HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:34:31 GMT

In article <3573@keele.keele.ac.uk> csp48@seq1.keele.ac.uk (J.W. Kirriemuir) writes:
>
>Just thought I'd add my two cents worth.
>
>My predicitions for what happens between now and Polling Day in
>the USA :
>
>
>(1) The USA will take some form of military action somewhere; judging by
>the recent news reports, a sudden air strike against Iraq is more likely
>than anything involving Yogoslavia. A side reason for this (which was
>picked up on in last nights newsnight on BB2) is that Bush's popularity
>would take a welcome boost.

This I can see happening. Look what happened to Bush's approval rating
because of Desert Storm.

>(2) Something bigger and more damaging than before will hit Clinton
>and/or Gore, especially if they are riding high in the polls. Don't know
>what it will be, but it will come (late september / early october).

Maybe. But remember that, unlike with Dukakis, Clinton has already
had a lot of dirt thrown on him during the primaries. They may not
have more to find. Of course, they can always manufacture something
out of thin air. I doubt they will attack Gore too much. You can't
say, "Do we want this man as VP?" when we have Quayle right now.  

>(3) Reagan will be drafted in at some point to bolster the image of
>Bush; James Baker will also move into a prominent position (and if
>things get any more desperate, might just elbow DQ out of the VP slot on
>the republican ticket).

I get the impression that Reagan doesn't like Bush. Remember a while back
Reagan didn't attend Bush's fundraiser in CA because of "prior committments",
the political equivalent of washing your hair. And Bush said he would not
get rid of Quayle. It would be a political embarrassment to get rid of a
VP who has been a very loyal member of the team. Though I wouldn't mind
him off the ticket, I just don't think it will happen.

Brian Lintz
lintz@udel.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9255 talk.politics.misc:36188
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Iowa Political Stock Market numbers
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:11:02 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <MEEKS.92Jul23110330@clew.osf.org> meeks@clew.osf.org (W. Scott Meeks) writes:

What is the Iowa Political Stock Market? How does it work? Can we put
our money where our mouth's are?
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- - "May you have the wealth of a Republican, and the sexual prowess - -
- -  of a Democrat." - Johnny Carson's joke writers
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Perot
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:58:10 GMT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- . . .
>	The Perot deficit reduction plan, details of which were first
>revealed by The Wall Street Journal on Monday, would have included cuts
>in Social Security payments, a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in the gasoline
>tax, a sharp rise in alcohol and tobacco taxes and limits on mortgage
>interest deductions for homes costing more than $200,000.
>	The plan also would have eliminated the space station and other
>government programs, reduced capital gains tax rates, slashed foreign
>aid, called for an overhaul of the State Department and increased income
>taxes for the well-to-do.
>	In Dallas, Sharon Holman, spokeswoman for the Perot campaign, said
>Tuesday that some of the remaining Perot aides were working on
>arrangements to make the economic plan public. . . .

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:57:53 GMT

In article <2A6F52BB.25198@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>fred j mccall 575-3539 writes
>> No, flat taxes are not regressive.  Flat taxes are FLAT. 
>> Please find a good economics text and check out the
>> definition of 'regressive tax' and 'progressive tax'. 
>> Flat SALES TAXES are regressive, but that is because of
>> the relationship between income and consumption not
>> being flat.  Flat income taxes are neither progressive
>> nor regressive, by definition.  
>
>No, flat salex taxes are flat too. In the long run all money which is earned is
>also spent. If you tax all sales or all income is an administrative and  
>temporary difference. It does not change the basic progressivity of a tax.
>
>	Carl Edman

Only if they apply sales tax to all sale. They currently do not apply to
such things as for example house, stocks and many others where most of
unspent income ends up. Note: this is not a call to tax every sale, it is
still better to have income tax than huge sales tax.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:50:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul18.061512.23983@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, molin@crs.cl.msu.edu (Michael Olin) writes:
|> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
|> >How can the king of status quo/budget deficits say he has _anything_
|> >in common with R. Perot and what he stands for?
|> It's simple.  Bush is a fucking liar.  He'll say ANYTHING that sounds
|> expedient.

c/Bush/Clinton/*

Bush just tries to throw up a smoke screen.

