HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: The media.  How accurate?  How fair?
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:31:48 GMT

In article <ldtqlnINNar1@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Stupendous Man) writes:
>|> > 
>|> > CCN's Special Assignment reviewed the entire VP debate and concluded that
>|> > Quayle had made repeated errors, distortions, and misrepresentations.  His
>|> > allegations about Gore's book were labled "False."  His tax allegations
>|> > were labeled "Distortion."  His claim that Gore had voted for the Central
>|> > American bill on jobs was shown to be "Wrong."  They concluded that if the
>|> > voters had scored the debate on the basis of who reported the facts most
>|> > accurately, Quayle would be the loser hands down.
>|> 
>|> 	Yes, the decline of CNN continues...too bad, really.  It used to be
>|> such a good source of unbiased news.
>|> 
>News is facts.  Fact 1 is what Quayle said.  Fact 2 is it's veracity. 
>That sounds like very unbiased news to me.  If CNN is not supposed to
>report Fact 2, then all they would be is a funnel for campaign
>propoganda.  That is what paid campaign commercials are for.
>
>You give the impression that news coverage should not review the
>veracity of the candidates, and yet you constantly question the
>veracity of Clinton.

Nope. He gave the impression that he questions the veracity of CNN.
Judging from the facts that have come out over the various items, I'd label
CNN's report "distortion". (e.g. on the "Marshall plan for environment" charge, 
check out the Paul Gigot column, Thursday, in the WSJ).
On taxes, Quayle made a simple and true statement.

	"$150 billion in new taxes" = almost $1500 for every working person.
	Yikes.

Pat
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush predicts Clinton will win??
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:42:08 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

I'm trying to nail down some gossip here.  I have heard two people today
talking about a speech GWHB made yesterday in which he said something like
"...and when Bill Clintons the president I hope he...".  I find this hard
to believe but it would be a scream if it were true.  Has anyone heard this?

Thanks,
Marty Dart.

My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51171 talk.politics.drugs:6733 talk.politics.guns:22027 alt.politics.elections:16286 alt.politics.libertarian:803 alt.politics.marrou:1570
From: cecchini@acsu.buffalo.edu (Julie A Cecchini)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:28:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB


(Peter Nelson) writes:
     First of all, no L.P. presidential candidate has ever exceeded 1%
     of the vote, so even if Marrou/Lord are doing that well this year
     and Perot is only doing 7% then Perot is still doing *7 times as
     well* as Marrou/Lord!   I would say that this IS "much better".

     Second, the polls I've seen show Perot to be in the 10-14% range.

(David Steinberg) writes:
Coincidently enough, when Perot first re-entered the race, his supoort
was about 1%.  Yeah, now he's up to 10-14%; maybe it has something to
do with the hours of free advertising the press has been giving him...
(Peter Nelson) writes:
>  I don't doubt it, but so what?  Aren't they within their rights to 
>  to this?   Larry King was not compelled by the government or force
>  or fraud to invite Perot on his show.  
>
>  There is nothing to stop the L.P. from nominating a figure who has
>  the kind of dash or emotional appeal or whatever the other qual-
>  ities are of a Ross Perot (or George Wallace, or John Anderson
>  or Teddy Roosevelt (of the Bull Moose days) that attracts the 
>  attention of the media.   It's pure Usenerdism to think that
>  people are successful in politics based soley on their ideas.
>  Style and P.R. (or B.S., if you like) are just as important if
>  not more so.

Cash?  Perot grabbed the attention because he had a listing on
the top 100 billionairs  in Fortune magazine.

Kinda ridiculous.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: us
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:48:33 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>Actually, I agree that if Bush loses in '92 then the Republican party
>will probably be out of power for many years, but my reason for that
>belief is somewhat different.
>
>Look at the Republican National Convention; the Republican party is
>very close to tearing itself apart.  The various wings of the party
>(the small-government folks, the moderates, the anti-communist
>neoconservatives, the far-right religious groups) have essentially no
>commonality, and no trust for each other.  The only thing holding the
>Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
>elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
>party from fragmenting.

