HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Private School Re: Public Education
Date: 8 Oct 1992 15:54:59 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <BvqH1r.9KA@agora.rain.com> robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>>lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>>>Hmmm. Last I saw, a Bush voucher was worth about $1000. But private
>>>school tuition (secular) runs at least $6000. I don't see the poor
>>>scraping up the other 7K. Sure, a few people on the margin will be able

>   6000-1000 is 5000, not 7000.  And the vouchers would be a lot
>more than $1000, since no state in the country spends that little
>per student, not even Arkansas.

That should have been a 5. Sorry.

On the other hand, you seem to be completely misinformed about the
status of Bush's voucher program, and for that matter any other I have
seen. They do NOT propose vouchers in the full amount of per-pupil
spending in the public schools. Really. They don't. Bush's proposal has
a dollar amount which I believe is $1K. Some of the proposals
are also means-tested. I believe Bush has waffled on that.

As with all of his recent promises, Bush has never indicated how he will
make up the revenue loss, although a dollar-for-dollar reduction from
public school budgets seems the best guess. How are you planning to
finance your much more expensive plan? Will it be dollar for dollar
reductions? Don't forget to replace average cost with marginal cost when
you do that. Not to mention, don't forget to kiss public schools
(followed by the rest of the United States) good bye.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:31:56 GMT

In article <ldtrttINNar1@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Vinay Julapalli Rao) writes:
>|> Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Issues ! he doesn't have any yet, Im gonna fix-it !! Stay tuned !! 
>|> >More Later !!
>|> >He's just a cheap 1950's ad-man with a big wallet.
>|> >He is hiding, just admit it, why doesn't he give his book out if it 
>|> >is to help the American People ? It's not like he can't afford it.
>|> >I have passed out over two-thousand copies of the Clinton Plan "FREE".
>|> 
>|> Is the Clinton Plan really "free"?  The money to print the plan has to
>|> be coming from somewhere.
>
>From campaign contributions.

Um, I think you forgot another source - the US taxpayer.  I don't remember
Clinton rejecting matching funds.  By the way, how many free copies of his
book has Gore given out?

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:08:59 GMT

In article <BvwtBI.EDw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>: I had this dream that Clinton was President, the Internationale was
>: played at his inaguration.
>
>I hear tell that Bush wants 'Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles'
>played at his inauguration should he be re-elected.
>
Now that's silly, why would an American President want a German anthem
played at his inaguration.                 :)

There will be ice floes on the River Styx if Clinton becomes President.


Simon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: alex
Subject: Don't Want to Talk About It
Organization: bnr
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:29:20 GMT


Following is a quote:

 << Before consenting to be interviewed on several news shows
    lately, PRESIDENT BUSH has demanded that reporters
    not ask him about his involvement in Iran-contra. 'Good
    Morning America' agreed to ask only about crime, health
    care and taxes; Bush appeared three times last week. 'Meet
    the Press' refused to agree to any limitations and has yet
    to land an interview. Says Tim Russert, moderator of 'Meet
    the Press': "We just can't let the President set the ground
    rules for an interview". >>

    Page 23, paragraph 1 of TIME dated 10-12-92.

I have been following the election process very closely. Been upto
date on information. The thing that baffles me is the comparison of
draft dodging to Iran-contra.

I guess it is going to be hard to find honest politicians. The very
nature of power and the process forces honest individuals out of politics.

Bill Clinton is a politician and so is President Bush. Their character is
important and the candidates have to be scrutinized.

But the entire Iran-contra affair is EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL. Out side the
pale of laws of the land, involving millions of dollars. This is extremely
serious for a democracy.

If the congress (representative of the electorate) does not authorize
a particular activity and the head of the executive branch funds his actions
with money from abroad, not accountable to anyone is a dangerous situation.

It is actually quite easy to raise money from sheiks, emirs and despots.
Such funds can be used to do literally anything by-passing the legislative
body. This is almost like partial dictatorship for the absence of
accountability.

The entire purpose of the constitution with its checks and balances is
totally defeated.

It is also hard for me to digest the fact that presidents and vice presidents
can be out of the loop. What would they be doing? Taking nap?
Who would be in charge in such situations? Some peons?

Do you think CasperWeinberger, Secord, etc would be so irresponsible
as to make the charges they made?

lastly, could this be due to devided government?

What do you think?



IF DEMOCRACY SHOULD WORK, THE CONSTITUTION *MUST* BE UPHELD!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: The Games Are Basically Over, and Clinton Will Win BIG!!
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:09:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.143453.1649@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
|> 
|>     I supported Ross Perot, and I wanted to vote for him in November.  But that
|> does not take away from the fact that Bill Clinton will win what quite possibly
|> could be the largest victory over a sitting President in American history.
|> 
|>     Polls are now showing Clinton with about a 16 point lead going into the
|> debates, and really the only way that Bush can win the election is for the
|> Republicans to come out with a "smoking bimbo" and destroy Clinton
|> instantaneously.
|> 
|>     This election will end with much turnover, and it will start at the top.  I
|> still believe that Ross Perot has the best ideas, but I no longer believe he
|> can win.  I believe that the voting, at this point, shall turn into no more
|> than a mere formality of what we have been seeing over the course of the last 8
|> weeks; Clinton with sizable leads nearly everywhere.
|> 
|>     When all the votes are counted, Clinton will win, Bush will lose, and Perot
|> will have wasted his time.  I'd say it may be in Perot's best interests not to
|> bother going on with what the Americans voters now see is a charade.
|> 
|>     This IS NOT a Clinton endorsement; just a statement of political reality. 
|> Bill Clinton, with a Democratic Congress, scares me, but I know now that that
|> is probably what we are going to have for the next four years.
|> 
|>     Bill Clinton will be the next President of the United States; accept it.
|> 
|> 						Mike Falkner
|> 						falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
 
Well vote for Ross then.  I think too many people want to vote for
whoever they think is going to win.  Not who they support as being the
best candidate.  

Doug

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mister rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush's Veto
X-Xxdate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 18:52:22 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:12:10 GMT

if you think your cable company is charging too much for the service you
receive, there is a better alternative to regulation.

call them and cancel. tell them why you cancelled.
your payment for TV service will be lower this way.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: cable tv
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:29:39 GMT

drg@candidus.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes:

>Where on earth is their a monopoly on entertainment/information?  OK
>so in some places there is only one company providing a cable.  So
>what?

Your comment only shows how little you know about the cable industry in
America.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7998 alt.politics.clinton:8829
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:35:08 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Oct6.193609.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu sez:

>Listen Caroline,
>this is a disscussion board, not a spelling contest

No, you ARCH-newbie geek, this is a Usenet newsgroup.  Learn the
difference, or at least try to conceal your pathetic ignorance.

-- 
			 Cash value 1/20 cent

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Reply-To: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:10:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.060145.3594@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
> ... It's naive not to admit that both the Bush's and Clinton's
> are loaded.  Don't forget that Hillary is on the Board of several
> corporations.  I don't think she does it for charity.

At least Bill and Hillary Clinton got there on their own effort.  Bill
worked to put himself through school.  To my knowledge, neither he or
his wife have inherited anything to speak of.  This does not make the
Clintons morally superior, but I know I appreciate things I work for
more than things I'm given.

In contrast, G. Bush grew up as the priveleged son of millionaire
senator Prescott Bush, R-CT.  I'm sure George didn't have to flip
burgers to earn tuition money.  And when it came time for George
to go out into the real world, P. Bush gave him $300,000 to get
started in the oil business.  I believe CNN said that would be
about $2-$3 million in 1992 dollars.

Of course GHWB is carrying on the tradition.  Unfortunately, George
decided to use _our_ money to get son Neil started in the business.
The taxpayers were soaked in the amount of $2.5 million on his second
venture, Apex Energy.  We may never know the real cost of his
involvement in Silverado S&L.  Now Neil is VP of Finance for a Houston
cable TV company.  Gee, do you suppose that had anything to do with
dad's veto of the cable regulation bill? :-)

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8079 alt.politics.clinton:8957 talk.bizarre:33217 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5043 talk.abortion:41207
From: milliken@athena.cs.uga.edu (Brewmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fathers, abortion
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:36:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,tak.bizarre,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.abortion
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Oct7.014947.5386@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Part of the  genetic coding from an infant comes from the father.

	Yeah, so?

>The federal government would prevent the father from having any say
>in whether or not HIS offspring, equally as much as the woman's is to die,

	Well, I don't know about that.  All the man has to do is have sex.
	The woman has to have sex, plus carry the child to term, and endure
	massive bodily changes, and 9 months of fatigue and bloating, with
	some nausea thrown in for good measure.  So the say so should go to
	the woman, since it is HER BODY that is being affected.

>instead giving complete say to the woman.  That is, a man can do nothing
>for his child. It is all in the hands of the woman to kill the child.

	What?  In the first place, the woman is preventing the child, not
	killing it.  In the second place, it is an issue that should be
	decided between a woman and her doctor, and not in the legislature.

>He can do nothing to protect it.  It seems the man is the one being
>prevented from chosing the destiny of his offspring by law.  The Republicones
								  ^^^^^^^^^^^^?
>would simply not have the feds interfere whatsoever in the matter of abortion.
>But the Demos would give complete power to the woman. I would call that
>a female oriented party, much as it was once a white oriented party.

	Well, what's wrong with that?  I'll not debate the history of the
	Democratic and / or Republican parties, but I will say that the
	issue of a woman's reproductive freedom is the business of the woman
	and anyone she chooses to involve, such as her doctor, her husband,
	her lover, or whoever.  It is not the place of the Federal, State,
	or local governments to legislate a woman's reproductive affairs.

	If you insist on debating it in terms of rights, then think of it
	this way: the woman is an existing human being.  A fertilized ovum /
	zygote / fetus is a potential human being.  Removing it from her body
	before it develops into a human being is not murder.

	I do not mean to belittle abortion here.  I don't think anyone is
	pro-abortion; however, millions of intelligent people, both men and
	women, are pro-choice, including myself. (White male, if it matters)
	If abortion is not the right choice for you, then don't have one.  
	But don't try to force your moral convictions on others.


-- 
Copy this .sig and just say noe to big-brother's monitoring of public bandwidth
*Bush Quayle conspiracy JFK cocaine LSD heroin marijuana AK-47 Iran Iraq Libya*
*Sandinista Contras Panama Noriega FBI CIA NSA Secret Service fixed-elections *
*Neil Bush S&L coverup potatoe wiretaps search & seizure bill of rights dead  *
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8316 alt.politics.clinton:9281 alt.politics.elections:15756
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Date: 8 Oct 1992 21:17:24 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Oct8.192050.25785@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
 >In article <1992Oct8.165332.11213@unislc.uucp> jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske) writes:
 >>mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
 >>
 >>
 >  What exactly are the facts regarding Clinton's family background?  I've
 >heard some stories on how his father died when he was young and his mother
 >had to raise the family, which would lead you to believe that they didn't
 >have much money.  But when the Vietnam stories popped up there was talk of
[stuff deleted]
 
 >for much.  By the time one reaches the rank of Governor or President they
 >are out of touch with the common man (and woman).

Bill Clinton now only makes 35,000 per year (source 10-8-92 USA today)
He seems very in touch with the adverage person to me. He has been
poor, no one will argue that. He worked and payed his own way through
school. When he finished law school he went back home to Ark to practice
instead of Wall St. 

George and Babbs moved to texas and lived
there until G Bush Sr. dropped by with a 300,000 gift so sonny boy 
could start his own business. 

Who is more in touch with the common person, you tell me....


-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: The Federal Debt
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:09:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194232.9169@fid.morgan.com>
joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
 
>
>
>I like Ross Perot's issues, having read his book UNITED WE STAND.
>
I have read Perot's book, and think a lot he says makes sense.  I just
do not think Perot would be able to put this plan into action.  I also
agree with the economist who said (paraphrased), "This is exactly what
we should have been doing in 1986 and '87.  Doing it in the middle of
a recession would be a disaster"
 
>Perhaps Ross Perot is not the best candidate for the job but he
>has hit the nail on the head. Read his book before you vote and
>decide for yourself.
>
This is my main problem with Perot.  I do not think he is a good, much
less "the best" candidate for the job.  After reading his book, I will
vote for Clinton.
 
>I'd vote for Ross, if the election was held today.
>
Your right to do so...I will not dispute it.  I simply do not agree.
 
>Joe
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9459 alt.politics.clinton:10917
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Getting along with Congress
Keywords: Go public
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:50:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

I think one thing Perot has going for him in the "How will
you get along with congress, in order to get things done?"
category is this:

He strikes me as the type of person that if he feels impa-
ssioned about something, and it's not getting thru congress,
he'll take it to the people, and ask that they get involved.
I think he's they type of person that if legislation he felt
was bad for the country got passed, he'd take time on TV to
explain to the public not only the technicalities of the si-
tuation, but also give the names of the people voting against
our best interests.

I personally think this would be an effective technique. Alot
of what sneaks thru (or never gets passed) by congress never
makes the national news, and it's next to impossible for the
average citizen to actually view the voting record of his/her
representative(s), practically speaking. I think our legisla-
tive branch would become alot more responsive to our needs, if
they knew that their activities and voting records were under
the close scrutiny of their constituency.

Since I don't believe that Perot will be elected, I hope that
the next President will take a page from his book, and realize
that communication with, and involvement of the people is an
important and badly neglected part of the political process in
this country.

Perhaps we could even convince the next Pres. to have an inter-
net mailing address, that is monitored and answered. Perhaps
a newsgroup (to.theprez, to.thehouse, to.thesenate)?? I come
to work, read and respond to my email every day... Perhaps we
should ask the same of them.

-- Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8371 alt.politics.clinton:9350
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush- a sleazy scumbag!
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:59:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>In article <machman.718565627@milton>, machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The
>Machman) wrote:
>> 
>> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <92281.231404RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
>> ><RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:

>Clinton claimed to have met Father <can't remember name> by accident at a
>Norway train station.  This same Father, in a book printed in 1979, says
>that he travelled WITH Bill Clinton to meet with objectors and help

Bill Clinton also said that he didn't remember the trip in great detail
but some of the highlights included... then he listed the people that
he stayed with and meeting the Priest.  He has not given a detailed
itinerary of his time there because he doesn't think its important.
However, if pressed, he will probably take an hour and try try to
figure out every last thing he did on his vacation *23* years ago!

For crying out loud!  I spent 3 months in the United Kingdom 5 years
ago.  Do I remember, in detail, everything that I did and everyone that
I spent time with?  No.  

Did anyone say, "Bill, Father so and so said that not only did you meet,
you spent time together doing thus and so."  Did they?  Did he say,
"No, thats wrong, Father so and so is a liar?"  Probably not.  They
are comparing the stories of a man who kept detailed notes of an event
and a man who didn't make any effort to remember it and who admits to
not remembering it.  

So let someone approach Clinton with that statement and let him say
"Did Father so and so say that?  Well then I probably did, but it
was so long ago, that the details are a bit hazy now."

I bet if Father so and so hadn't wrote a book about the trip, he
wouldn't remember either.

This is just another pathetic attempt by the Bush campaign to deflect
attention away from the economy.  Bush is trying to tell us that the
issue is trust and not the economy.  I don't think it is up to Mr.
Bush to tell us what the issues are, but if he insists that it is
trust, and he wants me to ask myself who I trust then I will.  Has
Mr. Bush spent 4 years doing nothing that has helped this economy
and doing many things to increase the deficit? Yes. Do I have any reason
to believe that he sees the error of his ways and will do a better job
in the future?  No. Do I trust Bush?  Yes.  I trust him to carry on
for the next four years just like he did in the last four.  Fine,
I trust him.  I trust him to make bad decisions.  Do I want him for
President?  No.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections