HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:36:52 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.politics.elections, harlan@sulu.lerc.nasa.gov (Harlan Harris) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.144156.10133@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com
>(fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Frankly, I've always found the whole idea that George Bush would start
>>a war to get reelected just a bit incredible (as in not credible).
>>People have been saying this sort of thing ever since Desert Storm.
  ^^^^^^
>I heard this morning on the news, during a report on the UN people leaving
>the Ag building for fear of their safely, that it was thought that Bush
>would NOT use military force there, due to the election. This statement
				     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>was not explained, and frankly, I can't understand why he wouldn't.

    Bush has a "boy who cried wolf problem."  There have been several
wars recently, and Bush's popularity has risen in each one.
    Some people are concerned that Bush MAY use military actions to
boost his popularity in an election year. After all, absolute power
corrupts absolutely.  Some of these people have been spreading rumors
of an election year "strike" so that such a strike would be political
suicide, thereby preventing the "foreign violence" election tactic.
    *Some* of these people do not share Mr McCall's absolute optimism on
human nature.  Having a little well timed bloodshed to get re-elected
does seem a bit incredible, but history is full of even more incredible
things which have turned out to be true.
    Basically, the foreign violence gambit has been neutralized by the
"boy who cried wolf" defense.  Politics is the art of the possible.
It has become impossible for Bush to use bloodshed to get re-elected 
without a voter backlash of "he's just using bloodshed to get re-elected."

Have a nice, non-violent, day,

Tim Smith

PS: I think Iraq is too obvious. How about Peru?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: Pro Choice stats
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 06:11:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Jul21.180114.7366@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Jul21.110109.14017@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>]Not when the small minority of outright banners of abortion as in
>]Bush can veto an pro-choice bill (whcih problably wouldnt be sustained)
>]and appoint another Supreme Court Justice    . . . . . . . .
>
>You already have choice guaranteed by the supreme court. The "pro-choice bill"
>was all the way to one side of the issue. This is why it is a nonsense 
>issue. The supreme court has shown that even with a conservative majority,
>it is not going to prevent women from having abortions, for any reason,
>early in their pregnancy. What more do you want?

Pro-Fetus activists have harrassed so many doctors and shut down so
many clinics that many women, especially (mainly) in rural areas, can't
get an abortion. They would have to raise enough money to make the trip
to a larger city that provides abortions, take the time off work to go 
there, spend money for a hotel room because of the waiting periods
involved in many states. The final cost of the abortion (in time and money)
is much, much higher than for an urban woman. There *are* reasons why
Pro-Choice activists are against things like waiting periods, marital
and parental consent. They aren't fighting these things just for the
fun of it. They are fighting them because there are women who need
special considerations.

Vickie
Anti-Abortion, Pro-Adoption, Pro-Birth Control, Pro-Choice, Pro-Clinton/Gore



 
>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
> - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8952 alt.politics.clinton:370 alt.politics.bush:73
From: jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Propaganda
Keywords: Religion
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:43:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: na
Organization: Boston University Physics Department


I am wondering people here think about the prominence of the words
``covenant'' and ``crusade'' in the speeches by Clinton and Gore
lately. Anyone have an idea how this terminology is intended to
sway people? Frankly, with peace and stability trying to be worked
out in the Middle East this sort of vocabulary makes me nervous...

Gregg


-- 
Gregg Jaeger    (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu)     | Tristero?   ______/|/|  Treestero?
Dept(s). of Physics (and Philosophy)      ------------    (_) \|\|  Trystero?
Boston University, 590 Commonwealth Ave.,Boston MA 02215 --------------------- 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:32:11 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <3573@keele.keele.ac.uk> csp48@seq1.keele.ac.uk (J.W. Kirriemuir) writes:
]
]Just thought I'd add my two cents worth.
]
]My predicitions for what happens between now and Polling Day in
]the USA :
]
]
](1) The USA will take some form of military action somewhere; judging by
]the recent news reports, a sudden air strike against Iraq is more likely
]than anything involving Yogoslavia. A side reason for this (which was
]picked up on in last nights newsnight on BB2) is that Bush's popularity
]would take a welcome boost.

I think this is likely just because Saddam is such a fool. I think that
Bush is less likely to attack now because he will come under political
fire. I don't think that GB would start a war or make an attack for
political advantage.

