HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 15 Oct 1992 15:34:45 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct14.142226.4780@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1bf1pkINNgit@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>>>I must have missed it when the democratically-controlled Congress assumed
>>>blameless status? Did the original 1990 budget that Bush submitted have a
>>>tax increase in it? Or, was the tax increase added by Congress?
 
>> Bush's original budget had an even LARGER deficit and had to be revised

>	Deficit?  We're talking TAXES.

What we're talking about is what had to be done about the $500 Billion
deficit which was shaping up in early 1990. Today's NY Times editorial
points out that Bush's economic advisers warned that No New Taxes would
backfire. In the absence of new taxes, every discretionary federal
program except defense would have had to be cut by one-third. As a
Libertarian, Stupes, I imagine this thought pleases you. However, it
didn't please Bush (or the Democrats). Can you imagine what unemployment
would be like if one-third of the federal employees were laid off!

>> Howver, Bush's 1993 budget AS SUBMITTED had several tax and fee
>> increases.

>	Okay, larger or smaller than the one that was eventually signed? And
>what about all those Demo promises to cut spending???

The 1993 budget is still on the table. The Times pointed out that the
Demos kept to their side of the agreemnt pretty well. It's George Bush
who welshed, and, Stupes, even supposing that the massive budget cut is
a good idea, you haven't heard GHWB say once what he would do if he had
1990 over again except refuse to raise taxes. In other words, he is too
chicken even now to endorse any alternative.

If I had just one question for GHWB in a debate, it would be: A time
mchine has taken you back to June 1990. Do not raise taxes. Tell us what
spending cuts you will make instead. Be specific.

I'll give YOU credit: you have such a list (although I disagree with
it). GHWB does not. He wants the money to spend, but not the blame.

I should mention in passing that the Republican party in NJ is the same
way. They won the state legislature griping about a big Demo tax
increase, but when the lame duck legislature was going to REPEAL the
taxes (so that the incoming Repubs would have to find some of their
own!), the Republicans changed sides. So now they have the Demo tax
money to spend, but not the blame.... The Republicans: The Free Lunch
Party.

andy
From: kim@unix.cc.emory.edu (Kim Wallen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBAT
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:28:57 GMT
Reply-To: kim@unix.cc.emory.edu
Organization: Department of Psychology

In article 3737@netcom.com, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <29165@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
>
>Second, a deliberate lie.
>
>> DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST THE U.S.
>>
>> RHETORIC: "I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own
>> country. I just find it impossible to understand how an American can
>> demonstrate against his own country"
>
>Bush did not say this.  He said he thought it was wrong to demonstrate
>against your own country *IN A FOREIGN* country, and to organize
>demonstrations against your country *IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY*.  This is
>a bit of prevarication to sucker the people who didn't watch the
>debate, and those with memory problems.
>
Well, you are partly right.  On Larry King Live, Bush was very careful to
make the distinction you point out above, but did you see Bush's speach
in Ohio when accepting the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police?
Maybe he got carried away or forgot Baker's careful coaching ("make sure
you always say `in a foreign country`, most Americans won't realize that
constitutional rights don't disappear when you visit another country"), but
Bush clearly said "It is wrong to protest against one's country".  No qualifiers
no disclaimers.  I suspect he really doesn't feel strongly one way or the 
other about this issue.  He just thinks it will hurt Clinton.

Anyway, the statement previously posted was not an outright lie.  Bush
is on the record as saying protest is wrong.

>There are many valid hits on Bush here.  Unfortunately for Clinton,
>almost all of them involve things that Clinton promises to do more
>and worse.  Especially "tax & spend" issues.

How anyone could know what either Bush or Clinton (or Perot) will
actually do is beyond me.  I just want to return the presidency to someone
who believes in fundemental American values (like the Bill of Rights
and the US Constitution).  I want someone who isn't willing to "do anything
to win" including red-baiting.  Bush had his shot and blew it.  He has
no moral compass and no real beliefs.  He debases the presidency with
every passing day.  The election cannot come too soon and Bush can't
leave the White House fast enough.