-- 
==> You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cbp@gmhgate.gmh.edu (Christopher Preston)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Organization: Grady Memorial Hospital
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.230205.2473@gmhgate.gmh.edu> cbp@gmhgate.gmh.edu (Christopher Preston) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.130005.3890@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:
>>
>
>	Further U.S. involvement in Iraq will tend to highlight
>	the fact that with a massive 26 nation force in place,
>	and solidarity behind the United State's leadership,
>	Bush did eleminate the opposition in Baghdad.
error here ^^^  this should lead "did not"
>>

In case there's any doubt.

cbp
---
-- 
Christopher Preston     | I represent no opinions but my own.
Datacommunications      | 
Grady Memorial Hospital | "Let them eat pork rinds" - G. Bush
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady! (Was: Clinton's VP list gets shorter
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:50:45 GMT

In article <=3nm22a.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>	The following are extracted from Tipper Gore's book:
>
>			(VIDEOS)
>
>	Billy Idol's _Dancing_with_Myself shows the star using electricity
>to blow people off a building. A man sharpens a straight-edge razor as if to

...... [ R, NC-17, X and XXX type material deleted ] ......


>	eviscerated, lungs torn out
>	heart ripped from the chest
>	decapitated, a meal of vaginas and breasts.
>
>	I could continue with the citations, but the ones given are enough
>to illustrate the point. The concept of torture and brutality to women (you
>notice it is WOMEN being cannibalized in _Predator_), is enough in itself to
>warrant attention. Add to it the concepts of suicide (which I won't waste
>bandwidth by quoting - Gore lists several examples in her book), and the
>extreme calls to violence in much rap music (read any recent newspaper) -
>nearly all of which are based on the financial benefit of voicing them
>instead of on any real political commitment - and the idea that _some_
>method of informing parents as to the content of the music must be createdd
>becomes rather important.
>
>	Incidently, for those who would like to read Gore's book themselves
>before attacking it (which seems a pretty reasonable approach to take), the
>bibliographic reference is:
>
>	Gore, T. (1987). _Raising_PG_Kids_in_an_X-Rated_Society_. 
>		Nashville: Abingdon Press.
>

So, WHY don't 'concerned' parents read such literature (which is already 
available) to inform themselves and their kids, instead of winning to 
record companies for labels? Are they too lazy to search? Do they want 
to impose their decency standards on other parents? Do they think that
other parents and kids are too stupid? Do they feel insecure about the fact 
that they don't pay enough attention to their kids intellectual and emotional 
needs? And, that their kids are automatically going to turn towards the satanic
messages broadcasted by those godless long haired musicians? 

WHY don't these 'concerned' parents pay more attention to their kids instead 
of the music that their kids listen to?

But, why ask why? Try Bud Dry!

John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ivan@erich.triumf.ca (Ivan D. Reid)
Subject: Re: Sig tunes, addendum
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 12:39:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.033406.21615@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes...
> 
>In a previous article, ivan@erich.triumf.ca (Ivan D. Reid) says:
>>
>>	nothing to do with the Goons, but did anyone watch Captain Moonbeam,
>>.err.. Jerry Brown give his speech last week.  Immediately he finished, the
>>PA system broke into the theme from Monty Python's Flying Circus!  I guess that
>>means it's some pseudo-Classical piece that this uncultured dolt never learned
>>to recognise...   :-(
> 
>Good ears!! The Monty Python theme is actually a Sousa march going by the name
>of "The Liberty Bell." I strongly suspect Brown wasn't responsible for the
>choice. The meaning was pretty clear, though -- a none-too-subtle way of 
>showing Brown and all his supporters who's really boss in the Demo party now.

	Ta! Tarrrrrr...  And thanx to the others who replied privately, too.
I guess you're never too old to learn ;-).

Ivan Reid, Paul Scherrer Institute, CH.     			ivan@cvax.psi.ch
	One of the old, not-so-bold, motorcycle racers.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Control of Congress (was: More Bush-it)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:46:09 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul22.151509.7561@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
]In <3494@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, psg+@pitt.edu sez:
]>Change huh?  Let's see Democrats have controled Congress for the last 40 years,
]>we've had Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in the same time and your definition of 
]>change is Bill Clinton.
]>
]>I hope you don't CHANGE your clothes they way you want to CHANGE your governmentotherwise your underware must have the stench of 40 years of rot.
]>
]>CHANGE HA!
]
]Republicans "controled" the Senate from 1981 to 1987.  But I wouldn't
]let a little fact like that stand in your way.
]
Gee, maybe that's why the economy did so well in subsequent years, and
went down the tubes shortly after the democrats got it back!

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Subject: What's up with this Bush guy?
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:59:56 GMT

First he says Clinton stole his platform of family values,
then he says Clinton is a liberal.
 
What's up with that?
Could he be playing both sides of the fence?
Or is he trying to get Clinton to go on the defensive?
Or both?
 
And isn't Baker involved in some real important middle-east stuff right now?
Should he really be taking a leave of absence to run Bush's campaign?
 
--Eric
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: cah@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:58:47 GMT

In article <3494@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.002517.17869@cs.tulane.edu> tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek) writes:
>>
>>He obviously doesnt understand that the leader we have now isnt going to do
>>us any good, we need change, we need Bill Clinton.
>
>Change huh?  Let's see Democrats have controled Congress for the last 40 years,
>we've had Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in the same time and your definition of 
>change is Bill Clinton.

This is inaccurate.  Congress consists of the House and Senate.  The
Democrats only gained control of the Senate recently ... maybe Reagan's
second term?  If Congress is split, you can't exactly say that Dems had
control.  In fact you could make a good case for the opposite.

Of course, if you have a short memory, or limited experience, I guess
you might think that the Democrats were in control.  Oh, and how many
times have they overridden the Presidential veto?

-- 
 the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
                 the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: Libertarian Party HQ
Subject: Libertarians in the Media
To: All
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:42:48 GMT

LIBERTARIANS IN THE MEDIA
-------------------------

Friday, 7/24/92, 11:15 am to 12:30 pm: media conference at the
National Press Club Building in DC.  This event should be covered
by major national media -- they'd better, they're all in that
building!  And if they don't LET THEM HEAR FROM >>> YOU <<<.  C-
Span is apparently going to cover it.  Set your VCR!


Friday, 7/24/92, 12:00 am to 1:00 am: Andre Marrou will appear on
Larry King's nationally syndicated radio interview show.  Set
your clock-radio to turn on at midnight to hear Andre!


Monday, 7/27/92, 7:15 pm to 8:00 pm: LP National Chair Mary
Gingell will appear on C-Span's live call-in show.   Set your
VCR!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:02:07 GMT

PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:

>Now allow me a clarification of my own.  I by no means think it's "normal"
>for a president to use the military to manipulate public opinion.  That's
>the whole point of my earlier post;  it's not normal, it's _sick_.  And this
>wouldn't be the first time it's happened.  Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin?

Ever hear of World War II, Enigma, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Ever
hear of Pearl Harbor and all the aircraft carriers conveniently out
to sea? Sorry, that game isn't unique to Republicans or any administration,
and Bill Clinton won't be immune to it any more than the others were.
Now maybe Perot.....

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

-- 
-Usual disclaimer, I don't speak for Northern Telecom or any of its affiliates
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush in 92 ?!?!?!
Date: 22 Jul 1992 04:10:54 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Jul22.011000.4782@cs.tulane.edu>, tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek) writes:
|> How many of y'all share my fear that Bush will increse his popularity and win 
the White house in '92 by dumping Quayle and making Baker his VP?

I share the fear, but not for the same reasons. I don't believe that Bush 
NEEDS Baker at the no. 2 spot. He already has Foreign Policy as his strong
suit; what he needs is someone who is either VERY charismatic and does not
need any domestic policy credentials to look good in the public eye (like
Colin Powell) or someone who is very strong on domestic policy, like 
Jack Kemp or Lamar Alexander (would effectively neutralize Gore in Tenn.).


However, Bush won't do it. So don't worry.

|> | Bill Sirinek 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Andre Marrou on Larry King
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:47:05 GMT

In article <8eR=E7200h5y9Cn25K@andrew.cmu.edu>,
cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:
>What level of regulation would you support?  Be specific.
>(I should state, for the record, that I'm not really a Libertarian - I'm
>a free market proponent and supporter of civil rights as defined in the
>Constitution, which makes me share a lot of views with Libertarians, but
>perhaps not all.) I support regulations which require people to be open
>and honest in their dealings, and to present all the information they
>have.  For example, a law requiring doctors to publish and present
>individually to each patient their prices, evidence of success or
>failure of their proposed treatment, possible side-effects, etc. would
>be fine in my books (I don't know if Libs agree with this or not.)
>However, a law which says "even when the doctor and patient are fully
>informed of the consequences, you can't do x" is wrong.  The government
>shouldn't interfere with what two informed, consenting adults do in the
>bedroom - nor should it interfere with what two informed, consenting
>adults do on the operating table.
>
>--Conrad

I think the only disagreement that Libertarians might have with you
here, Conrad, is about compelling the doctors to open their books.
Certainly if the patients asks to see it, the doctor agrees, and
then does not show complete or accurate information, a crime of
fraud has been committed.  However, we would leave it to consumer
pressure to get doctors to open their records in this way.  Of
course, we'd also get rid of a lot of regulations which keep the
supply of doctors artificially low thus giving the consumer more
leverage to say, "show me your records or I'll go elsewhere".

BTW, I don't actually expect that individual patients would do
things like this.  Instead they would look for ratings by Consumers
Union type organizations which would do the work for them and give
them some assurances that they were getting a good deal from this
particular doctor.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Poor maligned Reagan (was Re: Predictions for USA campaign)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:56:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.224239.7608@spdc.ti.com>, dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Bill Dostalik) writes:
>
>But you're right the media (with help) has cozened a great deal of
>the public into believing that eight years of growth was eight years of greed,

Oh right, it's all a media conspiracy...  We don't *really* have a
$4,000,000,000,000 debt.  We didn't simply buy our "growth" on credit.  That's
a big relief, thanks.

>and that RR was responsible for the S&L's,

You're right again!  Deregulation of S&L's had *nothing* to do with them
glutting themselves with risky investments.  And the multibillion dollar (or
is it in the trillions?) bailout is, again, a media ploy to make Ron look bad.

>aids, etc.

Nobody ever accused Reagan of engineering the virus, but he couldn't have done
less to stop it's spread if he'd tried.  But hey, it's just a bunch of queers
and addicts, right?

>Besides even if you're wrong can we survive four years of Bill & Hillary?  Do
>I want to find out?

Yes, you do.  Although even if he's elected and the country doesn't crash and
burn, I wouldn't be surprised if you attributed it to the wonder of the 80's-- 
Ronald Reagan, and his faithful sidekick George.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: No Go Perot!
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:39:39 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul19.170231.14400@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
]In article <1992Jul18.174353.23875@anasazi.com>,
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>a vote
]>for the libertarian is a throw away vote (even though my personal views
]>are closer to the libertarian platform than the republican one).
]
]Is anybody keeping score of the number of people in this group who
]have now espoused this ridiculous position?  Get a clue, guys! You
]are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If all of you who like the

Well, I have two obbjections to this logic...
   1 - I KNOW that my views are a minority - if everyone with my personal
       views voted for the Lib candidate, it would still make no difference
       in the race.
   2 - Although my views are closer to the Lib platform, there are things
       in that platform that I consider sufficiently dangerous that I would
       never wanted it enacted. This is not true of the Republican platform.
       For Libertarians to get elected, they are going to have to get a
       bit less idealistic and understand that even the best of philosophical
       principles may have exceptions. For example, the Lib view of national
       defense is laughable.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Supreme Court qualifications
Date: 22 Jul 1992 04:13:53 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <9207220116.AA19713@cs.utexas.edu>, PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (Peter Laws) writes:
|> Never mind ideology (was: You may not like Clinton but...).  How about we
|> appoint Justices who are *qualified* for the job?  "Justice" Thomas NEVER
|> even tried a case before any court before his appointment to the Court.

Depends on what you mean by "tried." He DID hear cases on appeal while on the
Federal Appeals Court in the District of Columbia. His last decision before
leaving the court was a fairly important one on affirmative action (the Chicago
Tribune praised it effusively). He also was a lawyer for Monsanto at the very
beginning of his career. 

|> Peter Laws  

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush