HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 22:37:37 GMT

In article <qMQBr*0W0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>      explain how a President can get a totally HOSTILE House leadership to
>do the right things?  The single most important goal of Speaker Foley and
>friends for the past four years has been to get the President out of office!
>How do you "lead" people like that?

	Are you saying, then, that unless we can be sure a Republican
Congress will become reality, that we shouldn't vote for Bush, since,
after all, you say he can't lead our current pack? 



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:13:02 GMT

In <CWEYAND.92Sep14165057@hpbs721.boi.hp.com> cweyand@boi.hp.com (Chris Weyand) writes:

>So your contention is that were drugs legalized then everyone would become an
>addict?  Is alcohol causing a horrible productivity problem?  Maybe some 
>problem but I don't think it's destroying the country by any means.

I don't believe he meant to imply that every single person would
become an addict; rather, that many more people would. Of course the
word "many" is a slippery term, but it's safe to say that a
significant number of people who would otherwise not try drugs would,
which would most likely increase the number of addicts. 

As far as alcohol is concerned, I think the cost to society of
alcoholism and related disorders is much higher than most anyone would
like to think. I don't claim to be a sociologist and haven't done any
original research, but from my own experience alcohol seems to rear
its ugly head far more often than not in broken homes, teenage
delinquency, and automobile accidents. Flame me if you want, but
that's my impression.

Despite the hysteria which surrounded Prohibition, there's no doubt
that alcohol consumption has become more widespread since its
elimination (percentage, not gross). The same would happen if we
legalized drugs -- and the consequences would be equally, if not more
unfortunate.
-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:06:06 GMT

In article <21470@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <00715727470@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
> >The poverty level, as a percentage of population, declined steadily from
> >the year 1964 to the year 1979. Then it started a sharp increase. The
> >increase was especially large in the early 80's.
> 
> What did the population do (it got older)?  What did the people who were
> in poverty do (they got older)?  How many of the new people in poverty are
> retired (more and more every day)?  How many of the new people in poverty
> are wealthy retired persons (more and more every day)?  In fact, at the
> time Reagan was elected, roughly 20% of the population was in "poverty".
> By the time he left office, it was down to 18%.  Your "sharp increase"
> DOES NOT exist.
> 
> The poverty statistics are so misleading as to be worthless.  The simple
> reality is that the measurement that is used has nothing to do with how
> much "poverty" the person suffers from.  It only says how much income that
> person had.  And if I'm 75 years old, own my own home, own my 2 cars, own
> everything inside of the house, and have a retirement income of $1,000 a
> month, my wife and I are "in poverty".  Even if I have $200,000 sitting in
> the bank, earning 6% interest, and generating that $12,000 per year.  Even
> if I jet off to Europe twice a year.
> 
> THIS is where the "new poor" are coming from - the aging of America.
> 

May I add that 40% of the "poor" own their own homes!
The average value of these homes is 43,000 (about 60% of
the average value of all homes).

Something like 60% own a car.  Around 50% own microwave ovens.

The census bureau's statistics do not count any welfare that a 
person receives, either.  There a lot of new poor who just found
that they could earn more by not working, so they quit.

How much do you wanna bet that within 9 months of Clinton's 
being elected (God help us if it happens), the census starts 
adding in entitlements and (miraculously) the number of
poor starts to drop again.

These poor Americans live in homes which are on average 150%
the size of the average Japanese worker -- think about that.

These poor Americans have a standard of living that is much
higher than most of Western Europe.

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:31:03 GMT

mp> Michael Polen

mp> As with all "hollywood elite" concerns, media bias is a non issue.  If 
mp> people didn't agree with the bent of newscasters, they would watch some-
mp> thing else.

  Meaning what? That newscasters would therefore be forced to try to regain
  these non-viewers by changing their bias to accomodate the widest market?
  Has this happened? Can the major networks afford to tilt their news towards
  a smaller segment of the market and still be successful? 'Twould seem so.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4996 tx.politics:5125
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:52:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <21498@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>to be paid for by higher taxes.  Bush has FINALLY started talking about
>lowering taxes and lowering spending.  We've been promised an end to
>the Federal Deficit before (anyone remember Gramm-Rudman?), but if
>Bush is elected, we may actually see it.  If Clinton is elected, the
>deficit will be $500B next year, and $800B by the end of his first
>term.
>
>>Seems to me it's about time for a change.
>
>Also correct.  It's time to get us a new Congress.  I will be voting for
>the Elephant party this year.  The Jackass party, well, it's a bunch of
>jackasses ...
>-- 
I usually don't mess with these "Cal Thomas" type postings, but the
shear illogic of this turns my stomach. GHB has not shown me one solid
concept for preventing a $500B deficit next year himself. There's is
going to be a deficit no matter who gets in, so the whole thing comes
down to who can attack the problems affecting our productivity. Monetary
policy has no latitude here! If you ask me, your argument MIGHT be valid
if Pete Wilson were running, but he's not. Reagan & Bush, for all their
anti-big-government hype, have been for it as much as the most liberal
democrat! Just face it, Bush likes to fill federal agencies with political
hacks like all others have done.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: ujwb@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jeff Beer)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:15:24 GMT

In article <20334@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>12 weeks?  What if the person involved is someone that is vital to the
>company or has some technical skill? 

The persons whose salaries are in the top 10% of the company are 
exempt.  So are companies with employees less than 51.

> What it all boils down to is another
>attempt by the liberals to force something down the throats of business.

No it truly has something to do with family values.

It also is wrong to assert that it is supported by only liberals.
Illinois congressman Henry Hyde, a staunch conservative, voted for this
bill.

Jeff
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4578 talk.politics.misc:44391 alt.rush-limbaugh:4437 alt.politics.bush:4507 alt.politics.elections:12695
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 12:02 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep9.164638.23642@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes...
> 
>My girlfriend saw this one on tv news.  I was suprised the local 
>station would report this one, rather than ignoring it as I would 
>have expected them to.
> 
>Clinton this weekend (sept 5-6) went to a rally in South Carolina.
>He was booed so hard and loud by a majority of the huge crowd that 
>he couldn't be heard at all.  The best part was the plane:  Overhead
>flew an airplane towing this banner:  "We don't want a draft dodger
>for president!".
> 
>The plane was lovely.  I wish she had recorded it on the vcr.  As
>I said, I am suprised that the tv news station here chose to cover it.
> 
>I have yet to see any mention of this wonderful event in our local
>paper, (which runs daily anti-Bush editorial cartoons).   I plan to
>go to the library and see which papers do cover the event, but I 
>imagine there are not many.  If the same thing had happened to Bush,
>you can bet it would be in every paper and tv news show.
> 
>How many of you saw this?  What did you think?  How many of you didn't
>know about this because your TV station or newspaper chose to deny you
>this knowledge?
> 
>Jim Del Vecchio

As a vet in Vietnam, I saw that plane and it was reported on our TV and
in our local paper.  I am incensed that these STUPID diversionary tactics
are again being used in the political campaign.

The same plane could have flown over a Pat Buchannan rally or a Dan Quayle
rally- pat got deferred because of a bad knee and somehow he is an avid
jogger and Dan had the money to get into the guard.

If I had to do it all over again I would have gone to Canada and then
maybe I could have avoided all the surgery I had because I trusted
the government.

If Bush comes to my town, I would rent a plane and drag a sign that
said "Bush abandons veterans--Do you still trust him?"  Come out
to a VA hospital and see what a wonderful job Bush/Quayle has done
in the last 4 years trying to deny VA benefits to veterans and how the new rules
and regulations affect the quality of care.


Denny 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5532 alt.politics.bush:5209
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:30:44 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a huckster/liar as president!"
 <BuKovn.6D7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Sep15.142146.16304@oakhill.sps.mot.com>

In article <1992Sep15.142146.16304@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
(Patrick J. McGuinness) says:
>
>>At least Reagan tried to do something about the economy, though....
>
>More importantly, he did the right things: Lower taxes, restrain
>inflation, keep regulation and spending in check, encourage trade.
>
>Pat , Bush, '92, to hold the fort until Kemp '96

"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (WITH JACK KEMP) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 22:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.095915@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.181209.12231@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>|> Statistically, I don't see "gay bashing" as being any more common than
>|> the "fat" boy or the "ugly" girl getting beat up on the playground, or
>|> the "straight" guy getting beat up because he made a pass at someone's
>|> girlfriend. 
>
>Yes, you're rambling.  Why don't you call CUAV (Community United
>Against Violence) about bashing statistics.  Then come back and
>talk.  Or how about stepping out with the Street Patrol in the
>Castro (SF California) and see how they can't even cover that small area
>to protect people who are simply going to the local bar or heading
>down to Walgreens for their meds.

Or how about the Houston police officers who went undercover to
prevent gay bashing and said that they had no idea how often the
attacks took place and how brutal they were?  When I posted about this
in another newsgroup, someone posted that the Houston police had
stopped doing this because it resulted in too many injuries to the
officers.
From: karlr@think.com (Karl Rotstan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush's stand on abortion...
Date: 11 Sep 1992 15:24:29 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com

In article <CHRISF.92Sep10230352@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:
>Could someone enlighten me about Bush's stand on abortion?  I specifically
>want to know how he intends to prevent those rich enough to travel abroad
>from getting abortions in other countries if abortion was banned in the US.

As I understand it, Bush's PERSONAL position is the standard refrain of "no
abortion except in case of incest, rape or life of mother is at stake."
His PARTY PLATFORM is no abortions period.  Neither have any comment
whatsoever regarding people travelling abroad for abortions.  Even
Ireland couldn't pull that one off.

karl...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher)
Subject: Helping business
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:32:52 GMT
X-Posted-From: thor.albany.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Ok, another question to be directed towards the Republicans:

Bush keeps telling us what's going to be good for business.  The Family Leave
Bill would be bad because it would cost business money.  Health Care for all
employees would cost too much - it's bad for business.  Raising the minimum
wage to keep up with inflation is no good - it's bad for business.

When exactly do we get down to the fact that most industrial countries treat
their employees much better than we treat ours?  Gemany, France, Japan, 
Sweden... the list goes on.  All we seem to do is consider the short term
costs, and as a result, have workers whose standard of living is declining.

If we REALLY want to be pro-business, perhaps we should re-instate slavery;
if employers didn't have to pay their employees, they could be much more 
competitive.  :)  My question is, when does it end?  When do we take enough
away from employees to say "Now our companies can compete"?  Maybe we should,
just for a little while, try the reverse philosophy and actually HELP
workers...

I don't want to get too sidetracked, but who here really thinks that the
cost of health care for all Americans is what the Republicans say?  I mean,
if we spend the money on health care, these people will be able to take
the money they once paid on medical costs and use it elsewhere.  Something
else will have to benefit.

Perhaps I'm drawing too many conclusions, and I'd be interested in others'
views...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Halcyon Predictions (was: Halcion
Keywords: off the wall crystal gazing, gratuitous insults of non-candidates      on non-issues, postulated erucations from the dead, hot air
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:21:16 GMT

In <1992Sep11.93311.7396@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

>My own feeling is that George is currently on some kind of mild downer.

Just recently there was a report in the papers from a psychiatrist or
a psychologist who claimed Bush was on a major downer, suffering from
clinical depression.


>polls. I'm not predicting it, but I wouldn't be surprised at an "October"
>surprise: a Bush withdrawal and, say, a Jack Kemp quickie fill-in run.

I'm still waiting for Bush to declare war on someone to give him an
excuse to suspend the constitution and usher in the New World
Order...or have I been reading way too much alt.conspiracy again? :)

Michael


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Content of Recycled Paper (Was Re: A Dearth of Jobs)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:20:19 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep10.175943.4971@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.080701.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> I would not recommend Gore's book to anyone with a weak stomach.... it's
>> printed on recycled paper, or in layperson's terms, it's printed on other
>> people's old garbage.  
>> ... it is quite possible that the pages in Gore's book are made from old
>> toilet paper.  
> 
> What kind of a person would say such a thing?
> 
>   - Dave Borden
>     borden@m5.harvard.edu

Mr. Borden,

     I think you have the makings of a *great* reporter for one
of the big three networks, oh yeah, and NBC also.  You are
unable to recognize a joke when you see it, and then you delete
out the contents that made it a joke.  (I guess the Yankee elite
have no sense of humor. :-)  Read my original followup -- you 
might learn something about the actual content of 'recycled' paper!  

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:36:33 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.037 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born)
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In  <mjenkins.715806391@cunews>  mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> In <1992Sep6.091335.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
> >     Did anyone see the 9/5/92 'Reliable Sources' show on CNN?
> >(This is a show that examines and critiques the media.)
> >CNN anchor Reid Collins, who was a guest on this show, admitted
> >twice that he believes there is a pro-Clinton bias in the reporting
> >of this year's election campaigns.  He was, however, somewhat
> >apprehensive to give his reasoning behind this belief.
>
> >     Two questions that come to my mind are:
> >     1.  Does Reid Collins have some substantive, behind-the-scenes
> >         evidence for this belief that he fears sharing?
>
> No, I think its quite obvious from watching much of the network
> reporting, the Emmys, and the state of the US in general. I don't

Eh, since when are "the Emmys, and the state of the US in general."
part of the media?

>
> Michael Jenkinson
> Graduate Student
> Journalism, Carleton University, Ottawa


Christopher J. Born

born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Summary: References please. 
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:07:45 GMT

I would like to find the reference for the remarks by the Nobel Laureates.

I contacted several of the posters who put the text on the net, but they
were only reposting the original posting.

I have been through the library here at Vandy. The computerized periodical
data base is current up to Aug 92, but had no reference to Samuelson or
several of the others giving any interviews about politics. I tried the
Wall St. Journal and Reader's Guide also.

I was curious because Samuelson criticizes everybody, including the Nobel
committee and it was out of character for him to praise Clinton. Also, I know
one American Laureate died in April but I'm not sure if he was quoted as
supporting Clinton or not.

So, would the original poster send me the reference for the Laureate's
remarks?

Regards, Marc Mueller.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections