HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: new york times article: bush was in the loop?
Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:14:40 GMT
Organization: Mythbusters
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Iran-Contra, Weinberger diaries

In article <Bu0DBC.FF4.2@cs.cmu.edu> dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
>I heard from a friend that a New York Times article last week
>published a quote from Bush in reaction to the Weinberger diaries
>that said that he was in the loop.  Apparently Bush said that
>he was in the loop (note change of statement from previous "I was 
>out of the loop") but that because no one else objected he said
>go ahead.  Does anyone have the article?  Know which day this was?

Don't know which "loop" you're referring to, but the Vice-President
is a _statutory_ member of the National Security Council (employer
of Oliver North) and you'd have to pretty credulous to believe that
Bush (a former head of CIA) was not in the loop for the whole process
of circumventing the Constitutution.

Recall the spectacularly revealing neologism introduced by the 
Reagan/Bush administration: plausible deniability.  That's about
all Bush has to hang his hat on.  Note that Bush has had to be 
cornered before admitting any of his gross errors of judgement;
aiding M. Noriega and S. Hussein come to mind immediatedly.

I've wondered about something that happened during the Irangate
hearings for some time.  Perhaps someone out there can help me 
with this.  Richard Secord and his buddy A. Hakkim were supposed
to produce complete records of the money laundering involving
Swiss Bank accounts and the like.  These were promised during
the first few days of the hearings.  Were these documents ever
produced?
----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:17:24 GMT

Following this Pat Robertson thread, I keep noticing people mentioning
Jesus Christ and saying he preached "love and tolerance."

I hate to have to point this out, but Jesus, while preaching love of
fellow men and women, was very firm about who he was and what he was
about...much of which has little to do with what people today would
call "tolerance."

Check out his reaction to the money-changer in the temple...that's not
very "tolerant" is it? Of course not, because these people were
thieves in his Father's house.

Jesus also said "I am the way, the truth, the life...No one comes to
the father except through me." Funny, that's sounds pretty "fundie"
doesn't it?

Read the New Testament and see what Jesus was all about. You may be
surprised.

Michael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: summers%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Summers)
Subject: Re: The Swedish view on Bush
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:48:32 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1992Aug24.140718.27714@ericsson.se> etxjdry@caddie.ericsson.se writes:
>
>Hi,
>
>I'd like to give you an idea of how the American election and President Bush is reflected in Swedish media. 
>
>American politics is naturally of large interest for us in Europe (and Sweden) since we are part of the same economical system that is greatly influenced by what is happening in USA.

THANK YOU!  Would other non-Americans care to report what their
papers are saying?  In general, I would think that other countries
would have less bias (either conserative or liberal), and its always
nice to see what the world thinks of the Americal political dream. :)

LostBoy			 | Sleep all day.    | "Say            
jim summers@cs.utah.edu	 | Party all night.  |     hello       
			 | Never grow old.   |        to the   
                         | Never die.        |             night" 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: A challange to Clintonopiles
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:28:57 GMT

I suppose we could argue from now until 1996 about how Clinton's policies
will either drive us to perdition or be the second coming. His supporters
in particular seem to have a glazed expression not unlike moonies talking
about the Rev. Moon.
 
That aside, I wonder how many of the drum-beaters are willing to put their
money where their mouths are? Since it's pretty clear that Clinton is
going to be elected, let's make a wager on his economic performance. We'll
use the "misery index" that Jimmy Carter was fond of. RIght now it's
around 10, same as at the end of Ford's presidency. 3% inflation + 7%
unadjusted unemployment.
 
Here's the challange: It should be child's play for Clinton to get the
index under 10, right? He's promised us full employment and no inflation.
How many of those with Jann Wenner's embarressing enthusiasm for Clinton
are willing to bet me that Clinton will have the total misery index under 10
by January 1, 1996? The details: If the index is under 10 by then I'll
donate $100 to NOW. But first I want to see 10 Democrats who are willing,
if the index is above 10, to donate $100 to Pat Robertson.
 
Any takers? Public acceptence only, please.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: pat robertson
Date: 30 Aug 92  12:20:00 EST

-> >Enough with the meaningless rhetoric....lets see the text of the
-> >amendment so we can make a truly informed judgement.
-> >
-> >Dr. Norman J. LaFave
->
-> I don't think the text of the amendment is the point.  The article
-> shows that Pat Robertson is a serious whacko who should not be
-> running around loose.
What's more frightening is the fact that Robertson, known affectionately around these parts as The Virginia Beach Ayatollah, is a serious whacko with serious political clout.  "Rev." Robertson has stated that Hinduism is Satanism, his prayers stopped a hurricane (where was he during Andrew?), and, in his recent speech to the Republican National Convention, that "It's time for America to get rid of its left wingers!"

Pat Robertson is a purveyor of neo-McCarthyism (see the above quote), religious bigotry (see his quote on Hinduism), and miscellaneous nonsense.  May he go the way of Jim, Tammy, Jimmy Swaggart, and the other Elmer Gantrys who worship at the altar of Mammon and political power."

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Free speech is life itself."
           --Salman Rushdie

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:31:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Aug31.155643.29330@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>In article <17ro3fINNrvm@news.aero.org>,
>foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>>The other aspect of Pushkin raises a question for the libertarians.
>>He was a libertine. However he objected to anyone paying too much
>>attention to his wife. As a result he died of a dueling wound. My
>>question is would libertarians allow dueling? If not why not?
>
>Well, I can't say it's a subject I've invested a lot of time
>thinking about, but on the surface since all parties agree to
>participate in a duel of their own free will I see no reason that
>libertarians would forbid such activity as long as it was
>conducted in a way which prevented innocent third parties from
>being endangered by the combatants.
>
>/June

Thanks June for responding to my question seriously. Another poster
said who cares and refused to respond. the importance of the question
is not that there are a lot of people out there just waiting to 
conduct duels. Rather it qives insight into the limits of government
control one wouls support. 

I think your answer is good and is consistant with the libertarian 
philosophy.

Richard Foy
Redondo Beach CA       Standard Disclaimer
From: sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Cuomo's track record (WAS: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic)
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:56:54 GMT
Organization: NASA

Loren I. Petrich writes
> In article <1992Aug26.175415.21820@philabs.philips.com>  
jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:
> 
> 	[Long bitch about Cuomo raising auto-related taxes]
> 
> 	I'm not surprised. Car owners are a long way away from paying
> from the roads they drive on out of vehicle registration fees and fuel
> taxes. One estimate is that American roads are at least 38%
> subsidized, and probably more, depending on what one counts.

  Considering that "subsidies" amount to tax dollars being spent on road  
construction and maintenance, I'd say our highway system is pretty close to  
100% subsidized.  I assume your 38% figure represents the portion that does not  
come from auto-related taxes.

  Highways are still the arteries of our economy.  If government road subsidies  
were reduced, we would all compensate in the form of higher prices on  
groceries, durable goods, and everything else that is distributed by way of  
public roads.  (Incidentally, that also includes gasoline!)

  Public education provides an interesting analogy.  When your tax dollars are  
used to support public schools, you should never interpret this as paying for  
your children's education.  Rather, you are paying for the benefit of living in  
an educated society, i.e. one with lower crime, better jobs, and a healthier  
economy.  Similarly, when your taxes go to support public roads, you aren't  
just paying for your right to drive on them; you're making it possible for  
consumer goods to be delivered at an affordable price.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Davis                      | sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov |
| NASA, DL-DSD-32                  | (NeXT Mail preferred)       |
| Kennedy Space Center, FL  32899  |                             |
| (407)867-7582  fax:(407)867-2173 | #include <disclaimer.h>     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12372 alt.rush-limbaugh:4260 talk.politics.misc:43643
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton leads new poll by 34 points
Keywords: yes
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:25:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep3.205201.16821@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>
>	The trick in reading poll results is to look at the results based on
>previous examples of the same poll. The polls this year have been pretty 
>consistant in that they all go the same direction at once, although the
>spreads vary considerably, thanks to the questions that they ask.

<<missing>>

>	I think that the big desparity come from the screening process.
>All the polls screen the participants for "registered voters" or "likely
>voters" or sume such criteria, and it seems to make a big difference.

Not to mention that whenever a pollster interrupts me at home in the
evening I get my revenge by lying through my teeth. How do you think
David Duke got his 5% anyway?
-- 
John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
                           | remember Candace Bergen or Murphy
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12094 alt.politics.bush:3701 alt.politics.clinton:3691 alt.politics.marrou:968 alt.politics.perot:1380
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Our constitution and politics.
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:16:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

[ sorry for the first one... a bit repetitious, eh? :-( My news poster
  was having trouble with "talk.politics.election" as the original
  author had in his Newsgroups: line. ]

ray@nmt.edu (Ray Piworunas) once wrote: 
> Our constitution establishes and defines our freedoms.

It's unfortunate that that is what people have been led to believe.
Our rights and freedoms are ours, not granted by any document. The
document, if anything, defines the restrictions on our freedoms and
rights. The Constitution is not the font of our rights, but does
attempt to establish mechanisms for protecting them.

Our Constitution is the blueprint for our federal system of
government. It defines the procedural mechanisms for forming the
government, passing laws, and enforcing laws. It grants specific
powers to the federal government, and restricts it from all except
those. It embodies the concept that government is created by man, and
it derives its power from the governed. Democracy. Government does not
create rights, and government does not create sovereignty. The people
hold natural rights, and the people are the only source of
sovereignty.

That's the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, IMO.

Unfortunately, that spirit is largely ignored by the government, and
the people themselves. The voters get what they deserve, I suppose.

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "The American Republic will endure, until
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  politicians realize they can bribe the people
-------------------+  with their own money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
"The truly ignorant +-------------------------------------------------
 in our society are those people who would throw away the parts of
 the Constitution they find inconvenient." 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Clinton and Flowers Question
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 14:37:16 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.037 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <Aug.27.14.25.41.1992.28265@gandalf.rutgers.edu>  shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
> I was having a discussion with a friend about the election in general
> and he brought up the Clinton/Flowers "scandal".  He asserted that
> Clinton admitted to having an affair w/ Flowers.  I said that I hadn't
> heard about this, but he assured me that it was true.
>
> I would have thought the press would have made a HUGE deal about this if
> it had indeed happened.  I didn't have time to press my friend for details.
> Can anyone tell me if this is true?
>
> Now, before all you Clinton haters jump on the bandwagon and tell me what
> you have deduced, I don't want to hear it.  All I want to know is if he
> actually admited to having an affair with her and what is the source of
> your information so I can look it up for myself.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> --
> Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu)
> Publications Coordinator - User Services
> Rutgers University Computing Services

I seem to recall that Bill and Hillary appeared on one of the
Network News shows (either 60 minutes or 20/20 with Barbara Walters)
and discussed his(their) family problems.  This interview was
done during the low point of his campaign and is given
partial credit for bringing it (his campaign) back.  It was not
an admission of an affair with Flowers but that at one point
in their marriage they have had problems.


Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE -- "The Verdict is Treason": THE VERDICT
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 17:40:57 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

> I was going to reprint extracts from this silly article, but frankly,
> why would Reagan have to steal the election when Carter *handed* victory
> to him? No one cared that much about Iran. What people vote on is
> the economy. Carter more than doubled inflation and unemployment. He
> ran on a campaign that cited the "misery index" and then doubled that
> index.
>
> The "October Surprise" argument is pure bullshit, an attempt to criminalize
> any and all acts by a non-Democratic executive branch. When Kennedy and
> his cabinet lied about the secret prototcols, did we have a call for
> criminal indictment?
>
>              --mike

One could ask the same question of Nixon in '72.  That's why almost every other
daily in the country refused to pick up the Washington Post's
Woodward/Bernstein stuff on Watergate.  Nobody could believe that the Nixon
campaign could possibly be so stupid as to do what they did.

With that as precedent, I'm willing to listen to any argument about Reagan.
McGovern was a liberal, anti-war Senator.  Carter was a sitting President.  If
the Republicans were stupid enough to do what they did in '72 to someone as
beatable as McGovern, it stands to reason that they'd try it again eight years
later when the odds of getting elected were not as good.




|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|
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: congress bashing
Date: 25 Aug 92  00:05:00 EST

-> He did say in his inaugural address that "the American people didn't
-> send us here to bicker." He did compromise: the Budget Deal of 1990.
-> He has compromised: the Civil Rights Bill of 1991. Re the Civil Rights Bill of 1991:  in 1990, Bush vetoed practically the same bill he signed a year later.  After the veto, compromise talks were commenced between big business, represented by a group headed by AT&T CEO Robert Allen, and civil rights groups.  The talks were showing some promise when John Sununu and C. Boyden Gray stepped in and worked to sabotage the talks.  Allen was quoted as saying, "They don't want a bill, they want an [election] iss
ue."  Whether George Bush had anything to do with the actions of his Chief of Staff and the White House Counsel, no one can say for sure.  But the actions can be read as possibly being an attempt to play to the "Bubba" vote.

One instance of Bush and Congress working together that I find interesting is the Clean Air Act.  Bush signed the legislation, some elements in the business community didn't like it, and suddenly Dan Quayle's Competitiveness Council short circuits enforcement provisions, all behind closed doors, thanks to an executive order from the President of the United States that said the Competitiveness Council could work in camera and out of the public eye.  More than his alleged incompetence, more than the lack of 
public confidence in the Vice President, I find his use of the Competitiveness Council to be the most egregious example of why James Danforth Quayle III should never take office as president of the United States.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Four more months!  Four more months!"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: GOP violates Constitution
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:09:01 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <182rttINN4tj@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
]In article <1992Sep1.162745.25211@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>]    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
]>                              ^^^^^^^^
]>
]>Berkeley... I was out there a couple of weeks ago. Just as looney as it
]>was the last time I was there (1968).
]>
]>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
]      ^^^^^^^
]
]Anasazi... Aren't they the Americans who fought for 100 years (17th century)
]to prevent the Europeans from imposing their religious orthodoxy?  Not
]particularly appropriate for a Buchanan apologist.
I am not a Buchana "apologist" (what a clever way ad hominem attack
- call someone an apologist - it implies that they have something
to apologize for).

I see that in addition to being looney, Berkeley fails also on it's
Native American (is that the PC word this week?) history. The Anasazi
were long gone before the Spanish appeared (although their descendants
are believed to populate the Pueblos in the 4 corner area).

]Here in Berkeley we _do_ envy the cultural advantages of Scottsdale.
]Not every city is lucky enough to have spring training as the wellspring
]of intellectual stimulation.

Well, you've got me there. Berkeley does have intellectual stimulation,
especially as compared to Scottsdale. However, it's still looney.


-- 
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
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: PETITIONING WORK TO BE DONE - 39 LIBERTARIAN STATES
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 03:21:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.201628.1191@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
>In article <mjc.715010074@NL.CS.CMU.EDU> mjc+@cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) writes:
>
>}Why the difference?  Do different states apply more stringent criteria to
>}declare a signature valid?  Is the process more prone to errors in some
>}states?  Is someone just making up these numbers?
>
>i think the normal target is 40% more than required. but yes, some
>states have stricted criteria than others. i think the states where we
>are only looking for 20% more do not verify the signatures (other than
>counting) unless someone challenges the petition in which the challenger
>has to pay to have them checked.

Some states also require that the signatures be collected and filed
by some state district (e.g. Congressional).  Since many people
don't know what district their in, especially after reapportionment,
the probability of a signature being disqualified for being on the
wrong petition goes up.

/June
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc