HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who toppled Communism??
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:29:10 GMT
Distribution: usa

jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel) writes:


>Now I don't know about Bush, but I do know nobody else of significance in the
>country at the time had the balls Reagan did to stand up to them, to _deter_
>violence by making war look so painful and costly and ugly to the Soviets that
>they would never try it.  That was what "defense buildup" in this nation that
>everybody whines about so much is all about.  In that sense, Reagan/Bush played
>a *huge* part in ending communism.  If we had put some peon like Carter or 
>Mondale in office who would have dismantled the pentagon by stripping it of 
>funding, do you think history would have run the same course?  Wrong, pal. 
>That's naive and stupid.

>Obviously, our defense expenditures hurt a lot.  The economy sucks right now
>in large part because of those expenditures.  But freedom is never free. 

>Jude Federspiel

Here! Here! I couldn't have said it better myself.


				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
From: varma@pepper.rutgers.edu (Harsh Varma)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: GOP INFO NEEDED
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:13:33 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Could anyone tell me what GOP stands for?
Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:34:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.001844.18886@reed.edu> bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo)) writes:
>The richer you are, the more dependent you are upon, for example, the
>government to keep looters out of your house, etc. etc.

Actually, that's not true.  Rich communities typically spend LESS,
per-capita, on police than poor ones.  Even if you include private
security measures, rich communities are cheaper to police than poor
ones.

If anything, rich areas subsidize policing in poor ones.  One example
is the trend towards rich areas "lending" police to adjoining poor
ones to keep "them" away.  Another example is in aggregated spending
for prisons.  Poor areas provide most of the perps and suffer the
majority of the crimes, but the money comes from the rich areas.

If you believe the claim that the rich need more police protection,
that's an argument for privatizing police.  The easiest way to make
sure that the rich pay their fair share is to make them pay directly
or go without.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Clinton is an Economic Realist (NYT 8/4/92)
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:51:52 GMT

In article <dtb-Y8#@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>|> >
>
>You have to remember that the 'trade' deficit is simply one component
>of the total trade between countries.  It represents *merchandise*
>only.  It ignores *capital* transactions.  For example, we may buy
>lots of cars from Japan but they may by lots of investments in the
>U.S.  They are both purchases, just different types.  Money goes to
>Japan, money comes back to the U.S.  You need to look at the current
>account to get a better feel for disparities.  A long run merchandise
>trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.
>
>
	A few points:
	1) The Japanese can't just sell goods to the US, and then not
	spend thier dollars, that would be irrational, and lead to a 
	devaluation of the dollar, making their products more expensive
	in the U.S, and reducing trade. Since they aren't buying as much
	merchandise from the US, they must invest the money.

	2) There's an old saying something like, "when the farm has a hard
	time selling crops, start selling pieces of the farm. Foreign investment
	in the U.S. is not necessarily a bad thing, but selling US products 
	overseas so U.S. businesses and workers have the money to invest in
	the U.S. is probably preferrable.
	
>
>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         


	-Emmett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: M22614@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: test
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:48:36 GMT

In article <16841C05E.M22614@mwvm.mitre.org>
M22614@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
>
>In article <16841986A.M22614@mwvm.mitre.org>
>M22614@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>
>>
>>this is just a test
> still testing
 
  last test
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:52:21 EDT

In article <1992Aug22.023904.6175@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <92234.144439JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>The United States went from the greatest creditor nation in the world to
>>the greatest debtor nation in the world under a Republican Executive and
>>a Republican Senate.
> 
> No, it didn't.  The Repubs had a senate majority for TWO years of
> those EIGHT years, not the six years that Luck asserts.  Maybe things
> would have been no different if the repubs had the senate for six
> years, maybe they'd have been worse, but there's no way to know
> anything more than "it happened with a repub president and a demo
> congress".
> 
> The House has some responsibility, and all spending bills must
> start there.  How long has it been Democrate controlled?
> 

SO what? Harry Truman, whom the Republicans are so fond of quoting, once
said "The Buck Stops Here" (had it on his desk). Lets face it. The
Republicans have had the Presidency for 12 years. They haven't done
jack shit. Each election we have their promises, and each election we hear
'4 more years' like it is going to require that to make up for the
mistakes they make over and over and over again.

"The Buck Stops Here". Republicans always seem to need someone to blame.
That's all you ever hear from them. When things work in their favour, it's
GOOD (Reagan/Bush are solely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet
Union - yet, the EVIL DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS _CONSPIRACY_ gets no credit
for APPROVING the Reagan $4T budget deficit which 'was responsible for
the collapse of the SU'.), when things don't it's them damned EVIL 
Democratic Congress-people! 

"The Buck Stops Here". Isn't it nteresting that suddenly the "Education
President" supports the Republican platform position for 'federal funding
of PRIVATE schools'. Hmm, so this means that the tax-payers should contribute
to PRIVATE institutions?  Guess that 'Liberty College' and 'Oral Roberts
University' and ilk just aren't getting their minimal attendance it would 
seem.

"The Buck Stops Here". Let's face it folks. The Republican Party has become
a joke, cow-towing to Falwell and the rest of the TV evangelists. It makes
me sick. Buchannan is especially scary.

> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

Seek. Hail. Seek. Hail. Seek. Hail. Seek! Hail! Seek! Hail!

(paraphrased from _Oh God_)

-Garrett



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10363 alt.politics.clinton:1765 alt.politics.bush:1282 talk.politics.misc:39173
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:27:21 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Aug12.001844.18886@reed.edu> bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo)) writes:
>The richer you are, the more dependent you are upon, for example, the government
>to keep looters out of your house, etc. etc.  Or do you see this as a needless
>social program?  It seems to me that is people are living in this country and
>making lots of money, they're pretty dependent upon the government to maintain

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument.  The highest priced crime prevention 
programs are in the inner cities.  The wealthy pay, out of their own pockets,
for private security outfits to patrol their high class neighborhoods.  If you
want to base tax rates on what a person gets out of the government, tax rates
for the poorest sections of the country would be darn near 100%.  Using your
argument, the tax rate for SC Los Angeles must be raised sky high.

 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jfed@athena.mit.edu (Jude G Federspiel)
Subject: Re: Defending Reaganomics?
Reply-To: jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel)
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:38:27 GMT

In article <92231.131424DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.1684780F8MEDELMA@clm.cc.wayne.edu>
>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>>
>>Yes. We had the longest peacetime economic boom in recorded US history. We
>>had tremendous upward mobility across race, sex and ethnicity. Everyone
>>benifited until spending again exploded in the 90s.
>...WHAT??  The problems that we have now have been building for a long time.
>Unemployment under Reagan was always high.  Remember, he made it LOOK lower
>by changing the way it was determined: including the military for example.
>During the 80's our standard of living stalled: ours is the first generation
>that won't live better than our parents.  Real GNP under Reagan was always

I'm sick of hearing this whining crap.  Listen to yourself.  What situation 
did our parents grow up in?  In a world where for several decades, the U.S.
was the undisputed economic superpower, where Americans still made the
best cars, where foreign competitors had to get down in the dirt and work
their fannies off to catch up after most of the industrial nations were ravaged
by WWII (they slowly but surely gained, but they had no where near the power 
they have now earned), where the computer industry still belonged to the U.S.  
America enjoyed itself.  It got lazy.  Now we are growing up into an age where 
many have caught up, some have surpassed us, others are still far behind, 
we're getting our royal butts kicked in cars and computers, we have a 
gargantuan deficit due to entitlements and monstrous defense spending which 
was necessary to keep the Soviet Union at bay, and people complain that we 
won't live in relative squalor like our parents.  Tough.  You still got it 
better than most in all likelihood.

Note, I could spend hours defending Reaganomics, but the point of this post
is just to show what an idiotic argument it is to say we'll be worse off
than our parents, and why the reasons for that condition extend WAY farther 
back than Reagan.


>
>Marty L. Dart
>My opinions are mine and mine alone.

Jude Federspiel
jfed@athena.mit.edu





Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:33:50 GMT

In article <2A9156F3.21456@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
}Greg Lee writes
}> ..., but the fact that we spend a large
}> amount already is still not relevant to whether the
}> federal government should spend more than it does.
}...
}So your argument is that the education establishment is spending all of our  
}money so unwisely that it desperately needs more of our money ? 

Sort of.  With the qualifications that I say how well the money is spent
is irrelevant to whether more is needed and that I don't attribute all unwise
spending to your favorite devil the "education establishment".

}No, I'm afraid you don't understand the magnitudes involved. If merely 5% of  
}american educational spending was stopped being spent on administration and  
}other political nonsense, this would free up _more_ money to be used for  
}genuine education than if the federal government _doubled_ all it educational  
}expenditures. 

Ok.  So what?  What does this have to do with national education policy?  You
decry our education system;  I decry it;  we both decry it together.  What
good does that do?  Bill Bennet is a better decryer even than you.  If decrying
were an effective policy, we would have seen great improvement in the Bush
years.

}...
}On the other hand, people who vote down bond issues for education are putting  
}pressure for change on the establishment ...

Oh?  How does that work?  Pressure for what sort of change?  We need more good
teachers to do more good teaching.  How does voting against a bond issue get
us from here to there?  I find it mystifying.

I favor the proposal in _Head_to_Head_ of federal subsidies to schools sufficient
to raise average teacher salaries to $50,000, given on condition that
administrative and miscellaneous expenditures are considerably reduced.
It would help.  Complaining about waste will not.  Complaining about parents,
teachers, education schools, lack of values will not.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
From: Louis.Cypher@iphase.UUCP (Louis Cypher)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 14 Aug 92  00:08:21 EST

Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1992Aug13.162716.8706@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>duke@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Duke P. Hong) writes:
>|> However, in the second part, he did say 'in the end it was the woman's
>|> decision, who else's would it be?' (paraphrased) which sounds to me
>|> like pro-choice. It seems like his previously public pro-choice half of
>|> his brain is showing through
>
>I think you guys and the media are splitting hairs.  Bush is
>undeniably pro-life.  If his granddaughter decided to blow
>someone's head off, in the end it was her decision, who else's
>would it be?  Doesn't mean she would not serve life in prison, or
>even death, or that her Granddad wouldn't still love her and support
>her after she had done it.

WRONG. Bush was pro-choice until he joined up with Reagan in 1980. I think
that Bush has finally came to the obvious conclusion, that to be a right-to-
run-your-life supporter, is in essence a very *bad* political decision.

All I have to say is - finally. I think it is, or would be, a wise move
on Bush's behalf to come forward and clearly state a pro-choice stand, but
he won't, because of the many republicans that vote on one issue alone.
Which is also kinda funny. seeing as how there is an overwhelming majority
of republicans that are pro-choice, but the platform is right-to-run-your-life.
Strange how these things happen. I think the only chance Bush has of winning
even a year's supply of TV dinners in november, is to change his stance
on abortion. But, again, it won't happen.

"A true patriot protects his country from it's own government..."

 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 11:29:03 GMT

In article <16842640A.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.182715.25650@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>My impression was that Quayle pulled strings to get himself assigned
>>to a Guard unit that had no chance of being shipped out for some
>>reason.  Given this, Quayle was a hawk who avoided the draft.  Clinton
>>had moral objections to the war, and avoided the draft.  One is a
>>hypocrite in this matter, the other not.
>
>Well, now, Elizabeth, I'd love to see your reference for this
>"pulling strings to get himself assigned to a guard unit that had
>no chance of being shipped out."  It's funny how memory fades into
>whatever shade you predispose it to.  Could it be that you are a
>Denocrat, that you read conjecture of anti-Quayle themes, and now
>it has become firm evidence?

   Actually, I would as well.  The official documents at the time show
that Quayle's guard unit had an authorized strength of 63 and only had
52 men serving at the time.  There was no waiting list at the time of
or shortly after Quayle's enlistment.  No strings were pulled.

  This whole story was yet another in a long string of stories in 1988
that the media more or less "made up" concerning Quayle.  The other
big story is that he is worth $600 million.  This is also not true.
In 1988, he was worth less than $1 million and probably the third wealthiest
of the four running for President with virtually no inheritance in
his future.

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: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: 1992 Electoral College math
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:42:19 GMT

Here's a table of 1988 Presidential election results sorted by Bush's percent
plurality in each state. Using the 1992 electoral vote allocation, it can
be seen that if Clinton wins all the states up to and including Michigan
(i.e., all states where Dukakis lost by 8.0% or less), he would have the
necessary 270 electoral votes. 

                    1992     cumulative
       Bush 1988  electoral  electoral
state  plurality   votes       votes
=====  =========  =========  ==========
DC      -70.5%        3           3
RI      -11.8         4           7
IA      -10.3         7          14
HI       -9.6         4          18
MA       -8.0        12          30
MN       -7.1        10          40
NY       -4.1        33          73
WV       -4.8         5          78
OR       -4.8         7          85
WI       -3.6        11          96
WA       -1.6        11         107
PA        2.3        23         130
MD        2.9        10         140
IL        2.1        22         162
VT        3.6         3         165
CA        3.6        54         219
MO        4.0        11         230
NM        5.0         5         235
CT        5.2         8         243
SD        6.4         3         246
MT        6.0         3         249
CO        7.9         8         257
MI        8.0        18         275
OH       10.9        21         296
LA       10.4         9         305
KY       11.7         8         313
ME       11.5         4         317
DE       12.5         3         320
TX       12.7        32         352
KS       13.5         6         358
NJ       13.8        15         373
ND       13.2         3         376
AR       14.4         6         382
NC       16.3        14         396
OK       16.8         8         404
TN       16.4        11         415
AL       19.5         9         424
VA       20.7        13         437
GA       20.4        13         450
IN       20.3        12         462
NE       21.1         5         467
AZ       21.5         8         475
MS       21.0         7         482
NV       21.6         4         486
FL       22.5        25         511
WY       22.8         3         514
SC       24.1         8         522
AK       24.3         3         525
NH       26.5         4         529
ID       26.6         4         533
UT       34.8         5         538

If one assumes that both Arkansas and Tennessee go for Clinton, then their 
combined 17 electoral votes would enable him to lose Michigan and still come
out on top.

If Clinton does win Ohio and/or Michigan, he would seem to have it locked up,
thus these are identified as key battleground states. Carter took Ohio
(but barely) in 1976, so it can be done. The key is to pick up the vote
south of Route 40, Ohio's "Mason-Dixon line." The current southern ticket
may do that as did Carter. 

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10555 alt.politics.clinton:1914 alt.politics.bush:1541 talk.politics.misc:39634
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:06:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>>Anyone running against the greatest TAX AND SPEND president of all times,
>>and claiming that we spend too little will NEVER get my vote.

>Of course, Clinton never said this in your imaginary context.  If you're
>that dishonest, or unable to read position papers, you are the PERFECT
>robot Republican voter.  I would be worried if you WERE voting for
>someone I support.
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com

Are you trying to claim that Clinton has never said that we need to spend
more money on various programs that are near and dear to the democratic
heart.  Example schools and infrastructure.  He says he wants to pay for
this by cutting the military budget (except in states whose electoral
votes he needs) and raising taxes on the rich.  Oh yes I forgot, after
having his staff pour over the entire budget look for waste, Clinton
decided that we can afford to get rid of aid to honey bees.  (Damn
beekeepers, probably vote Republican anyway.)

You sound like the perfect democratic candidate.  Taxes don't count as
long as the rich pay them.  (Rich defined as anyone who makes more money
than me.)  Spending doesn't matter as long as it goes to those who are
deserving.  (Deserving defined as myself, and those people and groups
that I approve of.)

Bush raised taxes reluctantly, and the deficit went up anyway.
Clinton is positively gleefull over the prospect of repeating this cycle.

-- 
--Mark

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11308 alt.politics.bush:2533
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Subject: Polls, Polls and More Polls
Summary: Please Keep Those Postings Coming in.
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:34:04 GMT


	If you see any local state or area polls in your local newspaper,
please post them.  Most of these are not printed nationally, and it would
be interesting to get more a feel of how things are going across the
country.
	I realize this one is printed nationally, but I feel obligated to
at least divvy up something to start things off, so:

	ABC/ Washington Post Poll of likely voters, released Wednesday,
Aug. 12, 1992.

	Clinton 61%
	Bush    35%


	Thanks

	-JG