](2) Something bigger and more damaging than before will hit Clinton
]and/or Gore, especially if they are riding high in the polls. Don't know
]what it will be, but it will come (late september / early october).

I suspect you are right.

](3) Reagan will be drafted in at some point to bolster the image of
]Bush; James Baker will also move into a prominent position (and if
]things get any more desperate, might just elbow DQ out of the VP slot on
]the republican ticket).

Reagan has already been fingered to talk at the convention. DQ's position
on the ticket is probably safe.
]
](4) Should Bush win (and I am not predicting who will), then sometime in
]the spring of next year, a few persistent stories will break about
]Republican officials underhandedly smearing the opposition.

I guarantee that these stories will break out - true or not. Republicans
have been consistently smeared every since Nixon.

]Personally, I hope that Bill wins; should people start deciding in large
]numbers whether he is worthy of office because he MAY have had his pants
]down in the region of women other than his missus, then I think they are
]making a big mistake; witness what is currently dominating the news
]headlines over here, in the first few months of the new term.

I am almost ready to hope that he wins too. That way, it will be clear
who to blame when the country goes to hell in a handbasket. As it is
now, the Democrats in congress are able to hide behind George Bush
and blame him for everything but tornados in Kansas.

-- 
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
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:19:25 -0400 
From: "Donpaul C. Stephens" <ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character

>>>>[...]
>>>>90% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people:
>>>
>>>Can you back this figure up with a reference?  Sounds like folklore to
>>>me.
>>>
>>>	Matthew Turk
>>
>>Go to a library and find out...
>>
>>Within a margin of +-0.5% this figure is true...
>

>So, where does your +-0.5% come from?

i'd say that if Clinton believes that he can finance his recent SIG
[special interest group] promises by "making the rich pay their fare
share", then their must not only be more than we thought, but they must
have much more money too!

I'm far from rich, but how much can you seriously tax someone before it
gets out of hand?

Don't get me wrong, he might have been a wonderful governor and i sure
don't like the Bush/Quayle ticket, but we have to realize that he is
supposed to do Within The Margin Of Error no better than Bush

Sure we'll have a change at the top, but how much better will it be? 
I've heard lots of good things about Gore, but he's not the candidate. 
Let's have some honesty, is he going to try to fix the economy?  and if
so, lets be honest, how much is it going to hurt?  Don't try to tell me
it won't; i won't believe it.

Donpaul C. Stephens
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor
of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me
forever ineligible for public office."
		- H.L. Mencken

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: A clear choice
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:41:56 GMT

In article <2A78C6AA.8910@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Dave Sill writes
>> Carl Edman writes:
>
>Sorry for not being clearer. When I said that Gore was the biggest spender in  
>the Senate I meant that in the years 1989 and 1990 the total of all spending  
>which Gore voted for was larger than the total of any other members of the  
>Senate. This is quite a distinction considering that the Senate contains some  
>many seasoned over-spenders like e.g. Senator Robert Pork Byrd of West  
>Virginia. 
>


Using this criteria, it seems to me that President Bush is the biggest
spender of all. No bill becomes law with out his signature or is overridden.

I don't remember for sure but I don't believe that any significang spending 
bills were overridden.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ratter@b8.ingr.com (Ray Ratte)
Subject: Re: posting to this newsgroup
Summary: posting problem
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:57:16 GMT

In article <Jul.29.10.29.43.1992.26548@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, dowzycki@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ken Dowzycki) writes:
> 
>    If anyone can see this posting, please, please, contact me
> either as a follow up or by e-mail.  I can't seen to get 
> through to any newsgroups.
> 
>    This is being posted on July 29, 10:33 AM, EST.
> 
>    If you would be so kind to reply please include the date and
> time you are reading this.  Thank you.
> 
> Email     dowzycki@andromeda.rutgers.edu

You got through to this net.

Ray.R. July 30, 10:57 AM, CDT
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush's accomplishments
Date: 22 Jul 1992 01:31:23 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul21.205357.16551@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
> ... the whole CFC theory is still just that - a theory.

Evolution is just a theory.  That the moon isn't made of green cheese
is just a theory.  I have news for you -- EVERYTHING in science is a
theory.  Some theories are more strongly supported than others, though --
the CFC theory sounds pretty solid to me.

> As for the greenhouse effect, there is to date NO scientific
> evidence to support its existence.

Temperatures have been going up steadily for the past few decades,
which is what one would expect from an increase in global "greenhouse
gasses".

> ... science hasn't given us any reason to panic.

No, but it's sure given us plenty of reasons to get to work fixing the
messes we've created.

> Unfortunately, I've had to calm dozens of people who were under the
> impression that the world was about to burn up and that we'd all die,
> or that the ozone layer was already gone and we'd all die of skin cancer.

Have you seen pictures of what's been happening to sheep and other
animals in the extreme south hemisphere?  It's frightening.  Have you
seen the estimates on the decrease of photoplankton in the southern
oceans?  The ozone isn't all gone yet, but how long will it take?  Is
there any doubt in your mind that without the ozone layer, we're in
big trouble?

> hysteria has led others (like Al Gore) to rash judgments.

What are some of these rash judgements?

Say there is a 10% chance that the scientists are right (a very low
estimate, I'd say), and ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect are
real and will have severe effects on our ecosystem.  If we act now, we
may be able to stop it.  If we don't, we may kill off a large
percentage of life on earth, including much of the human population.
How much is it worth to you to try and avert this danger?  If the
danger isn't there and we assume it is, we've spent a lot of money and
all we have to show for it is a nicer environment, cleaner power, and
different formulas for coolants and styrofoam cups.  If situation is
reversed, we'll have destroyed the environment and killed off a lot of
people, but saved some money.  Which choice would you make?

	Wayne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Arsenio Hall is a hypocrite
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:49:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.030845.27512@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:


|>  Hall is an obvious leftist,

Hey your right! Better arrest him. No better not take chances, lets shoot him

|> and same goes for his audience.

Yeah, better rub them out too, sounds like we might need some extra body bags.


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Poor maligned reagan (was
Date: 25 Jul 92  14:52:00 EST

-> You're right again!  Deregulation of S&L's had *nothing* to do with
-> them glutting themselves with risky investments.  And the
-> multibillion dollar (or is it in the trillions?) bailout is, again, a
-> media ploy to make Ron look bad.

Don't forget the Gipper's own words: "I think we hit the jackpot!" This upon signing the Garn-St Germain act.

And, don't forget Neil Bush's actions in connection with Silverado Savings and Loan, and the fact that closing of Silverado was delayed until AFTER the November 1988 presidential election.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu (Danger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: No Go Perot!
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:35:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <1992Jul20.163939.19852@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>June Genis (Libertarian Campaigning in CA):
>]Is anybody keeping score of the number of people in this group who
>]have now espoused this ridiculous position?  Get a clue, guys! You
>]are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If all of you who like the
>
>Well, I have two obbjections to this logic...
>   1 - I KNOW that my views are a minority - if everyone with my personal
>       views voted for the Lib candidate, it would still make no difference
>       in the race.

	I KNOW that many more people agree with your views than you
	think.  If everyone with your views voted for the Lib candidate
	the worst that could happen is that the Libertarian Party might
	be permanently on the ballot in your state.

>   2 - Although my views are closer to the Lib platform, there are things
>       in that platform that I consider sufficiently dangerous that I would
>       never wanted it enacted. This is not true of the Republican platform.
>       For Libertarians to get elected, they are going to have to get a
>       bit less idealistic and understand that even the best of philosophical
>       principles may have exceptions. For example, the Lib view of national
>       defense is laughable.

	Why and what is dangerous about the Libertarian platform?  Have
	you heard the arguments of how it is to be implemented?  Have
	you heard why the Libertarians think it will work?  Will you
	listen to someone espousing views closer to your own than the
	current incumbent parties?

	Some of what they have to say may sound dangerous until they
	show you and explain why it would work.

	Post your problems with the Libertarian Platform.

-- 
************************************************************************
Thaddeus Krag Blayda blayda@acsu.buffalo.edu, v063j3h4@ubvms.buffalo.edu
# Caution : DANGER #  This Country is at critical mass.
Vote Libertarian in '92!  Vote Marrou/Lord!  Vote to have your freedom back.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: udcrusd@meaddata.com (Sylvia D'Cruz)
Subject: Polls
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:36:25 GMT
Distribution: usa

     1,030 registered voters surveyed 7/17-19; margin of error
+/- 3% (Harris release, 7/21).
                                                            7/88
2-WAY     ALL   EAST   MIDWEST  SOUTH  WEST   MALE  FEMALE  ALL
Clinton   63%   64%      60%     64%   66%    60%    67%    60%
Bush      33    29       38      34    31     37     30     36
Not sure   3     6        2       2     3      3      3      4

          WHT  BLK  HISP.  GOP  DEM  IND  CONS.  MOD.  LIB
Clinton   59%  95%   71%   32%  89%  63%   45%   69%   89%
Bush      38    2    27    66   10   31    51    28    10
Not sure   3    3     2     2    2    6     3     4     1

         18-24  25-29  30-39  40-49  50-64  OVER 64   OVER $50K
Clinton   74%    68%    59%    69%    59%     60%        56%
Bush      25     30     39     28     38      34         41
Not sure   2      3      2      3      4       6          3

STRENGTH OF SUPPORT     BUSH    CLINTON
Very strongly            29%       37%
Somewhat strongly        47        43
Not very strongly        24        18

                                    CLINTON    BUSH
CLINTON'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH   ALL   BACKERS   BACKERS
Better than expected          38%     42%       28%
As expected                   58      55        65
Worse than expected            3       2         6

-- 
Sylvia D. D'Cruz
From: gio@sousa.ltn.dec.com (Giovanni Della-Libera)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Electoral College w/o Perot
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:03:51 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton, MA

Hi!  I am sorry if someone has already asked this, but will the electoral
college this year be based on this year's house seats or those prior to 
the Census.  It might make a big difference if the election is close,
especially with the gains of California and Florida.

Thanks,

Giovanni

----------------
Sorry, no .sig

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: What's up with this Bush guy?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:05:01 GMT

In article <1682B9AAC.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu>
EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
 
>First he says Clinton stole his platform of family values,
>then he says Clinton is a liberal.
>
>What's up with that?
 
Bush knows his goose is cooked if he tries to run on his own record.
He is trying to make the voters afraid of Clinton, because his only
chance to win is to turn the election into a referendum on Clinton.
This is a standard campaign tactic for an unpopular incumbent.
 
>Could he be playing both sides of the fence?
>Or is he trying to get Clinton to go on the defensive?
>Or both?
>
Both.  Bush does not have to be consistent or logical if he can get
enough votes...the evidence is on 1988, and 1984, and 1980, and ...
 
>And isn't Baker involved in some real important middle-east stuff right now?
>Should he really be taking a leave of absence to run Bush's campaign?
>
Bush has said he will do "whatever it takes" to win.  Apparently he
believes his reelection is more important than possible peace in the
Middle East.
 
>--Eric
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,nj.politics,alt.rock-n-roll
From: shea@ntmtv.UUCP (Ray Shea)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady!
Organization: Northern Telecom, Mountain View, CA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:49:12 GMT

In article <Vyc5NB5w164w@micro-c.mcds.com>, speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>  Funny, I never got the impression that the actual purchase of a 
>record was to be restricted by age.


Several states are considering such bills.  Many record stores have
taken it upon themselves to enforce age restrictions for labelled
records.

You see, once you label it, you make the next step sooo much easier.

-- 
Ray Shea			
DoD #0372, '88 Hawk NT650, 	...and a card carrying member of the ACLU...
founder, Team Twinkie	      		you got a problem with that?
ntmtv!shea@ames.arc.nasa.gov  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: The Myth of the Spendthrift Democrat
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:47:50 GMT

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:

>On the cnotrary, a rich person is much more likely to be concerned about 
>the state of the economy than a poor person - who has little, if anything 
>to lose.

That all depends on the person. Someone with investment that is at risk
probably would be concerned; others would not.

If you have $100/110k or more to spend on an item like a "boat", then you
certainly aren't concerned about the economy's effect on you, the same way
a person making $20k/yr. would be. "Oh my! We will only make $1.5 million
this year. We better cut down."


>Try explaining why the luxury tax is such a great idea to all the 
>unemployed boat workers down in the Hatteras area. 

Why? I didn't support the luxury tax when it was enacted, and I don't
support it now.

However, the reason it didn't work is not that those it affected
couldn't >afford< to pay it - it didn't work because those it
affected saw it for what it really was - a penalty tax imposed on
them because they were successful people. Subsequently, those
people it affected retaliated against the tax by simply not purchasing
those items it affected.

MD
-- 
--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
--    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc