HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: inaccurate pols before British  election, parallels to  US election?
Keywords: maybe
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 20:05:57 GMT

In article <BvF9pD.CMv@world.std.com> ibe@world.std.com (ira b ekhaus) writes:
>hi,
>
>I remember reading some editorials in the Boston Globe about  the 
>coming (at that time) British election.
>The very last pols taken still showed Kinnock and the labor party
>comfortably ahead, and the Globe was salivating over the impending
>loss of a conservative brethren of the current Republican administration.
>Of course the conservatives won, and none of the aforementioned saliva 
>found its way to any crow.
>
>I believe we're seeing a similar political situation here in the US; 
>When people finally get in the booth a substantial percentage of voters
>will err on the side of conservatism and conservatives.
>
>ira
>ibe@owrld.std.com
>
>PS
>what are the current odds for the election in Vegas, and in London?

MAYBE... I heard another story that attributed at least some of the
inaccuracies to the fact that people were LYING to pollsters on a wide
scale just before the election.  Aparently the Brits don't like
pollsters...


-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9590 alt.politics.clinton:11115 alt.politics.elections:17451
From: skong@adobe.com (Soon Kong)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: letter from trial lawyers
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:41:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated


Did the press ever publish the letter from the trial
lawyers that Quayle was tlking about in the debate ?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Organization: UNLV
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 20:08:55 GMT

The problem with more taxes, even if they only soak the rich, is not
that taxes are wrong. The problem is every time we increase taxes
congress does their damndest to increase spending. Before everyone
gets all gung ho on raising taxes, I fill that we should get to see
a decrease in spending. Unfortunately even with congress's creative
accounting practices, spending has always increased. What good
is raising taxes to cut the deficit when not a single penny of it
is going to cut the deficit? When congressmen see money, they dont
think about paying off the deficit, they see more money for their
own personall pork barrell projects.

Wait for them to cut spending before you give them more money.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush Never Had to Fight an Unjust War
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:02:54 GMT

In article <5881@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>=
>=And let me amend my argument slightly: war is amoral, neither
>=just nor unjust.  We should consider the morality of the policy
>=driving the war.
>
>One: I don't think that the President/Executive Branch will unilaterally
>start a war. I don't recall any war in which the first aggressors
>fighting were from a democratic country. I doubt that any President will
>be so bold or stupid as to say, "Let's invade Canada!"

War of 1812 was kinda a "Let's invade Canada" kind of war.
Wasn't the Mexican War called "Mr. Polk's War", in reference
to his influence in entering it?
Any of the various Indian wars in the 1800s.
Teddy Roosevelt's war to secure land for the Panama Canal.

>
>Not really knowing that much about military things, soldiers do express
>their views on anything but when they are ordered to do something, they
>must perform that order without question. In a military conflict, I
>don't think you have time to be a "moral actor" if your life is in
>danger.

This is true.  I was actually thinking of My Lai, though.  Certainly,
the commander at the scene bears some responsibility for the atrocity.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9012 alt.politics.clinton:10215 alt.politics.elections:16574 alt.rush-limbaugh:7313
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:40:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) said..
>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>>  Had his chance to give a definitive "People making under $200,000 WILL
>>NOT pay more in taxes under a Clinton administration".
>
>Clinton can't say that. Clinton is promising $100 billion in new spending
>and $150 billion in deficit reduction. That's a quarter trillion $$ he
>needs to come up with. He claims he will get the money by making the rich
>pick up the tab yet his tax proposals will only raise $15 billion. This
>leaves Clinton about $235 billion short on his promise.

This is very misleading; you failed to mention the $140 billion of 
spending -cuts-.  Also, the $150 billion in deficit reduction is over 
the next four years.

>The only thing which makes Clinton's policies even possible is jacking
>up taxes on everybody. If he made the statement you expected above then
>any cursory examination of his economic program would show that it is a
>house of cards.

I'd bet you haven't read it.  If you had, you never would have quoted
the numbers above.  (Unless you're trying to mislead intentionally, 
which I doubt -- my bet is that you got the numbers from a TV interview
with one of the Bush campaign people.  You _trust_ them to tell the 
whole story?)

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9541 alt.politics.clinton:11053 alt.politics.elections:17377 alt.rush-limbaugh:7664
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Date: 16 Oct 1992 19:32:50 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct15.122120.5554@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

>More demos? Where did you get that from? I think there's a strong possibility
>that we'll have many more reps in the House. And I believe, that come
>election day, we'll have one in the White House again. I give the public

The last I saw, the Demos were expected to lose less than 10 seats
in the House. They look poised to gain in the Senate (or break even).
However, I don't remember the breakdowns. It looks like the Demos
will pick up 1 seat in CA, another in WI.

andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9005 alt.politics.clinton:10208 alt.politics.elections:16567 alt.rush-limbaugh:7311
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Republican campaign ad suggestion
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:45:11 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct13.180409.26369@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>  Here's my idea for a winning campaign ad for Bush (assuming
>Schwarzenegger goes along).  Republicans may feel free to use this if they
>wish.  {:^)
>
>                      TERMINATOR 3 : ELECTION DAY
>

Far, far too wordy for an Ahnold film....

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:50:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.193609.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <amvdpyw@Unify.Com>, ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>> Considering that the rules of English spelling and punctuation violated above
>> are taught before the 8th grade, one is irresistably drawn to the conclusion
>> that vsg001 is envious of his antagonist's grasp of the English language, as
>> the latter has shown a markedly greater familiarity with it than the former.

(ravings due to insecurity deleted)

Lighten up, net-friend. The point is that if someone doesn't know how to spell
or construct a sentence--things we all should have learned long ago--it's
difficult to take their arguments as serious and thought-out. That's all. 

Alan

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 06:15:24 GMT

In article <1b4mfvINN4nm@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>vsg001@acad.drake.edu said..
>>The Commie fools of Legislature overrode Bush's veto, and so now the cable
>>industry is regulated. Apparently ccable T.V. is the right of every citizen,
>>and therefore it is wrong for anyone to charge exorbitant prices sonce its a
>>"monoply".
>
>Cable TV is not the right of every citizen.  The cable industry is being
>regulated.
>

Also keep in mind that the stringent regulations are only pertaining to
those cable companies that are monopolies.  Where there is more than one
supplier, the regulations are relaxed somewhat, as competition is encouraged
in the new law.

>>What hogwash. If you complain that the industry is a monopoly and prices 
>>should be lower, you don't use government as muscle to extort at gunpoint 
>>lower prices from people who provide you with the service-- if the prices 
>>are too high, you set up shop yourself and break the goddamn monopoly!!! 
>
>The facts state a different story.  Since the cable industry was de-regulated
>during the Reagan Administration, consumer prices have gone through the roof,
>even though there has been no commensurate increase in costs.  With
>regards to "set up shop yourself", what do you suggest -- that each cable
>company run cables into your home, so you can choose which one to use?
>Ludicrous.
>
>In your town, there is one "water company", and one set of pipes come into
>your home.  That monopoly is regulated.
>
>In your town, there is one "power company", and one set of electrical wires
>come into your home.  That monopoly is regulated.
>
>In your town, there is one local "phone company", and one set of telephone 
>wires come into your home.  Your local phone company owns the wires.  AT&T 
>owns the long-distance-wires, and other services (the "baby bells") lease 
>rights to use them.  Both are regulated.
>

A bit of clarification here. There is only one supplier to local telephone
service, but the Bell breakup (caused by Bell's loss of a suit concerning
monopolies) generated competition within the long-distance services. Some 
of the carriers simply lease AT&T's wires and switching equipment, while most
of the big ones (MCI, Sprint, etc.) use their own wiring and equipment. 
Case in point: Sprint was the first US long distance carrier to implement a
nationwide fiber-optic service, using their own wiring, as well as that neat
commercial showing them blowing up one of their microwave towers, because it 
was "obsolete"....


>Allan
>-- 
>Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
>aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
>aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
>For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992


Tom H.


-- 

Just a message looking for a .signature file......
 
thyat@sdf.lonestar.org
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: # 1 in the world?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 15:16:49 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

	America is a military super-power, #1 in the world.  So many 
times we heard this from Prez. Bush.  I have some serious doubts now
about this. In the first debate he said that he successfully handled
the problems in Panama and Gulf. Also he added that he would not put 
the US life on line in an unsure territory, Bosnia. "I don't want an
other VietNam", said the President.  Well my questions:

1. Though it is yet to be proved, there are allegations against Prez.
   regarding  the "association"  between him and  the "dictators" of 
   Panama and Iraq. It implies that the #1 in the world engaged only 
   with the ex-buddies of the commander of armed force.

2. President is not ready to take on Bosnia. Reason?  He is not sure 
   about the situation and victory.  What does he mean?  He is ready
   to go to war only if he is  sure of victory.  That is to say, the
   bottom line is not  democracy or humanity, but victory.  Well, in
   case if Serbians attack the  US Embassy and capture the staff, US 
   armed forces are not going to fight, unless the President is sure 
   about the "victory".  Still he claims that we are the # 1......

V:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Gerald (Jerry) KUCH)
Subject: Re: DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP?
Organization: McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:04:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.125001.1@vax1.umkc.edu> nenglish@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>Hi!
>I need to know:   Am I crazy??
>;^)
>
>Fri. night, 10/09/92, 7pm, on CNN news, 20 min. Lead Story:
>
>DAN QUAYLE DRUG SCANDAL COVER-UP
>
>Complete story w/ tapes, transcripts, and witness;
>Tapes and evidence pointed straight up to the Justice Dept. and James Baker;
>Tapes were gotten by CNN thru the Freedom of Information Act.
>
>Am *I* the only person who saw this story??
>I have not heard a PEEP about it since it aired!
>
>Has anyone seen this or heard anything about besides ME??
>
>Nicole....

Well, I haven't heard about this, and I haven't seen the CNN tapes, but some
of this stuff was pretty well known... i.e. available to anybody who wanted
to look.

In mid-October of 1988, a federal prisoner named Brett Kimberlin, serving
time in Oklahoma, told reporters that he had sold marijuana to Quayle
"fifteen to twenty times" between 1971 and 1973 when Quayle was a law student
in Indianapolis.  He offered to take a lie detecter test and promised to
detail his claims in a press conference later that month.  Four days before
the election Bureau of Prisons Director Michael Quinlan contacted the warden
at El Reno where Kimberlin was beintg held and ordered him to cancel the
press conference.  Kimberling was thrown into solitary confinement less
than an hour before the scheduled time for his press conference---he 
remained there until eight days after the election.

The DEA had investigated charges in 1982 that Quayle had been using cocaine
and Quaaludes.  There was no rational reason for putting Kimberling in solitary
confinement, other than the obvious politics.  There are a few more 
suspicious facts w.r.t. the case.  I'd be fascinated to see exactly what
CNN supposedly has linking James Baker to the situation.


-- 
 Jerry Kuch (jerry@cs.mcgill.ca) ----- SOMETHING NEAT SHOULD GO HERE.
 "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
  Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet."
                  --- M. Burns  "Treehouse of Horror II"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Too Close for Comfort
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:57:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.200606.6953@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.193218.1993@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
> >"Bill Clinton."  Actually I'm enjoying myself tremendously.  Now the
> >Republicans know how so many Democrats have felt for the last 12
> >years ... as far as Bush pulling it out, don't hold your breath.
> >I've been there; it's hopeless.  I suggest you put it aside and start
> >thinking about Jack Kemp to make yourself feel better.
> >
> >Any other Dems out there feeling unexplained emotional highs from
> >time to time?
> 
> There, there.  Let's not gloat.  At least until Bush loses Texas.

I know, it's impolite.  But I couldn't resist myself.

President William Clinton.

Any ideas about the cabinet?  Looks like Henry Cisneros may finally
get onto the national scene.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Second Battle of October
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:09:38 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <6029@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
>
>II. Sympathy vote goes to Admiral Stockdale.

I agree with this.  There's been much talk in the media along the lines
of, "How could Perot have done this to him" since he was only supposed to
be a temporary until a permanent nominee could be found.

I felt badly for him - but loved his statement about abortion!

Jeff Luck               *The opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University     "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU          -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9396 alt.politics.clinton:10789
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: VP Debate - fact corrections
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:31:00 GMT
 <1992Oct15.160622.12930@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Oct15.160622.12930@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov
(Mark T. Evert) says:
>
>Anyone who thinks that Clinton will be able to get these cuts out of our
>Congress....

 [...much blah blah deleted]

O.K., I'm sick of this crap.  I'll do this favor for anyone else who would
like me to.  Mark (of nasa.gov), I'll write your Representative *and* Senator
and tell them, on your behalf, that because you have had enough of the
"tax-and-spend" Congress (as opposed to the "borrow-and-spend" President),
you feel strongly that they should cut all funding of...NASA.  Hey, I'll
even copy your boss!  That should help the debt problem - but, gee, didn't
someone try to do that, and, I remember, NASA fought like a cornered
pitbull to stay in the budget.

The fact is that everyone is getting a cut of this pie and no one is willing
to make any sacrifices.  The only way out is for everyone to take a hit.

There will have to be some incredible political pressure applied to do that.
My belief is that, based on the record, there are only two people with the
skills to pull it off (I can't believe I'm saying this):  Bill Clinton and
James Baker.  But, James Baker isn't running for President and he brings
a lot of baggage I don't like.  So, I'm voting for Clinton.  Clinton is
an operative and, as someone who's actually had to negotiate the passage
of legislation, I don't think of that as a bad thing if his heart's
in the right place (as I believe it is).  I should add that I don't
know if Baker's heart is in the right place - he's basically just a
politial animal.

Anyone who would like to see how an unlikely bill can become law should
read _Showdown_at_Gucci_Gulch_ about the passage of the 1986 Tax Reform
Act.  Baker plays a prominent role and (for the most part, except for the
breaks for oil businesses) he was supportive of the bill.  He applied
pressure on the Republicans in Congress and O'Neil, etc. applied pressure
on the Democrats (of course, we've seen how well Bush does with Congress).

It can be done.  It must be done.  But, it takes skill, not demagoguery.

I'm waiting on that address, Mark.  Sorry, you just got picked out of
the many, many posts just like yours.

Jeff Luck               *The opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University    "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU              -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Did you notice....?
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:50:40 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

In article <1992Oct7.221216.732@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>Of course two things affect the growth of the GNP...production of goods, 
>and inflation.   We had a lot of the latter under Carter.   If inflation 
>today were 15%, we'd see a 15% increase in the GNP even if production were 
>totally flat.
>
>If you factor inflation into Perot's figures, they would tell a somewhat 
>different story.
>

   I will admit that I did not see the Perot broadcast, BUT, every all GNP
figures released by the government take inflation into account.  I doubt
that Perot added them back in... it would have made Bush, et al look worse
if inflation is not included and I don't think he wants to do that.

   Secondly, high REAL GNP growth does tend to lead towards higher inflation, 
higher inflation leads toward higher NOMIAL GNP.

Greg


-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9433 alt.politics.clinton:10849 alt.politics.elections:17218