 -----------------------------------------------------------
| Kim Wallen                        Internet: kim@unix.cc.emory.edu 
| Department of psychology          Bitnet: kim@emoryu1             
| Emory University                                                  
| Atlanta, GA 30322                                                 
|                                                                   
| Phone: (404) 727-4125             FAX: (404) 727-0372             
 -----------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Quayle: from Dolt to Jerk (and back again
Keywords: What a meshuga!
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:54:53 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Marty Ryba writes:
>
>Gregory Grefenstette writes:
>|> 
>|> Except for one commentator's remark that Quayle's nervous
>|> laughter was a little troubling,  the rest seem to feel
>|> that Quayle not coming off as a dolt as he did in 88
>|> and only appearing as a jerk was a definite improvement.
>|> 
>
>  My sentiments exactly.  In my (highly unscientific) quickie analysis of
>the post-debate coverage and the thoughts of coworkers, etc., I've decided
>that there is a definite gender gap in the impressions of Quayle.     

            [more discussion deleted]
>
Commentators aside, CNN's poll of impressions of who "won" the debate
(the person who wins the debate gets a free mug of cocoa the White
Castle) listed the order of finish as Gore, Quayle, and the funny
guy with no ammunition.

That said, I imagine the lasting upshot of the debate will be an
immediate and unilateral freeze of undecideds toward Perot. After 
tomorrow night's debate with the 3 Big Guys, I imagine Perot will pick up
a few more undecideds until Stockdale jokes surface. Then, Perot 
(I put the unopened envelope to my forehead) will pique around
14%. Amazing. Look carefully. There are no statistics up my
sleeve. My vacant eye is lidless. You are getting very sleepy....
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Nobody knows, from sea to shining sea, why we are having all this trouble
with our republic.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:27:41 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Actually, we Clinton people figured Perot was good with money.  2 Billion
>in a CD at 5% is $100,000,000.  If you give away 99%, you still have 
>$1 million left in taxable income.  I realize it isn't quite this simple,
>but $30,000, sure!

Try tax free bonds.  By the way, is this $30,000 figure accurate?  I heard
on CNN (I think -- it was while I was making lunch, so I wasn't giving full
attention to the TV) that Perot paid the same percentage of his income in
taxes as an ordinary family with a $30,000 income would pay -- about 6%.
Since the numbers were the same -- $30,000 -- I must wonder if someone
mistook the CNN claim for a claim that he only paid taxes on $30,000.

They also said, by the way, that under Perot's tax plan, his own taxes
would go up.  It would be interesting to compare this with Bush's and
Clinton's plans.  Would they raise their own taxes?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:03:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.154536.10425@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>how is this fallacious?
>    1. irrisponsible behavior is the primary factor in the spread of AIDS
>    2. eliminating such behavior will slow the spread of AIDS dramatically.
>
>unlike your silly baby-in-an-air-accident analogy, such a policy 
>would save quite a few lives.

My analogy isn't so silly.  The government has dozens of policies where
the money spent on regulating health costs taxpayers in the range of
millions of dollars per life.  And we're repeating it with our AIDS policy
by not distinguishing risky activities from not-so-risky activities, and
advertising that all sex is unsafe, when it is quite the case that some
sex is much much safer than other types of sex.  But if people only hear
"sex is bad", people will ignore the propaganda, and won't know to
substitute away from less-than-safe sex.  But what we're seeing is the
government (and media and public interest advertising) spending tons of
money trying to drum in a puritan attitude towards AIDS that has little to
do with reality.

On the other hand, an equal amount of money spent eliminating not wearing
seatbelts will save many more lives.  

There are only so many projects the government can undertake before it
shuts down the economy to tax to pay for all of them.  It's important
to get the most bang for the buck.  Unless you have ulterior motives, it
makes no sense to mail a pamphlet to every rural household in South Dakota
warning about unsafe sex when a tenth as much money spent on a single
needle exchange program in the ghetto could save ten times as many lives.

>what is your point? are you in favor of irresponsible activity? or just
>concerned about the -ways- such activity is eliminated? 

Life is a series of "irresponsible" activities.  Do you live in a plastic
bubble?  Or do you too engage in irresponsible activities?  (Do you eat
butter? Margarine? Beef? Do you smoke? Drive small cars? Spend long hours in
front of computer terminals bad for your eyesight instead of getting aerobic
exercise?)

>legislation
>probably wouldn't work too well, but what is wrong with advertising the
>fact that being careless in sex can get you killed just as dead as
>weaving randomly across a highway?

So can standing in front of a rampaging rhinocerous.  Should we spend
government money advertising that, too?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Subject: Why does jpg@mail.clinton-gore.org bounce?
Reply-To: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:53:57 GMT

Why does jpg@mail.clinton-gore.org bounce?
How does one send e-mail to the candidates?

Please respond by email to zzz@byron.u.washington.edu.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10691 alt.politics.elections:17050
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Global Marshall Plan
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:47:49 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

Let me be the first to say that $100 Gigabucks spent on cleaning up
Terra, our one and only habitable planet, would be money well
spent.   That's only a fraction of what Homp sapiens spends to
manufacture weapon systems.  It's only 1000 times what a few people
in Florida are spending to buy the San Franciso Giants for chrissakes!
----
    --Brad Sherman

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10076 tx.politics:6014 austin.politics:200 austin.talk:253 austin.general:3187
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:47:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Oct5.224305.26408@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806 writes:

> The Federal Government is gridlocked and "We the People," want to take

The Federal Government is NOT gridlocked.  That is the problem.  It would be
wonderful if Congress was gridlocked.  That way they couldn't raise our taxes
and pass stupid, counterproductive bills.  Wasn't it Jefferson (or was it
Houston) that said "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the
Legislature is in session."


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9543 alt.politics.elections:15966
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comments on state-by-state
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:06:24 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington) writes:

: Similarly (my World
: Almanac in elsewhere), anyone know where Anderson came closest to
: finishing second in 1980?

Well, these are the states where Anderson was anywhere in the neighborhood
of being close to the main candidates:

Colorado:	Reagan		652,264		(55.07%)
		Carter		367,973		(31.07%)
		Anderson	130,633		(11.03%)
		Clark		 25,744		( 2.17%)
		Commoner	  5,614		(  .47%)
		others		  2,187		(  .18%)

District of	Carter		130,231		(74.89%)
Columbia:	Reagan		 23,313		(13.41%)
		Anderson	 16,131		( 9.28%)
		Commoner	  1,826		( 1.05%)
		Clark		  1,104		(  .63%)
		others		  1,284		(  .74%)

New Hampshire:	Reagan		221,705		(57.74%)
		Carter		108,864		(28.35%)
		Anderson	 49,693		(12.94%)
		Clark		  2,067		(  .54%)
		Commoner	  1,325		(  .35%)
		others		    345		(  .09%)

Rhode Island:	Carter		198,342		(47.68%)
		Ray-gun		154,793		(37.21%)
		Anderson	 59,819		(14.38%)
		Clark		  2,458		(  .59%)
		Commoner	      0		(  -0- )
		others		    555		(  .13%)

Vermont:	Reagan		 94,598		(44.37%)
		Carter		 81,891		(38.41%)
		Anderson	 31,760		(14.90%)
		Commoner	  2,316		( 1.09%)
		Clark		  1,900		(  .89%)
		others		    742		(  .35%)

Final Results (rounded to nearest thousand, taken from Statistical Abstract
		of the US)

		Reagan		43,904,000	(50.7%)
		Carter		35,484,000	(41.0%)
		Anderson	 5,720,000	( 6.6%)
		Clark		   921,000	( 1.1%)
		others		   486,000	(  .6%)

I couldn't get a national vote total for Commoner, who was either fourth
or fifth in just about every state where he appeared on the ballot.  It
doesn't really look like Anderson was anywhere near to taking second
place in any state, and, in fact, he came in _fourth_ (after Clark) in
Alaska.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 20:00:39 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: ==> Bush's Distortions Will Not Fool New Jersey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 OCTOBER 6, 1992

             BUSH'S DISTORTIONS WON'T FOOL NEW JERSEY

   [STATEMENT OF GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR]

      The attack ad George Bush is now running in New Jersey only
 emphasizes how desperate his campaign has become.  Bush promised to
 do anything to get reelected, and he is going to great lengths to
 make sure that there is at least one campaign pledge he won't break.

      With his record on taxes, it's no wonder Bush has to distort
 Governor Clinton's plan.  After pledging "read my lips, no new
 taxes," Bush signed the second largest tax increase in American
 history -- $125 billion over five years.  For three and a half years,
 Bush's domestic agenda consisted of tax breaks for the wealthy, and
 now he is trying to duck responsibility by distorting his opponent's
 record.

      Governor Clinton's record, however, speaks for itself:
 Arkansas' state and local taxes per capita are the second lowest in
 the country -- only 63% of the national average.  State and local
 taxes as a percent of personal income were among the lowest in the
 country when Governor Clinton took office, and they still are.  In
 fact, last year, Governor Clinton cut taxes on 374,000 Arkansans --
 more than 40% of all taxpayers.

      Bill Clinton's plan will cut taxes on working families, and it
 clearly and specifically states that it will taxing only the wealthy,
 closing corporate loopholes, and crack down on tax evasion by foreign
 corporations.  No matter how often Bush misstates this, it is still
 the truth.

      Bush is trying to scare America  into voting for him, but
 nothing could be scarier than four more years.   America is ready to
 reject fearmongering, and embrace hope, and Bill Clinton has a plan
 to get our country moving again.
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 06 Oct 92 07:16 PDT
Subject: CLINTON TXT: Endorsed By Former Per
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1588800022:000:1322
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Oct  6 07:16:00 1992


From: <jlohrmann>
Subject: CLINTON TXT: Endorsed By Former Perot Official


SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM
(This information is posted for public education/information purposes.
It does not necessarily represent the views of The College.)
========================================================================

 For Immediate Release:
 October 5, 1992



 Statement by John P. White,
 former Issues Director, Perot Petition Committee

 Today, I am announcing my support for Governor Bill Clinton for
 President of the United States.

 Over the past few months, I have been deeply involved in the
 Presidential campaign.  As a result, I have had a special opportunity
 to observe the candidates in the context of personal capabilities,
 positions on issues, and leadership characteristics.

 I believe that a Clinton presidency will achieve for the country the
 essential combination of economic growth, good jobs, and long- term
 fiscal strength.

 I believe Clinton has an excellent economic plan and will provide the
 long-term deficit reduction that will be necessary to return America
 to a sound footing.


                            -30-30-30-

 John White can be reached for comments at:

 (617)-495-9479   or   (617)- 864-1200.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10609 talk.politics.misc:51979 alt.politics.bush:9295
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 15 Oct 1992 12:22:45 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Oct14.144919.13588@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.154325.23807@edsr.eds.com> pete@edsr.eds.com writes:
>>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>
>>>Clinton wants to raise the tax rate on the "top 2%" *not over $200,000*
>>>(Clinton is not telling the truth on this when he says he won't
>>>raise taxes on those making less than 200,000 - his own plan has
>>>the following:
>>>Increase rates on top 2%,      
>>>         raise AMT, surtax on      
>>>         millionaires              17.8     20.5     21.6     23.0
>>
>> ...
>>So, Clinton proposes to raise taxes on the top 1.n%.  The 2% number was
>>just an estimate of the number of people falling in the over 200,000
>>range.  Their estimate turned out to be quite conservative.
>>
>>I'm not arguing that Clinton's proposal is flawless.  But we should be
>>talking about the facts, not echoing misleading campaign rhetoric.
>
>Okay, the facts:
>	His proposal won't raise the amount of money he claims, and will
>further dampen the economy. This will leave him with two choices:
>raise taxes on lower income taxpayers, or increase the deficit.
>	Neither is acceptable.
>

Ummm...take a look at Bush's plan, I think you'll find the discrepencies
even more alarming...I wonder how he's going to "cut taxes", "increase
spending", and "reduce the deficit"...that was an interesting plan
presented...then he tells us to WAIT until AFTER the elections to
find out how he will do this magic...let's see 
   cut taxes          = less money coming in
   increase spending  = more money going out
   reduce the deficit = more money going out
hmmm..this sure is an interesting cash flow problem...perhaps Bush is
expecting for the economy to improve => more tax revenues coming in
(strange, I thought that was also in Clinton's plan).

As far as the numbers not adding up...
in reality, both Clinton's and Bush's economic plans are based on some
amount of economic growth. Clinton's does not depend on it nearly as
much as Bush's, which is why Clinton's numbers come closer to adding
up than Bush's numbers...

>Pat
>	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:42:02 GMT

From article <1992Oct12.135851.4597@ms.uky.edu>, by fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis):
> Rick Eames writes:
>>
>>This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. ANYONE who watched last
>>night, and anyone who watched Larry King last week will remember that he
>>said he could not understand people who demonstrated against his country IN
>>A FOREIGN LAND.  Our Clinton Friends here have left out that crucial part
>>of the line, how clever.  He has repeatedly said he understands fully
>>demonstrating in YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
>>
> 
> Pardon. What difference does it make? Are you supposed to have one set of
> beliefs at home and different ones abroad? If you think soldiers
> are dying needlessly and your voice might spare them, are you supposed
> to check the map before speaking out? I've never understood that.
> Sorry. 

Did he participate in any demonstrations in the US?  If not, its somewhat
like smiling to someones face, but talking behind their back.  

'I'll do my demonstrating over hear in England where no one will see, and it 
won't damage my political viabiltity.'

SEH
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10161 alt.politics.bush:8963 alt.politics.elections:16525