely recall reading something (this was back in '88) that the rate
>of deficit increase during the last several democrat pres's was much less
>than the rate of increase during the Reagan/Bush era.  Does anyone else
>remember this?  I MUST dig up this article (I'm going to get inundated with
>"references please?" postings).

Not sure of the article you speak of.  However, "Monetary Trends"
(put out by The Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis), June 1992 issue
shows an interesting chart on the first page which graphs the
federal debt as a percent of GDP from 1961-1993.  It starts in 1961
at around 57% and drops steadily (with a slight rise around 1967-68
[Vietnam spending?] down to around 35% in 1974.  In '76, it's up to
around 39-40% and then drops steadily down to around 34% in 1981.
THEN, it takes a sharp turn upward after 1981 and is around 70% in
1992.  During the 60s and 70s it is explained that the govt. was
not adding to the debt as fast as the US economy was growing and
this was no longer true beginning in 1981.

This may or may not have much bearing on this topic but is
interesting nonetheless.  This article was submitted to the
newsletter and does not necessarily reflect the position of the
Federal Reserve system.

From the newsletter:
	"Monetary Trends" is published monthly by the Research and
	Public Information Division.  Single-copy subscriptions are
	available free of charge by writing Research and Public
	Information, Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis, P.O. Box 442,
	St.Louis, MO 63166-0442 or by calling 314-444-8809.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Budget Plan (was Re: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:52:01 GMT

In article <17rm25INNcbe@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.185712.4999@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>|...While Bush doesn't have a direction, he also doesn't have Clinton's
>|"right off the cliff" aim.
>
>
>Realizing that you were not trying to make a indepth analysis, it seems to me
>that Clinton's plan is much preferable to that of Bush.

Let's see the details.

>Clinton proposes to
>rearrange spending on Human and phyisical capital, instead of defense,
>entitlements, and other government waste. Investments in health, education and
>research and development, on par with other developed nations, will hopefully
>bring back productivity growth on par with those other nations.

That's PRECISELY what we've been doing since 1990, only more so.  If
"more" is such a great idea, then why has the mild version of that
policy such a disaster?

>Clinton will be able to get his plan working since he is a leader, is
>a democrat that can work with congress, and congress has shown
>acceptance of a similiar bill that Bush Vetoed.

Bush could have gotten Clinton's complete plan enacted too, as the
Clinton plan is Congress' plan.  It's easy to get them to pass it.

The question is whether or not Clinton's plan a good idea.  We have
some experience with it.  It hasn't been good.  Will more of the same
be any better?  If yes, then Clinton's right.  If not....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton/Gore autoserver
Keywords: automated volunteering, speeches, schedules
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:38:06 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


The automated Clinton/Gore mail server is available at

"clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org"

This mail server recognizes requests in the "Subject:" field of
your mail message.  

The entire set of commands are organized as follows.  Indentation
means that all commands in sequence are required, as in
"info issue women" or "volunteer local Illinois".  Incomplete
commands (eg "volunteer") will result in more information about
that set of commands (eg all the categories of volunteer).


    help               volunteer             question  
                          local                 propose
                            (state name)        get
    info                  email                 vote
      issue                 create              
        (issue name)	    monitor 
      voting                flyers
      speeches              distribute       suggest
      local                 ftp                 propose
        (state name)   	    professional        get 
                            business            vote
    add/remove              teacher                 
      issue                 student       
        (issue name)        scientist
      local                 organize         bug
        (state name)
      news                  


Complete words will not be required as of 9/3/92 -- only
enough to dis-ambiguate your command from any other.
                     

The "add" commands will put you on a relevant discussion list,
while the "info" commands will simply send you the latest
broadcasts out of Little Rock (or your state HQ in the case of
"info local <state>").

The "suggest" and "question" commands allow you to make your
thoughts known to Little Rock HQ.  When enough questions/suggestions
and votes have been accumulated, the winners will be passed along to
Little Rock for comment.  We will then make the results known
via our "volunteer email distribute" network. 




Clinton/Gore '92
Volunteer Email Campaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Subject: Nashville Network?
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:04:49 GMT

The was a reference in the paper today about Clinton doing
a Q&A session on the Nashville Network "on Wednesday". I
don't know if they meant today or next week. Does anyone
have any details on this show?
From: fred@sma2.rain.com (Fred Brooks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 2 Sep 92 07:30:56 GMT
Organization: Guns for Peace

In article <180u3pINNlpm@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
>
>On the other hand, his running mate Al Gore was a hero in Vietnam. 
>
BULLSHIT!! Al Gore was a Saigon hobo. He wrote stories about the war from a nice
rear location. This guy never even carried a rifle. The one picture of him
with one in 1988 was faked with another guys M16.

-- 
Defend your 2nd amendment rights. 
NRA ACLU VFW
Fred Brooks   			        Portland Oregon
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:40:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Sep3.175515.22478@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>
>Gee, what about special interests that have prospered under the Republicans?
>The defense industry.  The oil companies.  The timber companies.  The
>S&L bandits.  The corporate raiders.  The health-insurance companies.
>
>I'm not anti-business.  I just wanted to state that the Republicans have
>their own set of special interests, too.
>
Sorry, but I beg to differ that the oil companies have prospered under
Republican rule.  We've basically been crushed.  There seems to be an
alternating flow of money based on the price of oil.  If oil is
expensive, more wells and projects are economical, and we produce more
oil and make a bundle of dough.  The oil producing states in the west
are flooded with money, and have no trouble balancing their budgets.  
Meanwhile, the coasts economies are hurt by the high energy prices.
The reverse happens when the price of oil is low.  The coasts lower
energy costs allows them to prosper, but the oil producing states (with
low industrial diversity) are hammered.  In my town, homes that sold for
$200,000 in 1985 sold for $150,000 in 1987, $130,000 in 1988, and
$120,000 in 1990.  With continual low prices (good for the rest of
America's economy) the oil producing states are in rough shape.

Note that I never gave any opinion on whether this was a good thing or
not.  That is another matter.  But King George has not been good to his
adopted home state, and he is going to have trouble carrying Texas.  (I
think he will in the end, but it will be close).
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: mea@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FTP Z files
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:03:00 -0500

I can download files from the FTP site but I cannot uncompress them.  Is there
some software the can be used either in PC-DOS or on a VAX to uncompress the
Z files.

Thanks
Mary Ahnger
mea@ifasgnv
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Clinton Schedule for 9/1-3
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:28:18 GMT

In article <168566C28.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes...
}Whose son or husband or brother died while Slick Willie was laughing
}at the system?  Do you want this coward and liar to protect you?

OK, Rambo, where were you during the war?

Larry J
RVN 13 Jan 70-14 Mar 72 


-- 
#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.   #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush