HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: For those who missed it ...
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:13:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

George Bush took out five minutes in prime time (11:00PM ET) to say he
has (finally) published as one volume his Agenda for Renewing America.
If you want a copy of this text, call 1-800-328-1200. Leave your name
and mailing address at the recording.

Bush also outlined a bit more in detail this plan in his speech to the
Economic Club of Detroit. I have asked for a transcript of that speech.
Bill Clinton gave a five-minute response saying it was the same-old
Republican plan. Both were on CSPAN last night at 1:00AM ET. 

When anyone gets their hands on Bush's plan, please post it. I have a
copy of Bill Clinton's Putting People First plan, and I want to examine
both simaltaneously.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4209 alt.politics.clinton:4191 alt.politics.elections:12511
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:15:26 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep15.170717.5305@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

DN:Do you actually have evidence of this "work ethic" claim, or this just
DN:DN:bullshit that's been put out for the last twelve years by Reagan/Bush?
DN:You know, George Bush's dad was a millionaire.  George Bush didn't have
DN:to work a day in his life if he didn't want to, and he could still live
DN:comfortably.  And yet he did.  I guess the welfare he got as a kid
DN:didn't destroy his work ethic.


Could it be that he saw his dad *working* for a living, and from that
example decided that he should do the same.  Nah, to easy.


DN:(I won't mention that Democrats have been saying for years that workfare
DN:would be better than welfare, but Republicans have opposed it as worse
DN:than welfare on the grounds that that would teach them that government
DN:would give them all jobs.)

That's not how I remember it.  I remember both democrats and republicans
supporting the idea, but it was almost exclusively democrats who opposed
it.  Do comparisons to slavery ring any bells with you.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4396 alt.politics.clinton:4422 alt.politics.elections:12638
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A few things in Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:29:27 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> [cascading older stuff deleted]
>
> H:WHAT ARE YOU SAYING!!! Abortion is the most important issue that faces
> U:the Supreme Court!!! Who cares about crime! As long as abortion is legal,
> M:the country will be better off! We MUST have justices that will uphold
> O:this right, and damn you nazis that think otherwise! Mario is the most
> R:compassionate man on this issue, and that's why he should be Chief Justice!
>
> Seriously, though, I don't really know to whom Clinton will seek advice with
> regards to recommending a justice to the Supreme Court (as well as appellate
> courts). But this pandering is really worrisome to me. Another poster asked
> what Clinton would do with Charlie Rangel (NY); well, I'm not so sure, but
> a Cabinet seat may be in the making.

I don't see Clinton's comments regarding Cuomo as pandering, since the remarks
were made more to shut up Cuomo than anything else.  It's obvious that they
weren't all that serious in the first place, given the differences between
those two.

Rangel (is that right?) just bought himself four years of isolation no matter
who wins.  There are too many black pols who are on the Clinton bus and have
been from the beginning (like Rep. Bill Jefferson, from down here) that a
Democrat with a sour mouth encouraging blacks not to vote at all isn't going to
get much access to the Clinton White House.  Stupid move on his part, IMHO.




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: pw15@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Philip  Wang)
Subject: Re: Radio idea (family values)
Reply-To: pw15@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Philip  Wang)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:04:29 GMT

In article <4998@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>On the radio this morning (WMAG-99.5FM Winston-Salem) a caller had an idea
>regarding the recent emphasis in the elections on "family values." The
>caller suggests that we decide the Presidency and Vice Presidency by
>having "Family Feud" between the Clintons & the Gores vs. the Bushes and
>the Quayles. All proceeds go to eradicating the national deficit. The
>family with the most money-points wins the White House; the runner-up
>family gets the Vice President's home.
>
From what I hear, the VP's house is more comortable than the White House
accomodations for the Pres. If so, maybe 1st prize goes to the VP's house?

philip
"Washington Boulevard, east-bound. Thirty-three...Can I get a transfer, man?
Ninety-five cents?! FUCK YOU I'LL SKATE TO THE BEACH, AND I'LL LOOK BETTER
GETTING THERE!!!" - Faith No More, "Death March"
e-mail Philip Wang at pw15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:05:59 GMT

In article <92258.191030DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

While I've been concentrating on showing that Canada's health care
system isn't actually different in the way that Shea says it is, there
are systems that DO work the way Shea asserts Canada's system does.
One example is Kaiser; there are others like it in the US.

These providers don't deal with multiple payers, unlike Canadian
providers.  They have to make sure that they take in enough money to
cover the costs, but that doesn't require any per-patient accounting.
In fact, they don't even pay per-procedure; their personnel are
on salary.

Yet, Kaiser and friends do not enjoy a significant cost advantage, an
advantage that Shea insists is inherent in true single-payer systems.
Do those single-payer systems intentionally piss away that advantage
with wastes in other areas?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4831 alt.politics.clinton:5051 alt.politics.perot:1444 rec.humor:28451 talk.bizarre:29829 talk.politics.misc:45025 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5297
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 12 Sep 92 12:34:07 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>Rush is obviously a bright fella...  what I can't understand is;
>
>1)  how can a bright fella like Rush not see the simple truth of this  OR
>2)  is he purposefully twisting facts for political gain
>
>If he values truth less than political gain,  then how can any of us
>ever trust him (or what he stands for)?   And why do people fall for it?

Rush is fun to listen to, but I can't think of a single time
that he has honestly presented the liberal position on _anything_.
His entire show consists of setting up straw dogs and shooting them down.

Of course he is twisting the facts for political gain.  Most of
his listeners, however, don't care too much about the facts.
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<NEERI.92Sep11165255@iis.ethz.ch> <BuFCyF.JGD@apollo.hp.com>
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:06:37

Peter Nelson writes:
> their [Sweden's] central bank recently set the lending rate to
>  ** 75% **.

The reason for this is not because of internal problems.  

Finland just withdrew from the European Monetary Fund.  Sweden and
Finland trade quite a bit with one another and the Swedish krona
was falling.  The central bank was afraid of the possibilty of
a free fall, which would mean the krona might have to be
devaluated, which would simply spread the crisis further.  They
pushed up the interest rate a bit, and it didn't seem to slow it
down... So they pushed it up to what was obviously an unreasonable
rate.  As of Friday, it seemed to be working; the Scandinavian
currencies will all need to be readjusted somewhat on the
international market but the worst is over.  The bank is intending
to bring the rate back down to normal levels as soon as it is
prudent.

Now that i've put that fact in context, it looks quite different than
it did in isolation, doesn't it?

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

We're looking for a little, bewildered girl.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:18:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.153736.6743@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

>Wot no Quayle vs Gore debate!

>:-(

>I've been looking forward to that for four years now.

 I was hoping to see Marilyn drink a glass of water while Dan was speaking ;-).

>--
>Phill Hallam-Baker

Larry J


-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4517 talk.politics.misc:44403 alt.politics.clinton:4592 alt.politics.elections:12698
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:49:48 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
: >I can't help but wonder about these claims that there was little collateral
: >damage, when there were so many reports about "friendly fire" casualties.
: >What?  All the collateral damage was on our side of the lines?
: 
: Do you suppose an American tank looks more like an Iraqi tank than
: an Iraqi schoolbus looks like an Iraqi tank?

You would think that a military that has the technological sophistication
to be able to sent smart bombs and/or cruise missles through doors and
windows and down chimneys ought to be able to figure out just where its
own troops are.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Scares the hell out of you,
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 doesn't it?"
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				--Richard Nixon, about
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com			  	Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                   

Marrou/Lord in '92


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Defending Clarence Thomas?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:18:52 GMT

     I saw a post about two weeks ago that I thought was so incredibly inane
that it would have to provoke response. I have been disappointed (maybe the
server here screwed up and I missed it, I don't know).
     Anyway, the post was by a man named Robert Shouse from the University of
Chicago. In response to the claim that no one would defend Clarence Thomas
because he is indefensible, Shouse replied:

   >In your dreams.   He's qualified for the simple reason that he believes in
   >and supports the constitution.

     So is that all that's required? I believe in and support the Constitution
(BTW, those of us who take that great document seriously *capitalize* it) - can
I get on the Supreme Court? Sure, I don't have any legal training or
well-thought-out legal opinions, but, hey, if the Bork hearings taught us
anything, it's that a paper trail is liability, right? :-)
     Shouse sputtered on:

   >He's qualified because he's no judicial activist.

     Come on, seriously, are our standards this low?

   >He's qualified because he believes in the right stuff--the stuff that's
   >going to drive the left crazy over the next 20-30 years.

     And that's it - those are the only three reasons Shouse gives for why
Clarence Thomas is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Nothing in there
about intellect, wisdom, gravitas...Hell, Rush Limbaugh (not exactly a noted
legal scholar) can make it in under Shouse's guidelines.
     This strikes me as a typical Republican argument this year. Not even a
token appeal to high standards and hopes -- just betrayed principles, broken
promises, bonehead platitudes, and braying partisanship. I'm a registered
Republican and I voted for Bush in '88, but I can't bring myself to vote for
him again. It amazes me that, during his acceptance speech, he blatantly lied
while calling for people's trust. I can't accept that, not even from a
politician. Especially not from a politician who claims he is something else.
     I'm voting Libertarian this year. No, I don't like everything they stand
for, but at least they are upfront with it -- they show you the good and the
bad. I would encourage anyone else like me -- disgusted with the Republicans
and scared of the Democrats -- to at least investigate what the LP has to say.
I don't have their 800-number handy right now, but I'll post it when I get
ahold of it. I'm not asking you to agree with them or vote for them -- just
look at what they have to say.

   >Roger Shouse, The University of Chicago

     Lord, I hope you're not a professor teaching and encouraging critical
thinking. You sound like the kind of student Allan Bloom likes to complain
about.
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    *The* Ohio State University
    I was a Cal Bears fan when they couldn't even beat a high school team!
       I think I can live with a loss to Purdue.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Alexander Hamilton a Leftist?
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:40:23 GMT

In article <192tdcINNaf7@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>I would think of Alexander Hamilton as more of a Conservative rather than
>a Leftist.
>
>

	Alexander Hamilton was a supporter of a strong central government.
Through a 'liberal' interpretation of the constitution he hoped to
build up the government's might and power.  His opponents preferred
to delegate such authority to the states, such opponents included
Thomas Jefferson.  Today, the Republicans do not want social welfare
expenditures, health care, etc. to fall upon the federal government,
they would prefer that these things fall upon the state if anything.
	Obviously, if something seems to be against your belief
you would rather ignore the statement or evidence *completely*
to preserve your belief. It hangs by a thin cord, I can tell you.

			J. Wagner


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4418 alt.politics.clinton:4445 alt.politics.perot:1409 rec.humor:28133 talk.bizarre:29361 talk.politics.misc:44253
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:40:17 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

>In article <BD.92Sep14094144@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>->Why should he present a liberal position?  For intellectual
>->honesty's sake, that's why.  I never said he had to promote liberal
>->ideas, what I said was that if he wants to argue persuasively against
>->the liberal position, he has an obligation to present that position
>->honestly and then argue against _that_, and not set up some straw
>->dog argument, for instance a parody of the liberal position, and 
>->argue against that false position.
>
> Have you ever heard Rush crinkle the paper on which an article he reads is
>printed. Why do you think he does that ?

To be obnoxious?
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: jasonh@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Jason Haines)
Subject: Bush sucks
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:02:31 GMT

>I raise wheat, barley, and sugar beets in NW Minnesota (USA).  The US farmer
>has to compete with the massive subsidies provided to the European, Argentinian
>and Australian farmers by their governments.  In fact, we produce wheat much
>more 
>efficiently and cheaply per bushel than any of them.  The governments of
>the EC pay upwards of $6 a bushel to insure a profit.  We have to at least
>be business minded in an open commodity system where the price can vary
>from $2.50 - $4.00 depending on whether there will be another coup attempt
>in Russia.  Furthermore, we get no more for a bushel of wheat then my father
>recieved 20 years ago.  In fact in 1974 he recieved over $5 a bushel.

Where did you read such crap about Australian farmers? Australian farmers
get no subsidies. Granted the EC is largely responsible for starting this
latest round of trade warfare. I've seen EC farmers in their farraris and
designer leather jackets protesting for more subsidies for their dairy produce,
so their mountains of butter can be seen from space with the naked eye :-)

>Bushes' promise of subsidies pales in comparison to what is "provided" to
>the farmers of other industrial nations.

Great, so Bush buys votes from the agriculture sector, and the asians laugh
at both the USA and the EC, and farmers in Australia, Canada and other non
subsidy driven countries, can cry in their beers....

Personally, I think Bush's America is a 20th Century Rome, and Bush is Nero.

Jason Haines
jasonh@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
-- 
Jason Haines - System Operator, MacInTouch BBS (02) 743-5997 (TeleFinder)
jasonh@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
_______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Staff Blasts 'numbers game'
Date: 9 Sep 1992 21:51:42 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Marc Mueller) writes:
|> LITTLE ROCK, Ark.(AP)-
|> 
|> Is the great tax debate over? Bill Clinton's staff has released a list
|> that shows 127 tax and fee increases during his tenure as governor, one
|> less than the number cited by the Bush-Quayle campaign.
|> 	That might surprise people who remember Clinton aide George
|> Stephanopoulos calling the 128-item list issued by the Republican camp
|> as "ludicrous." He said the list "shows that the Bush-Quayle committee
|> can add about as well as Dan Quayle can spell."
|> 	Clinton himself said about the Bush-Quayle list:"Like they said
|> they know it's not true, but they do it because they think it works."
|> 	But his own list compiled by the Arkansas Department of Finance
|> and Administration, says there were 34 tax increases and 93 fee increases
|> during Clinton's 12 years in office, for a total of 127.
|> 	His list also includes 73 instances in which taxes ws.
|> Clinton's been governor.
|> 	The Bush-Quayle list counted at least four fees or taxes twice,
|> which means the ticket actually listed 124 increases.  Items on the
|> Clinton list do not always concur with the Bush-Quayle list, but the
|> bottom line is nearly the same: Going strictly by the numbers, Clinton
|> can't quibble with the Bush-Quayle line.
|> 	But the debate doesn't stop there. Betsey Wright, the Clinton aide
|> who had the list compiled, said Clinton's point has always been that Bush
|> used minor fees to distort the Arkansas governor's tax record, and the 
|> president is lying about his own tax record. 
|> 	Before last month's Republican  convention, Bush surrogates 
|> accused Clinton of raising 128 taxes, without mentioning fees, but Wright
|> Bush and Quayle were careful in Houston to say Clinton raised 128 taxes
|> and fees, but Wright said the damage was already done.
|> 	"They're careful now to say taxes and fees, but they've already
|> established in people's minds that it's just taxes," she said.
|> 	Part of the problem is the definition of tax. The bulk of the items
|> on both lists are standard user fees, such as court costs for convicts.

Of course neither list shows the offsetting tax and fee decreases during the
same period.  And both lists break increases down to component parts (i.e.
a tax on alcohol listed once for every type of alcohol covered).

It's good politics but lousy ethics.
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism
From: larryh@cabezon.uucp (Larry Huntley)
Subject: Re: FEMA and Hurricane Andrew - Forwarded post
Organization: Logic Modeling Inc of Beaverton Oregon
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:09:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.170623.5432@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>I was just watching some CSPAN coverage of hearings regarding FEMA.
>Both the Congresscritters and the FEMA officials testifying said that
>FEMA has no where near 20k employees; I remember the real number
>as being closer to 2,000.
>
    Yes, but do we have *reliable* testimony?  What do these 2K employees
    do?  Were they on break when Chiles asked for help?

	- Larry "Just Wondering" Huntley

-- 
         (larryh@lmc.com)         | You played golf; you watched football;
     Logic Modeling Corporation   |   you drank beer -- we EVOLVED!
          Beaverton,  OR          |         - Rhonda,  "Thing-Fish"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush