HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:43:19 GMT

In article <4598@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>rwojcik@snake.tc-suns writes:
>+eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>+>	The problem is that Bush will NEVER get the positive coverage
>+>that the Clinton-Gore camp is receiving...
>+
>+I disagree.  All Bush needs is one halfway decent event--a dramatic
>+ improvement in
>+a government economic indicator, a successful military venture, a flashy
>+ diplomatic
>+resolution (e.g. of the Bosnian situation)--and the press will be all over
>+ the place
>+with "Has the Clinton juggernaut been stopped?" stories.  The last thing
>+ the media
>+wants is a cakewalk election.  Campaign season doesn't really get under way
>+ until
>+Labor Day, and Bush gets to wear the cherished mantle of the underdog
>+ going into the
>+election.  He is far behind now, but momentum now begins to build in his
>+ direction.
>+Don't be surprised if it's neck and neck on November 7.
>	Agree with you that November 7 will be a very close finish, but
>I don't even think one dramatic improvement in the economic indicators
>will help him politically in the media. Every "positive" in economics
>I've heard has always been damped out by the economics reporter.
>Currently the questions abut whether we'll attack Iraq is a political
>ploy puts doubts that a military venture will be perceived solely as
>that and not a means to get a few thousand more votes in November. As
>for the diplomatic resolution, we HAD ONE recently: the granting of US
>loans to Israel. The new prime minister of Israel (Rabin I think) was in
>the US for the approval. The only problem is that the news was dominated
>by the New York Post story about Bush's alleged infidelity. The question
>was popped up at Kennebunkport in the presence of Rabin! Bush is going
>to have to do a lot of things on his own and start getting on the
>offensive and doing something to help his campaign.

Curious how Bush's initiatives get dumped in favor of trivia:

How about this for a 'flashy dimplomatic initiative'?
We had a very dramatic and important diplomatic agreement in June,
that will drastically reduce nuclear arms in the US and xUSSR.
It essentially verified the end of the cold war.

I suspect that under other circumstances (e.g. a Democratic President),
this event would have been treated as an awe-inspiring triumph.
Alas, Bush and Yeltsin were upstaged by something else ....
The Clinton/Sister Souljah flap.(*)

---
Pat
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: [X] -- Put 10% of my Taxes to Paying on the National Debt.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:57:08 GMT
Organization: The Fighting Thundercats

Stephen Tice writes:
>`10%' ???  What the Heck?
>
>We already paid = 14% = of each '91 tax-dollar for National Debt.
>
>And as best I recall, that's also been bumped up higher for 
>'92 tax-dollars as well. 
>
>So what's the deal? Is Bush sounding the-bugle-call-of-retreat 
>from-fiscal-responsibility?? You made a real clear clarion call 
>there George.
>
The whole check-off thing is a puff. There's no line item called
"Budget Deficit" that you can put money into. Cheez. Bush 
supporters, how about it? Bogus-Not Bogus?

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Reducing Spending (was RADICAL POLITICAL SOLUTIONS?)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:59:20 GMT

In <Aug.7.18.29.49.1992.15483@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:

>voracek@macdfv.dfrf.nasa.gov (David Voracek) writes:

>> Spending reductions.  Congress not the President spend the money
>> in this country (sorry any of you democrats out there)  READ YOUR
>> CONSTITUTION.  I am sick and tired of people blaming the PRes. for
>> our deficit.  THE Pres. just submits a budget, it is the congress
>> that spends the money.  The president needs to be able to stop this
>> run away spending... LINE ITEM VETO..  

>I agree that we need a line item veto, but I'm not sure how much good
>it would do with Bush at the helm.  After all, he has yet to identify
>the major sources of savings that would come about if he had a line
>item veto to exercise.  And, if he has some programs in mind for the
>chopping block, he should show some leadership and put them into his
>budget proposal.  (The few pork-barrel items he has identified as
>targets for a line-item veto add up to less than a billion dollars.)

>--Scott

Does anyone out there have access to the congressional voting
records? I heard a comment on the news last night (just before
Quayle's speech put me to sleep) that many Republicans voted
against GHWB's proposals. If true, then giving him a Republican
Congress may not be a rubber stamp, not that I am recommending
doing that :-(.

REB
 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39767 talk.abortion:31757 alt.politics.bush:1615 alt.flame:12077
From: rone@nunki.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Ron Echeverri concocts a lie about Bush's abortion stance
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: 14 Aug 1992 13:53:07 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: nunki.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug14.201552.28786@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>I don't know whether he edited the article in order to not include the
>extra paragraph that I included above or whether it was that way originally.
>The Clarinet header on the article I quoted did contain the following:
>Note: (complete writethru -- subcommittee action on abortion plank)

I pulled my post off of the 'briefs' group.  I believe your post came from the
'news.top' group which has the whole articles.  (whole articles may not be
reproduced due to copyright protection, btw)

>Regardless of whether Ron edited it or not, the meaning is the same as the
>version I included above - the implication is that Bush supports banning
>all abortions.  Regardless of Bush's stance and the *validity* of this
>implication, it's clear that Ron did not edit it in an attempt to change what
>it was saying - you're still the reigning king in that department, Doug.
>I still think you owe Ron an apology.

I didn't touch the article.  If anything was culled, blame X cut and paste.
If you can, Doug.

Thanks for asking Doug for an apology, Larry, but i don't think Hell is about
to freeze over yet.  Besides, Doug has to ask his mom permission first.

5150
followup's outta here
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Wildly regressive taxes
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:44:08 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug14.165608.10244@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
]In article <1992Aug12.234414.12306@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:
]>Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the social security tax (FICA) the
]>most wildly regressive tax imaginable?  An individual pays ~7-7.5% of
]>his/her salary up to some limit after which s/he pays ***0%***.  Wouldn't
]>it make more sense to pay 0% up to some limit, and THEN start paying this
]>tax?
]You are right about FICA, except that some people *have* been talking about
]it. I recall distinctly a Michael Kinsley TRB column from years ago in
]which he pointed this out, not to mention Sen. Moynihan's proposal to
]reduce FICA taxes, which dates from the later years of the Reagan administration,
]and which is far from dead.

Social Security was (and still is) sold as an insurance system (although
I consider it more of a pyramid scheme). In an insurance system, your
benefits are proportional to your premium payments. This is also true
in social security. The PROBLEM with it is that it is an involuntary
system, and thus is also akin to a tax.

I don't think it is unfair for one to pay a premium proportional to a
guranteed benefit - that is what insurance is all about.

The proposals to make FICA more "progressive" can be characterized
as converting it from a government forced insurance program (soak
the young) to yet another soak the rich welfare program.


-- 
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
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: Use of Putting People First (was Re: Note from Gov. Clinton (fwd))
Reply-To: <jbrow@glv.com>
Organization: Encompass
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 19:39:13 GMT

In article <13461.2a95c350@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>  
vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> '.. he steals his...', un huh. What you see here, and what is classic among
> this wierd republican rally is the old 'accusing your enemy of what you
> are'. Republicans have done their share of stealing during the Reagan/Bush  
era.
> Gee, would'nt it been nice to hear from Niel Bush (who got off scott-free
> after ripping off the US population of over $100M during the
> 'S&L Thing'. 
> 
> $100B scandal? Nahh, never hear of it.
> 

I guess that leaves the moral people to vote Libertarian (Marrou/Lord), huh?  

> 
> -Garrett
> 
> 
> 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40565 alt.politics.elections:10920 alt.politics.clinton:2224 alt.politics.bush:2106
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:35:41 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <Bt8GIq.99E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  I'm not sure what Mr. Moore's point is.  That we should be grateful
>  that the economy's not in even worse shape?   The fact is that jobs
>  have NOT trickled down.   There was a time in the US when someone 
>  without a college education or the brains of a rocket scientist 
>  could get a job sufficient to support a family on.   The 80's were
>  good at creating two kinds of jobs:
>
>  1.    High-end white collar jobs, and even these are in short supply
>        now -- the computer industry, for instance, has seen a net decline
>        in jobs in *each* of the last 4 years according to EE Times. 
>
>  2.    Dead-end diddly-squat jobs like flipping burgers at MacDonald's
>        which are insufficient to support a family on.

  Well, this is an over-stated, but for the purposes of argument, I'll
let it slide because there is an element of truth.  That element of truth
lies in the fact that we (and the rest of the world) are in a changing
information economy.  This change emphasizes education and not just college,
but decent high school levels that allow workers to work better with
the new machines and robots that require some modicum of know how such as
the ability to read well.  This is a real problem in a lot of states where 
25% - 30% of the populace have problems reading.

  This has little to do with "policies of the 80s".  It has a lot to do
with changing times.  The answer is to prepare for those times by emphasizing
education, not to act like there exists some way to ignore it and curl
up into the past.

  Oh, if you are going to insist of adhering to your above comments about
"where the jobs are", I'm going to want to see some figures.  I'm
not energetic enough to dig mine up, but I know there were overall
increases in factory employment.  In fact, a good part of the reason
for the slow growth in "average manufacturing wages" is because a large
number of new entrants drag the figures down.

>  The bottom line is that we have an outrageously high unemployment
>  rate and no sign of any impending improvement.   
>  Look at last week's
>  issue of _Fortune_ magazine. 

  Please. _Fortune_ is a rag.  How anyone can take it seriously is
beyond me.  They have been calling for protectionistic policies for
some time now and preaching the typical "gloom and doom" rhetoric that
one always sees during downturns.  

  I don't suppose increasing employment figures are at all valid.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Bush on Abortion (was Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:31:27 GMT

In article <Aug.12.14.43.56.1992.8139@math.rutgers.edu> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>> 	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. 
>
>Does Bush make an exception where the life or health of the mother is
>in jeopardy?  I know that parliamentary tricks were used to prevent a
>vote on a plank allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest.
>
>--Scott

Bush supposedly _does_ make an exception, or at least he did in 1988.
It wouldn't be the first time he tilted to the right on this issue to
secure conservative votes.

The plank Calls for an amendment to ban *All* abortions.  _All_

Of course, the plank also calls for no new taxes...

Just like in 1988 when Bush chided Dukakis for being so negative, (realistic)
saying _he_ wouldn't have to raise taxes.

Oh yeah,  with all the press bashing by the Bush people, does he really
think that will improve CNN and Network coverage of the convention?

The ABA came out in support of the Right to Choose.  I wonder if that
is because many lawyers were getting fed up with Bush's attacks on their
profession that they were more willing to get political...


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"Going to teach someone a lesson" is a very interesting English phrase.
It obliterates the altruistic connotation of 'teaching'.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:14:53 GMT

In article <FOX.92Aug15221336@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>
>I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
>another human being.  This is still true if the human being is
>a fetus.  If that human being is a fetus in the first two
>trimesters it will not survive without the assistance of the
>mother.  If that assistance is witheld the fetal human being
>will die, but no murder will have been committed.  If that is
>not an argument based on the appropriate assumptions I guess
>we should just drop it.

I think that you are correct.  It can be a serious crime but I doubt
that it would be considered murder (at least not first degree).
However, abortion is not witholding assistance but the destruction of
the fetus.  I don't know how the mother could withold assistance unless
she were to starve herself or something similar.  Am I missing
something?

Tim  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Levi Strauss & The Boy Scouts
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:37:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <11715@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <Bstn0D.6v5@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug10.201246.2874@BofA.com> dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman) writes:
># #|# Because subscribers to the Judeo-Christian ethic are about 80%
># #|# of the population, and homosexuals are at MOST 3-6%?
># #
># #Methinks you overestimated the number of Judeo-Christians.
># #Who do you include in the count?
># 
>#   Methinks the original poster also fails to appreciate how
>#   amorphous a concept "Judeo-Christian" is.   If he thinks
>#   being gay and subscribing to Judeo-Christian culture are 
>#   mutually exclusive then he hasn't studied fuzzy set theory.
># 
># ---peter
>
>There are people who purport to follow Judaism or Christianity,
>yet are homosexual.  Not many, though.  In any case, both
>Judaism and Christianity have pretty clear prohibitions on
>homosexuality.  To say that you subscribe to either religion,
>while engaging in homosexuality, is rather like claiming to be
>a Marxist, while capitalizing a company.

  But that's not what we're talking about.  This is why I said,
  above, that "Judeo-Christian" is an amorphous concept.   It is 
  -->NOT<-- just a set of theological precepts.  I am neither 
  Christian nor Jew, but I travel extensively throughout the
  world and I also study history a great deal, and it is plain
  both from my readings, and my interactions with people from
  different cultures that I have absorbed or internalized large
  parts of our ethical culture.  This is also why I noted the 
  differences between Askenazic and Sephardic Jews.   By being
  raised in or living in a society one internalizes cultural
  features of that society regardless of whether one subscribes
  to it's *formal* ethos.  

  If you want an example with Marxists, consider the widespread
  view, at least in the former West Germany that the former East
  Germans are "different" in the sense of having different ideas
  about work, the purpose of the state, competition, etc.  Few
  if any of these former East Germans would call themselves
  "Marxists" but they lived for 50 years in a state with a formal
  Marxist ethos, and this inevitably affected their world view.
    
  My wife, who is Jewish, is undoubtedly different for having been 
  raised in a predominantly Christian society than if she had been 
  raised in, say, a predominantly Berber one.   Likewise gays 
  who live in a society with a predominantly Judeo-Christian
  cultural or ethical heritage are affected by this.

  Culture is a fuzzy, but extremely important thing, and it is pure
  Usenerdism to think that it can either be formally defined and
  delineated (one is strictly "this" or "that") or ignored.


---peter





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:14:38 GMT

In article <Bsz71p.2A8.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>>>> HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>>>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>>>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>>>> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>>>> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>>>> platforms.

>>> It occurs to me that Ron Echeverri might have concocted this story.
>>> President Bush supports exceptions for abortion in the cases of 
>>> rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but this news story
>>> might lead one to believe that Bush supports a ban on "all" 
>>> abortions, which is false.  The other interpretation is that Bush 
>>> supports some sort of Constitutional amendment regarding abortion.

>> Since most major newspapers get their stories from UPI (among other newswires)
>> you may have to look a little harder, Mr. Holtsinger.  Just to add to my
>> credibility, today we discussed about this in my Political Science class.
>> We usually do not discuss "concoctions" of mine in class.

> Anyone who would
> challenge someone else for quoting a newspaper story that
> most people in the U.S. have read has lost touch with reality.

I haven't seen any newspapers which have suggested that President Bush
supports a ban on "all" abortions.  Ron Echeverri's alleged UPI
story seems to make that suggestion, which is false.  President Bush 
supports exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Either 
Ron Echeverri concocted his story, or UPI is a very dumb news organization
for making such an obvious error about Bush's stance on abortion.


>Susan


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:54:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug13.235549.8542@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> In article <11727@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >The psychiatrist puffs on his pipe, and leans over: "Tell me, 
> >Clayton, how long have you let what a group insists on portraying 
> >themselves as influence your perception of them?"
> 
> More likely the psychiatrist would lean over and ask:  "Tell me,
> Clayton, how long have you had this obsession with homosexuality?"

Since it became clear that the homosexual community can't bear
to tell NAMBLA where to go.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman)
Subject: Philandering George Bush
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:00:05 GMT

It was interesting listening to the conservative whackos
like Mary Matalin protest the New York Post article
on George's alleged affair with a staff aide.  I wonder
why the same indignation was not present when the Clinton
allegations surfaced.  It's rather fun to watch the
Bush operatives wallow in their own sleaze.


James L. Heilman
_______________
enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:55:56 GMT

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
[Comments re how short term vs. long term is unclear omitted; see
[original posting.]

>This whole "long-term vs short-term" discussion seems to be about
>abstract investments.  If kicking money into a real project for a few
>days results in a significant increase in value, why should that
>investment be taxed differently than one into a project that has
>slower return?  What real investments underly this discussion?

Very interesting points that show how I wasn't thinking carefully
enough.  Thank you.

It is a contention that investment creates jobs, but it seems to me
that short-term investment (whatever that means) certainly won't
SUSTAIN jobs, though it might create them.  So it would be desirable
(perhaps) to encourage investments that create and sustain jobs,
and at the same time discourage investments that don't offer much in
that area.

That is what I was trying to get at with short- vs. long-term
investments.  Freeman's message points out that the length of the
investment is not a useful predictor of its nature.  Or, at least,
it's not sufficient to predict its nature.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39877 ca.politics:6800 ba.politics:4530