HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Priorities
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:38:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.015725.5123@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.204524.763@ils.nwu.edu> Cliff Chaput <chaput@ils.nwu.edu> writes:

>
>Isn't it interesting that now the Kuwait War is over, the Democrats are
>complaining that the U.S. didn't do a good enough job and that Saddam
>Hussein is still in power?  There was even the idea to go in and get Saddam
>Hussein.  They seem to be saying that economic sanctions are not working.

The complaint may stem from the fact that once we chose war, we did
not end it properly.  If we're going to discard sanctions, shouldn't
war be prosecuted effectively, instead of restraining Schwarzkopf
with the artificial 100 hour ground campaign?  Why didn't we rely
on the field commanders judgement?

>
>>Perhaps part of our domestic agenda could have included making the US 
>>less dependant on foreign oil. 
>
>I agree.  But it takes lots and lots of time to make a proper transition
>from oil to some other form.

We were working on alternative energy sources as far back as Carter.
Reagan cut down spending on research.  We had at least a decade
but didn't do a whole lot.

>
>
>>
>>An example of this in action is Malasia, where they dumped 85% of their 
>>tax money into education.  Now countries all over the world manufacture 
>>electronics in Malasia because they have people who know how to do the 
>>job.  
>
>It is probably cheaper labor, too.

Yes, but cheap labor is useless for high tech manufacture if it
is unskilled.  Why aren't plants moving to Mexico or Sri Lanka?

>
>Where are our BIG disagreements?
>

Abortion? :-)


--
"There's one reborn every minute."
		-- Dalai Dan, 153rd Reincarnation of the Lama.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Shades of Dukakis
Organization: nope
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:43:49 GMT

In article <1588800004@igc.apc.org> McAldon International Inc. <mcaldon@igc.apc.org> writes:
>I've noticed a lot of wailing about lies from the Bushies.  What's
>the point?  Let's go to work on some "fractional truths" of our own.
>I'm no student of Bush statements but seems to me I recall some call
>to reduce entitlements, including Medicare.  Clinton used this tactic
>on Tsongas in Florida; why not dust it off, supercharge it, and blast
>Bush for planning to cut Social Security and Medicare so he can support
>Russia?

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Bush lies.  Now we see that the
Clinton folks think that's good for them to do so as well.  It's an
interesting tactic.  Convince me that Clinton is just like Bush.

-andy

--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: AMERICA'S BULLSHIT WATCH
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:24:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.202344.3242@gvl.unisys.com>,
eds@gvlf5-q.gvl.unisys.com (Ed Skladany) wrote:
> 
> 
>  The Scene: The Republican National Convention at Houston's Astrodome
> 
>  The Bullshit:  A wall of lies.  An oppressive cloud of distortion.
>    Vicious lies.  Insidious lies.  A conspiracy of lies not seen since
>    Joseph Goebbels so effectively used his vision of The Big Lie.  Lies
>    so offensive to people who strive for the truth that it makes one
>    want to buy an NRA-sanctioned AK-47 and massacre every Republican
>    leader he can find.  While listening to one lie after another, I hear
>    the echo of George Bush in my head: "I will do whatever it takes to
>    get reelected."

Thanks for being so specific in your complaints.  I know I felt that the
Democratic Convention (ie, DOOM IS NOW) was FAR more honest...NOT.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:52:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <47016@shamash.cdc.com>, rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) wrote:
> Yes, I'd like a copy.  Or at least, if you are going to tell us what Gore said,
> you should quote him in his own words.  I am sure he did not say anything
> about punishing anybody for doing well.  What he said was that it sure was
> not fair to reduce taxes on the rich, raise them on middle class families,
> and put an enormous federal debt on the shoulders of the next generations
> of Americans.  That sure needs fixing!

I'll get you a transcript.  He did not use the word "punish" -- I did.  He
said that the reason for raising their taxes was because they did so well
under Reagan.  One: they paid more taxes under Reagan than Carter. Two: if
I become "rich" tomorrow, it's because of my hard work, not Ronald Reagan. 
To punish me for my achievement is STUPID.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4025 alt.politics.bush:4069
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:15:02 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

<JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov
> (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:
> >
> >I am sick to death of Republicans using crystal ball arguements (Bill Clinto
> >X policy WILL cause y). These arguements are usually overly-simplistic, devo
> >of facts, in direct opposition to statements by experts, etc. Furthermore,
> >Bush hasn't given us anything close to the detail necessary to decide if his
> >"plan" is any better and he has had four years to do so.
> >
>
> Yeah, but there's a great Republican tradition of doing this:  remember
> the "Laffer Curve" that brought us the trickle-down economics of the
> 80's?  Simple concepts for simple brains - in this case Reagan's.
>
> It's a con job.  It's a lie.  Call it either one - you'd be right.
>

George Bush did both of those in 1980.  He called it 'Voodoo Economics.'