Reminds me of the post-'68 Democratic Party.  Think of all the
parallels...  Charismatic president ends his term (JFK by assassination,
RR by 2-terms) and is succeeded in good times by his vice-president, who
has a failed term.  Then his party splinters, and has a fractious and
ugly convention (Chicago 68, Houston 92).  Then the party is taken over
by its far-left/right wings, respectively.  I think the Republican party
is going to get far, far mworse, not better -- look for more Dornans and
Buchanans and Dannenmeyers, not Kemps and Bakers.  And Quayle will sink
into the obscurity he deserves....

GARY
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:06:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct9.140035.5043@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>>>
>>>|                     STOP SUBSIDIZING THE RICH
>>>| The average mortgage in the United States is $104,000. I propose that we 
>>>| limit deductions on interest to mortgages of $250,000 and that we eliminate 
>>>| the special deduction for vacation homes.
>>>
>>>This makes perfect sense to me.
>> 
>>   It makes IMperfect sense to me:  Perot is right that, as I've pointed
>>   out here many times, the home-mortgage-interest deduction is nothing but
>>   welfare for the middle-class.
>
>I wouldn't object to seeing the mortgage deduction completely
>eliminated as part of a complete tax overhaul.  That doesn't mean that
>limiting the interest deduction for the most expensive homes and
>vacation home doesn't make sense. 

  It depends on how you define "sense".   If Perot is truly interested 
  in sharing the pain he could propose limiting the percentage of the 
  mortgage interest you can deduct.  That way everybody still has to 
  pay a price -- in absolute dollars the owner of the expensive house 
  will still pay more.


>>   But Perot's proposal is just more of his usual "soak the 'rich'", 
>>   politics-of-envy b.s. that totally belies his claims about "sharing
>>   the pain".    
>
>While you're complaining that his program is a "soak the rich"
>scheme, others are complaining that his gas and sin taxes place an
>unfair burden on the middle class

   Why?  Rich people have bigger, more gas-guzzling cars.  And why
   would middle class people pay more under a "sin tax"?   The very
   nature of what's taxed under a "sin tax" is that it's non-essential
   so if you don't want to pay the tax you can simply not buy the 
   product.  Anyway, as I said, spending cuts, not tax increases are
   the way to go.


> or that his deep spending cuts will place an unfair burden on the poor. 
 
   This depends on what you cut.  A balanced federal budget without tax
   increases will still be $1.1 trillion dollars -- plenty of money to
   look after the poor if that's what you choose to do with it.


---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:42:00 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct14124320@physics.berkeley.edu>, 
matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes...

>A true leader would, in my opinion, force the public to recognize that
                                     ^^^^^
>its desires are not compatible with each other, and would force the
                                                           ^^^^^ 
>public to reassess its desires, and to begin making choices between
>coherent alternatives.

I'll bet you got a big kick out of Clockwork Orange, where they taped 
open the rapist's eyes, and forced him to watch long hours of rape 
scenes, and.. annd...

"Ve have vays uf making you Politically Correct."  ;^)

>Matthew Austern
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu

-- Stephen Tice
From: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Americans believe Anita Hill
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:42:43 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle

In article <1992Oct7.021019.4598@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
: In article <1992Oct6.201554.19629@tamsun.tamu.edu>, enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:
: > The results of a recent poll by NBC and the Today Show indicate that a  
: > majority of Americans now believe Anita Hill was telling the truth about  
: > Clarence Thomas.  What took you so long?
: > 
: 
: 	Two factors are influencing this:
: 
: 	1) General rise of female candidates/pride promoting awareness
: 
: 	2) The media as "Willie Hortonized" the affair so that every mention
: casts Clarence Thomas as a liar.
: 
Another factor:

Despite Thomas' bland asurances in his hearings that he was
open-minded and had no particular ideological axe to grind,
his opinions during his first term reflect quite strong
ideological views.  His opinion in the case concerning the
beating of prisoner's (e.g. that severe beatings were
unfortunate but not precluded by the "cruel and unusual
punishment" clause) are quite disturbing to many people, even
non-liberals.  Several conservative SC justices expressed
revulsion at that particular decision.  Since it is clear to
many of us that he lied about his judicial philosophy, in
order to get confirmed, we have no trouble believing that he
could very well have lied about the Anita Hill matter.

-- 
Larry Baum
Computer Science Organization
Boeing Computer Services     uucp:       uw-beaver!bcsaic!lbaum
(206) 865-3365               internet:   lbaum@atc.boeing.com       
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Reagan/Clinton a tale of two govenors
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:03:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.081054.22576@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.013039.12544@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>>If you say so... me, I think I prefer honesty from the men and women
>>who call themselves our leaders, no matter how much it may hurt.

>Me, I think I prefer people in office who do not fancy themselves as leaders,
>but as servants to the people in the offices of our government. What made
>Ronald Reagan so special was that he supported the interests of Americans
>against the interests of the Beltway Ruling Class (TM).

This *is* a joke, right?  Ronald Reagan (or his advisors, given that he
slept through his presidency) wanted to eliminate governmental
regulations on business.  He wanted to lower personal income taxes.  

That's *all*.  He was at least as statist as anyone, however.  
On taxes.  He lowered the top rates, true.  He also signed plenty of
	bills which raised taxes.  SocSec, the most regressive tax in 
	existence, went up.  He signed plenty of bills which mandated
	that states provide certain services to the public -- *forcing* 
	states to raise taxes a lot.
On crime.  He was one of the major forces behind the WarOnCivilLiberties,
	including the WoD and the attack on habeas corpus.  He tried to gut 
	the Bill of Rights.
And he decided to do the so-called liberal approach of throwing money at
	a problem -- the Department of Defense.
Not to mention the billions of taxpayer dollars he wasted on the Contras.

(And, he even endorsed the Brady Bill.)

>Government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. I guess I'm just
>an ol' fashioned kind of guy.

Agreed.

>Oh well, back to the usual socialist drivel...

This from the guy who likes the fascist state o' Singapore.

As long as your taxes are low, right, Ed?
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51373 alt.politics.elections:16459
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:18:26 GMT
	<1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>
	<MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: matt@physics.berkeley.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 14:39:00 GMT

matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
|Actually, I agree that if Bush loses in '92 then the Republican party
|will probably be out of power for many years, but my reason for that
|belief is somewhat different.

|Look at the Republican National Convention; the Republican party is
|very close to tearing itself apart.  The various wings of the party
|(the small-government folks, the moderates, the anti-communist
|neoconservatives, the far-right religious groups) have essentially no
|commonality, and no trust for each other.  The only thing holding the
|Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
|elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
|party from fragmenting.

This is exactly the case.  Like the fragile democratic coalition which
fell apart in 1968 over race, the fragile republican coalition is
falling apart in 1992 over the end of the cold war and social issues
like homosexuality and abortion.

The emergence of a stronger middle class destroyed the democratic
party (the New Deal had within it its own seeds of destruction) and
the retreat of the middle class in the 1980's has recreated it.

That and a president who--fairly or not--is perceived to be out of
touch.

--
Peace.
         "It's rural America.  It's where I came from.  
          We always refer to ourselves as real America.  
          Rural America, real America, real, real, America."
                      -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:59:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.190653.9569@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
    >In article <12605@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP
    >(Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >
    >>Eating disorders are also a common nonsexual response to
    >>childhood sexual abuse.[Bagley & King, 114, 117, Faller, 150,
    >>Everstine & Everstine, 18] Significantly, soc.motss is a
    >>group where many members identify themselves as "bears"
    >>(overweight and hairy) as distinguished from "twinks" (those
    >>with more normal body shapes).
    >>
    >This is so completely stupid I should save it an quote it
    >from time to time. FYI, a bear does not mean "overweight and
    >hairy", though it is possible for a bear to be heavy. Anybody
    >who actually knows anything about the gay community knows it
    >is not overrun by heavy people.

Wading through the morass of "Gene Smith" postings regarding Claytons
recent posting on homosexuals, it has struck me how, uh, "driven" this
person is.

Clayton lists his sources, people that are professionsal in the field,
and "Gener Smith" counters with the experiences of his mother (!!!) who
says that her experience was that the scholastic level was "low"!

His mother! I.e., you are wrong because my mommy said so!!

But, more to the point, consider the above. Upon reading it, an
immediate bullshit alert should go up. Clayton mentioned a "bear",
and "Gene Smith" immediately says, nope, that's not it, you're stupid.

Curiously, "Gene Smith" doesn't say what a bear is.

Now, if someone I disagreed with, and that I wanted to discredit
posted a statement that the distance of the Earth from the Sun is
50,000 miles, I wouldn't say. nopes, that's not it, you're wrong.

I'd say, it's about 93,000,000 miles dipshit.

In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has clearly hit
a nerve.


Anybody else going to "argue by mommy figure"?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:08:40 GMT


In a previous article, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) says:

>jane@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (wayne tvedt) writes:
>>  The issue as I understand it, is that the GOP Oppositional Research machine 
>>is starting to sputter and spew itself to death like a faulty robot on the
>>old Star Trek when confronted with its own illogical behavior.
>
>Illogical... illogical... Darman... coordinate... analyze... Dan-o...
>sterilize... must ster-i-lizzzzzze... <phffft>
>

Sterilize Dornan and the balance of the GOP muck-raking organization?

What a wonderful idea!!  The fewer of them there are, the better off
America will be...

I vote "yes".

:-)


>---
>Joe Knapp     jmk@cbvox.att.com
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 04:35:36 GMT

In article <10OCT199220515401@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.233650.14720@nntp.uoregon.edu>, eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes...
>
>>It was a normal trip for young scholars.
>
>If it was his first trip in the Soviet Union, then also likely a
>memorable experience. I wonder why he won't talk about it... if
>it was just a normal trip?
>
I wrote you some things in mail that I'm not going to post here.

Suffice to say that I see no relevence, other than as a passing anecdote,
to the fact that Clinton took a 40 day trip around Europe that included a
visit to the USSR.  I don't see what it adds to the issues facing us today.

I took trips to the USSR 5 and 2 years ago.  My parents went to the USSR a
couple of times (they were there when Chernoble went up).  Who cares?  We
have some photos and mementos and not a whole helluva lot to say that would
relate to foreign policy or US/USSR relations.  

Your paranoid mind creates the issue in the first place:  if one accepts
that it was a tourist trip, it has no particular importance and it isn't
talked about because it isn't relevent.  (I don't want to see his slides of
the dang trip either!)  You created this straw-man, and you can insist
Clinton hasn't knocked him down.  I just have seen enough of your
thought-processes to not take your views very seriously.

(You might want to go check under your bed now!)
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PREDICTION: ECONOMY NOSE DIVES IN 1993
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:20:04 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 14OCT199211193984@utkvx3.utk.edu, drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>I will make a prediction that the US economy will take a
>massive nose dive in late 1st and 2nd quarter 1993.
>
>Why?  Well, this all goes back to George's pathetic attempt
>to get the economy going in early 1992.  By executive order,
>employers were told to change the IRS witholdings of wage
>earners all across the country.  The idea was that everyone 
>would have more money NOW (well, THEN) in favor of money LATER
>and we would pull out of the recession.
>
>Well, it didn't work.  And there will be SERIOUS consequences.
>
>I just did my year-end tax witholdings forecasting, and it
>turns out that I will have to fork over $900 cash to Uncle
>Sam.  I got a refund last year!!  I have not really changed
>my witholdings, didn't get a big raise, etc.  
>
>Now multiply my effect by several million.  Millions of taxpayers
>who normally get refunds will owe money for the first time, and
>those who break even or pay a little will be seriously in the
>hole.
>
>In short, personal spending will come to grinding halt in 
>early to mid 1993.  I will guestimate a decrease of at
>least $20 BILLION, and that is very conservative ($200 for
>100,000,000 families).
>
>Too bad Bill Clinton is going to inherit one of George
>Bush's biggest mistakes.  
>
>-steve

That's a good point.  I don't know if the numbers add up, but
I _do_ know that that $900 + whatever you would have been refunded
would have been in the feds hands.  When it isn't, they have to borrow
that money.

Those bucks are going to hurt the govt. budget next year.  And, is the
next pres. going to rescind that rule?  If he does, EVERYBODY'S TAXES
(appear to) GO UP.  How's that going to look in 1996?  "As soon as *****
became president, your paycheck went down.  Every last one of you."

Not good.

Personally, I do my best to owe at the end of the year.  Not enough to
pay a penalty, but I really don't want the fed to get my $ + interest,
when I can put it to better uses than make missles I will agree to take
apart the following year.

--f2

----------------
  Bush-Quayl '92
  It's a mistake