Clinton's referring to Bush as a voodoo priest yesterday gave me a good laugh.
Especially since a Republican-dominated school board in a neighboring parish
voted at the beginning of the summer to ban a book that deals with voodoo
practices.  I guess the next books they'll ban ought to be some of the economic
material coming from the Bush administration...



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:31:20 GMT

mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:

>According to the USA Today (8-26-92)           
>                                                               
>"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
>presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
>but still led the nation to war".                                 
[...]

I think USA today made the mistake. The reports I saw had Clinton
giving Lincoln as an example of a president who never saw *military
action* (i.e. he served, but didn't fight).

- Carl


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3042 alt.politics.bush:2955
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:17:06 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <1992Aug25.191613.23545@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>I have these examples of why I will have a hard time voting
>Democratic in the near future.
>
>Jimmy Carter - a nice guy to be sure but NOT a good President.
>		...           
>Governor Jim Florio (NJ):
>		...
>And then there is Mario Cuomo, Governor of NY.
>
>In general I simply have a hard time trusting members of the democratic 
>party - they are too quick to raise taxes and 'help me' with new programs.
>
>Just my opinion....
>
>Joe
>joec@morgan.com
>Usual disclaimers....

Oh, this was to good to resist.
Why I can not vote Republican:

Richard Nixon - can you say Watergate?  Did everything he could to
	when the election. (Sound familiar?)  And, hey, I always
	hated those insinuations that I was named after his daughter.

David Duke (State Rep. LA) - former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

And then there is Pat Buchanan.

See, that was easy.  It is not hard to find people from either party
(past or present) that people may not like.  (Actually, I don't think
that Nixon was that bad of a pres. besides Watergate.)  Giving or
having reasons not to vote for a person based on that person's 
personality, record, or the platform is a better basis for deciding
not to vote for someone.  On a similar thread, I could say that I
will not vote for anyone from Tennessee because I never liked Elvis
and dislike his music.  This was not ment as a flame, just to point
out what I saw as faulty logic.

patricia

p.s.  The above was laced with mild humor.
      And, yes, I have been told that I'm not funny before.  :) 

p.p.s. (or is that p.s.s.?) I edited the newsgroup line.  I hope 
      you don't mind.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3054 alt.politics.bush:2970
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:37:06 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <Sep.2.11.28.27.1992.15202@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
->Bush/Quayle seem to be making up the definition as they go along.  However, 
->even though you don't seem to see this, one message rings loud and clear:
->the only families that are acceptable are 2 parent, heterosexual, families.
->Every other type of family has been denounced by Bush/Quayle.

 I do see this. thats why I said reread BENNETS speech.
 Please provide a quote where a republican has said.
   
   Single parent familes and gay couples have no values.

 Dont quote a democrate please.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What is meant by rich?
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:55:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Odesta Corporation

pws2n@vision1.ee.Virginia.EDU (Philip Weaver Smith) writes:


>A little while back, somebody asked what Clinton meant
>by "rich"?  The person wanted  a little clearer definition.
>According to Clinton's proposed tax program he plans to cut
>taxes for individuals or families making less than $82,000 and
>he plans to raise taxes on those individuals or families
>making over $250,000.  So I guess he uses the term
>"rich" to describe those people making over $250,000  per
>year.

The top 1% of the income distribution in the U.S. starts around
$300,000 per year, so Clinton has identified as "rich" those in
the top one or two percent of Americans, by income.  That seems
like a pretty good definition to me.  The top fifth starts somewhere
around $95,000 or so, so the $82,000 figure should include roughly
75-80% of Americans.  This also happens to take from those who reaped
the largest income growths (averaging over 100%) during the Reagan
years, and give to those whose incomes remained flat or grew by much
smaller amounts.  Before someone asks, my figures come from the 
New York Times (effects of Reagan) and Money magazine (income distribution).
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: More intelligence
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:21:28 -0500
Summary: pol v ec
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Wait a minute, now.

Political theorists are wrong, but economic theorists we can trust?

The brunt of the intelligence issue argument is this:
1)  Assuming some amount of moral goodness in men who have spent time in the
public arena (possibly excepting Nixon), moots out the "character issue".

2)  Using some of the only data that we have available to measure the
candidate's intelligence, the GOP ticket comes up a little shorter than their
opponents'.

Provide me some evidence that Bush and Quayle are smarter than Clinton and Gore
and (as an intelligent man) I will listen to it.

Otherwise, I am not looking for saints in office, but effective
decision-makers.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio)
Subject: Re: What issues are important to you?
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:11:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.181202.8127@athena.mit.edu> jcconger@athena.mit.edu
  (John Conger) lists campaign issues:

> Abortion
> Crime
> Economy
> Education
> Entitlement Reform 
> Environment
> Family Values
> Foreign Policy
> Gun Control
> Health Care
> Infrastructure
> Minority Rights
> Supreme Court
> Urban Renewal

Well, John, you forgot a few biggies (in no particular order):

  The Bill of Rights  [Must be re-strengthened, after Reagan/Bush assaults.]
    A couple of old favorites ...
      Freedom of speech  [Strike the gag rule, and the ban on flag-burning.]
      Separation of church and state  [No religious litmus tests.]
  The right to privacy
  An end to the drug war  [Futile waste of $$, and invasion of privacy.]

  Women's rights  [NB: Women are not a "minority," by any stretch.]
  Children's rights
  A tough position against rape, child abuse and other similar crimes
  A tough position against *all* hate crimes

  The environment  [Look at Hong Kong if you think we need deregulation.
    Even Republican Bill Weld sees the fallacy of that position.]
  Industrial policy  [Civilian ARPA as countermeasure to MITI.]
  Consumer rights  [Quayle's chipping away must be countered.]

  The peace dividend  [Let's see some, already!  Not a moment too soon!]

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  12-OCT-90:  Quayle says of David Duke's candidacy, "Unfortunately, the     |
|     people of Lousiana are not racists."                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  22-OCT-90:  Bush vetoes bill that would have reversed Supreme Court        |
|    decisions that limited the effect of federal laws against job            |
|    discrimination, saying it would lead to quotas.                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Health Care Plans
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:55:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.181038.29884@bnr.ca> yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount) writes:
>There has been much debate on this group about Clinton wanting
>to pass a health care plan, and everyone keeps talking about
>Canada's system. Bill Clinton has said several times that he 
>does not favor the Canadian plan. He prefers a plan closer to
>Hawaii's system. Can anyone post a description of that plan or
>a recent news article detailing what Hawaii does. Thanks.
>

Pay or play...companies provide health insurance or else pay a health
tax to the government to pay for insurance for the uninsured...in 
Hawaii, I think is through a private HMO-type of structure.

Gerald

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:53:57 GMT

fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:


>Personally, I'm voting for Clinton not so much for Clinton (who is at
>least as pro-business as Bush) but for Al Gore's environmental proposals.

Hmmm. I'm not so sure you're going to get what you want. If Clinton is,
as you say, 'at least as pro-business as Bush,' then there is really no
way that Clinton will allow Gore to have any significant impact on 
enviromental policy. If Clinton had been concerned more with environment
than business growth in Arkansas, he would have listened to people like
Gore to begin with. The truth, as anyone will tell you, is that Clinton's
environmental record is terrible by US standards. When the media even
says things like "his policy hasn't been so hot," then you can be sure it's
pretty bad, probably even less stellar than Bush's. When this is considered,
it becomes all too clear why "the environment" is definitely NOT a campaign
issue this year.

The choice of Al Gore as Clinton's running mate was a rather deceptive move
to create the illusion that Clinton would be as strong on foreign policy, the
military and the environment as Gore is, claiming that he admires Gore's
agenda. If you think Gore will have much of an effect on Slick Willie's
presidency, then you may be in for a shock. 

-ACF
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3858 tx.politics:4759 alt.politics.bush:3889
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 21:37:11 GMT
 <17ttqmINN9fr@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <17ttqmINN9fr@agate.berkeley.edu>, Andrew J. Lazarus writes:

[ more attempts to manipulate me deleted...]

> Democrats didn't put a tax increase because they are Satanic (Buchanan
> and the Quayle in-laws notwithstanding), but because they couldn't find
> any other way to reduce the deficit -- AND NEITHER DID BUSH. However,

The Democrat leadership couldn't care less about the deficit!  They wanted the
tax increase so that they could embarrass the President by forcing him to break
his promise.  (It worked.)

[...]

> For comparison, I don't like Pete Wilson's California budget, but at
> least he put one on the table and if the public doesn't like the
> results, he'll pay the price. Not Bush, and not (apparently) you.

I don't know what is in Pete Wilson's budget, but I applaud his courage in trying
to stem the spending in California.

> 
> Instead of answering my quite-specific question, Pritchett continued
>  
> >> Which is the Free Lunch party again?
> 
> >The Democrats, of course.  What liberal special interest group is there that hasn't
> >been promised big taxpayer bucks?
> 
> [long imitation of Clinton deleted]
> 
> I seem to recall Bush promised a job training plan, a health plan
> (cheaper than Clinton, but nonzero), and an across-the-board tax cut.
> However, he didn't mention how to pay for any of them EITHER.
> 
> Your turn.

So, even you admit that the Republicans would spend less.



I'm tired of typing (great shouts of joy resound across usenet...)



                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: nope
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:53:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.195946.134@cs.rochester.edu> fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>Seriously, Lance, the Army ain't that stupid.  Tanks have pisspots inside,
>as well as food.  It isn't very easy to fuck up the treads, and they have
>a lot more than one little periscope.
>
>There are reasonable answers to tank warfare, but I don't think the NRA
>is going to advocate fiber-optic guided missiles for the masses soon.
>-- 
>Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
>Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu

As a member of a CS department, I know why Fulk thinks he has all
the answers.  Interestingly enough, the Army folks disagree with him.

They think that they're quite vulnerable to folks with small arms.
Fulk's revelations will allow them to cut the infantry support they
think they need.  But, what do they know.  They've only had experience
with the situation, while Fulk is an expert at a prominent CS
department.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:45:18 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Michael J. Bumbulis writes:
>
>I suppose they are.  They fear a return to the "Carter Years".
>But they ought not to fear too much, as it's one thing to
>win the White House, it's another to keep it.  Clinton and
>the media have been "dooming and glooming" so bad that people
>flocked to a Perot.  Now Clinton is painting himself as the
>"hero" and is promising all sorts of things.  He is also
>portraying himself as a "moderate".  If the economy doesn't get
>better, if it gets worse, and if Clinton imposes all sorts of
>liberal changes on society, if a foreign crisis happens, and he
>raises more taxes, etc we can kiss Clinton good bye.  
>
>Look at it this way.  Clinton has created for himself a very tall
>order to fill.  If his term becomes like Carter's, the Republicans
>will be running against the last TWO times the Democrats had
>both the White House and the Congress from then on. If Clinton
>screws up, it'll be the last time the Democrats have the White House
>for a LONG time. ~
>
Clinton has repeatedly, publicly said as much. He has said: this is
what I'll do. If I don't, hold me accountable. 

It has been my constant belief that among the third and fourth things
Clinton will do (after a couple of symbolic "liberal" gestures) will
be to a) enact a capital gains tax and b) freeze entitlements. Like
Nixon in China, it will take a Democratic president to enable the
Democratic Congress to do either. In fact, given a Democratic Congress,
a Republican president would never even propose b. Just a political
fact of life.

Personally, I'm voting for Clinton not so much for Clinton (who is at
least as pro-business as Bush) but for Al Gore's environmental proposals.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:28:12 GMT

> = John Conger writes:
>> = Michael Bumbulis writes:

>Michael J. Bumbulis was discussing Clinton's mistake in reference to 
>Clinton's reference to Lincoln's lack of military action and he says:

>>Hmmm.  If Quayl had made such a mistake, don't you think the media
>>would have been parading it?

[...]
>Secondly, Dan has a wealth of these.  

My favorite:

  "Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific.  It is
   _in_ the Pacific.  It is a part of the United States that is an
   island that is right here."
					  - Dan Quayle, visiting Hawaii

Seems like there should be a "Clunk!" sound at the end of that quote :).


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton