HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Bush/Quayle's Health Plan -- vouchers?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 02:57:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.004335.3638@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>
>>Such an experiment exists in the United States...a crude type of pay-or
>>play is in place in Hawaii.  Better health outcomes and lower costs
>>are the result.
>
>"Better health outcomes and lower costs" were true in Hawaii BEFORE
>the experiment, so it is somewhat strange to call them a result.
>
>BTW - if we believe that the Hawaii experience is conclusive, there's
>no reason for a national program.  Let 51 flowers bloom.
>

Canada's system is ten separate flowers, as the single-payer system
with doctor choice (unlike Hawaii which is a crude pay-or-play) is
managed provincially, but 40% of the funding is national to provide
equalization throughout the country in the quality of services...
the economically-disadvantaged regions are subsidized by the
economically-advantaged regions so there is comparable quality
of health services.

Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FEMA and Hurricane Andrew - Forwarded post
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:06:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.044127.11380@bilver.uucp> dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes:
>I'm forwarding this article that I got from the Paranet conference. You
>may find it interesting.
>----------Begin included article --------------------------------------
>Message #856 - P_PLOTS 
>   Date : 28-Aug-92  2:01
>   From : Clark Matthews
>     To : All
>Subject : FEMA's Florida Fiasco
>
>The complaints are about the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  FEMA --
>remember them?  The $25 Billion agency with 20,000 employees -- only 260 of
>whom coordinate disaster relief!???

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.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:39:48 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

[Re: House Bank scandal]

: No.  They did not spend our money, the spent their money.   Congressperson
: A covered Congressperson B's check.  If you consider that your money, then
: you must think that your money still belongs to your employer, even after
: you receive it.  Wrong

OK, I might be wrong on this, since I've only heard of this by way
of other net.people, but didn't the Federal Treasury occasionally
have to step in in extreme circumstance when the Bank's net funds 
were so low, that the Bank had insufficient funds to cover the 
checks being written against money that was supposed to be there?
If that is true, then I believe the citizens of the U.S. were from
time to time granting intrest-free loans to Congress.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I'm Dan Quayle, who are you?"
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu				-- D.Q. at a Hardee's
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			"I'm your Secret Service agent"
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- the answer he got
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:16:02 GMT


In article <1992Sep10.044420.4763@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>  Today in a speech defense expert Bill Clinton referred to Patriot
>missiles as 'being able to go through doors and down chimmenys (?)'.
>Analysts were quick to point out that he was confused and must have been
>thinking of the cruise missiles which were used in the Gulf war.  It's the
>Dukakis tank ride all over again.

"The economy, stupid."



--
"I wish there was a way I could vote for you a hundred times"
"There is . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:46:27 GMT

In article <10697@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>I really liked the Bush ad I saw last night. 
>
>They used the entire width of the video frame for the final info on 
>ordering Bush's book with his plan for the future -- with the result 
>that the last digit of the phone number did not appear on the screen! 
>
>Someone forgot that many TV sets cut off the last part of the scan 
>lines....  Such competence! 

I think I saw the whole number on my TV, but it was up there for
about two seconds, and I could not catch the whole thing.
Maybe they are incompetent, but I wonder if they do not want a
whole lot of people to actually order the thing.  

-------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4751 alt.politics.clinton:4954
From: stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: A POLL THAT MEANS SOMETHING
Keywords: big lead for Bill
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:27:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies



Many pro-Clintonies have posted results of polls and added "Hey look how far
ahead we are in the popular vote." Many pro-Busher have come back, and
rightly so, to say "Popular vote means nothing, show me a poll with 
electoral votes." Well the 1st one(at least the 1st I've seen)is out. It was
published on the front page of the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS on 9-10. I've been
surprised not to have already heard about it on the net. The poll was put
together by the FIELD INSTIITUTE and here are the results.

There are a grand total of 538 electrol votes. 270 electrol votes needed to win.

If election held today
Clinton would receive a mininum of 366 Ele. votes.
Bush would recieve a mininum of 35 Ele. votes.
All others too close to call.

The number Clinton would receive is based on the 33 states that he currently 
has a lead of more then 5%. Of those 32 states there are 18 that Clinton has a 
lead of MORE then 10%. This includes D.C. These 18 states have 225 votes. 
There are currently NO states that Bush has more then a 10% lead in.
The votes that Bush would receive is based on the 4 states that he has between
a "5 to 10%" lead. 
There are 14 states with with 137 votes that are up for graps. 
The article does go on to say that this poll is not meant to be a prediction
of things to come but just the way they are today.

Stan Knight
|"Just the facts, SIR!" --Bill Murray--(Stripes)|
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4146 alt.politics.clinton:4119 alt.rush-limbaugh:4297 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5121
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:19:03 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


|> 
|> >If Mr. Bush had done this, he would have been in deeper shit.  Every anti-
|> >Bush critter would crawl out from the woodwork and proclaim Bush's total
|> >disregard for states rights and federal law.
|> 
|> 	I don't think so. It would be hard to make the charges stick, since
|> Bush would be acting soley for the good of the people, as opposed to personal
|> or political gain. 


Can you really believe that?  I've heard people complaining that Bush's trip to Florida on the first Monday was a purely political!  How can he possibly not be called for playing politics if he actually violates the state's rights of Florida by sending in federal troops before being asked?  And, if memory serves me correctly, he said that the troops were ready to go that day.  And I know that FEMA people went down on Monday from Massachusetts.  And I think that Bush also declared So. Fla. a disaster area t






hat day.  So short of sending the troops, which he could not legally do, what could/should he have done differently?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5191 alt.politics.clinton:5506 alt.politics.perot:1484 talk.politics.misc:45548
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New poll results
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 00:58:00 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello) writes:

>
> In a previous article, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) s
>
> >Given that the debates go back to the 1960 election, I don't think they rate
> >being classified as 'relatively new.'  That's no excuse for Bush's cowardice
> >however, since he was the one that sought to improve his image in the '84
> >debate against Ferraro, and was the guy who tried to act like The Terminator
> >the '88 series.
>
> Refusing to debate Clinton might be one of the last mistakes Bush makes in
> public life.  It would be his last chance to get his message out.  It's
> especially important to him since the GOP royally screwed up the convention
> by turning it over to the reactionary fringe, so that Bush got no lasting
> benefit from it.

I sincerely hope it's one of his last public mistakes.  What doesn't figure
is that you'd think that the Baker boys would be pushing him hard to take
Clinton on, if 'Slick Willie' is as vulnerable as they say in public.  As usual
with GHWB, actions speak much louder than words.



|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,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:00:56 GMT

In article <mykes.0dfl@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.153616.533@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>> In article <Bu2pwL.Fox@ais.org> draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper) writes:
>>
>> 	[re: bush waiting for the governers call]
>>
>> >Those who slam Bush for sending troops to Florida, saying it is all for
>> >personal gain, would not allow Bush to get away with a flagrant violation of
>> >the Constitution.
>>
>> 	I don't think that people are slamming bush for sending troops to
>> florida, at least I haven't heard theat sentimate. People are slamming bush
>> for not responding fast enough. As for the constitution, bush was talking to
>> the governer on monday, and could have said: "Hey, governer dude, I got some
>> troops. You want 'em?". Anticipating a yes, Bush could have landed the first
>> troops monday night, and become a national hero. As it was, he looks distracted
>> and uninterested in domestic affairs, reinforcing what people already think.

George Bush could cure cancer tomorrow and some people might cliam he
did not act fast ennough.  Either that or claim he only did it because this
was a political year.
>
>Alex, sounds like you were eavesdropping on the phone call.  How the heck do you
>know Bush didn't make the offer?  How do you know he wasn't anticipating a yes?
>YOU would paint him to look distracted...  it serves your agenda nicely.  And
>reinforcing what _SOME_ people think.

Don't I know you, Mike?
:)

>> >And there are also those who forget that Bush picked up 100% of the cost of
>> >the Hugo disaster recovery effort as well, and that was certaily no election
>> >year.
>>
>> 	Did he? I thought that the taxpayers picked up the tab on that one,
>> working in accord with existing policy. Should George get a medal for doing
>> what he's paid to do?

Just where in the hell DO you think fix the Hugo devestation?  Right,
the government thru taxpayer dollars and insurance companies.

>He did, at the expense of the economy and hence his image...

Heh heh.  It think its so funny (unfortunately) that people equate
the President with state of the economy, as if they directly have anything
to dowith each other.

Sheesh, haven't people heard of the House of Democ- uh, I mean Representatives
and the Fed?

>>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>
>Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Eww! Amiga!?! Ewww! :)

>Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)

Now Mike, why am I not surprise seeing you here? :)

--
Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4563 talk.politics.misc:44472 alt.politics.clinton:4667 alt.politics.elections:12730
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:07:27 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep6.175234.19488@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
[deleted]
>Please cite your reasons for believing this.  Please bear in mind the
[deleted]
>Please cite your reasons for believing this.
[deleted]
>Please cite your reasons for believing that this figure is accurate.
>Please cite your reasons for believing that it would further increase
>under a Clinton administration.  Please cite your reasons for
>believing that the current figure, be is $300 billion or not, is too
>high.
[deleted]
>Please elaborate.  What were the details of the proposal that Clinton
>"killed"?  What kind of tort reform is favored by Bush and Quayle?
>Please be specific.
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Well, Slick Willie, I see you're practicing your lawyer tricks again
instead of addressing the issues. BTW *I* think $300 billion is too
much money to waste on lawyers. *I* think $.15 is more appropriate
since it will buy one cartridge, all that's worth wasting on a lawyer
in most cases, though sometimes I'm generous and willing to spring for
a rope.

Gary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:36:16 GMT

In article <Bu2pwL.Fox@ais.org> draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper) writes:

	[re: bush waiting for the governers call]

>Those who slam Bush for sending troops to Florida, saying it is all for
>personal gain, would not allow Bush to get away with a flagrant violation of
>the Constitution. 

	I don't think that people are slamming bush for sending troops to
florida, at least I haven't heard theat sentimate. People are slamming bush
for not responding fast enough. As for the constitution, bush was talking to
the governer on monday, and could have said: "Hey, governer dude, I got some
troops. You want 'em?". Anticipating a yes, Bush could have landed the first
troops monday night, and become a national hero. As it was, he looks distracted
and uninterested in domestic affairs, reinforcing what people already think.

>And there are also those who forget that Bush picked up 100% of the cost of
>the Hugo disaster recovery effort as well, and that was certaily no election
>year.

	Did he? I thought that the taxpayers picked up the tab on that one,
working in accord with existing policy. Should George get a medal for doing
what he's paid to do?


-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4986 alt.politics.clinton:5240 alt.politics.perot:1465 rec.humor:28553 talk.bizarre:29986
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Congress above the law (Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 20:14:05 EDT
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

> >Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
> >write bad checks?
> 
>      As far as the House bank went, no Rep. *ever* wrote a bad check.
> Every check written was covered by other people's money.  What the
> Congressmen did was get free over-draft protection, a service that
> most people would have to pay for at their own banks.
>      Congress likes to play by different rules, but they generally
> do play within *their* rules, at least technically.

It's easy to play by the rules, when you make the rules. :)


--
"A leopard never changes his stripes" 
           -- Al Gore, candidate for vice-president
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Get ready ('cause here I come)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:54:18 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

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

: Well, what do you suggest? A boycott? How long of a boycott do you think
: would work before the octagenarian Chinese Politburo say, "Oh, we made a
: mistake! We're sorry! We won't do that again! Here are some democratic
: reforms for you!" What about the 1B people in China? A boycott/embargo
: didn't work for a tiny country like Iraq, what makes you think eliminating
: trade to the most populous country in the world would be any more effective?
: 
: I'm still waiting for suggestions from Democrats out there.

Well, I don't think we have to extend Most Favored Nation status to the PRC.
Personally, I'd like to see a tariff against goods imported from China, with
the proceeds going towards humanitarian aid or education, but that's just
my opinion.

: >Vote Bush/Quayle in 92. Together maybe we can bring this great
: >country down.
: 
: And together we can raise it up.

Marrou/Lord in '92.  At least they want to get rid of the pretense of 
government not doing anything....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Scares the hell out of you,
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 doesn't it?"
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				--Richard Nixon, about
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			  	Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher
From: anders@athena.mit.edu (Anders W Hove)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to ... Iraq?
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:25:36 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <27672@life.ai.mit.edu>, elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
|> 
|>    What did our ambassador to Iraq say to Saddam Hussein just before
|> he invaded Kuwait?  Ross Perot claimed the ambassador gave Iraq
|> permission to take over some oil fields, and then we were surprised
|> when he took the whole country.  Is this true?  Did we blunder?  Who
|> instructed the ambassador?  Why weren't Perot's allegations checked?
|> 
|>    Naahhh... "family values" are much more important, aren't they?
|> 
|> 						- Lee Campbell
 

    Ross Perot was refering to the conversation held between a State Dept
official named April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein a few days before the latter
invaded Kuwait.  Glaspie was an Arabist who was of the opinion that we were
really making progress with the Iraqi regime (in terms of the cause of
democracy). Because she feared that irking Saddam would endanger the
establishment of a joint Iraq/US "interpretive center" in Baghdad, she thought it
would be better to be nice to him.  She received permission to inform S. Hussein
that the US "[had] no official position on Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait". 
Apparently, Saddam took this as official permission from Bush to invade Kuwait. 
A few days later, Iraqi tanks reached the Saudi border.
    The incident revealed a fatal flaw in Bush's foregn policy.  In many places
around the world, US policy has been to work with the current leaders, no matter
what they do, thereby (hopefully) gaining trust and access.  Only through this
access, the State Dept thinks, can the US make any progress.  This failled idea
led to debacles such as continued ties with China after the crack-down;
renewed ties with South Africa, despite recent massacre; the lack of recognition
for emerging nations like Lithuania, Ukraine, Slovenia, Croatia, and Kurdistan
followed by subsequent disasters there; and the faillure to recognise the
legitimacy of Boris Yeltsin's gov't long after Gorbechev had lost relevance.
    Both Perot and Clinton have talked about this chronic weakness in Bush policy
(which may have caused the Gulf War).  I doubt it will make much difference in
the election.  It will, however, call into question Bush's claim to be the
foreign policy president.  If he can't be that, or the education president, or
the environmentalist president, what can he be?  Retired.

Anders Hove
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Whatever happened to ...
Organization: Clark University
Date: 9 SEP 92 16:00:07 GMT


In a previous article, mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) wrote:
> 
>  Seriously, I'd forget about watching any Presidential debates this year.
>Instead it would be much more interesting to watch Hillary Clinton debate
>Tipper Gore on the question of 'Should children have the right to sue their
>parents for cutting off access to obscene records?'.
> 
I thought Tipper Gore lobbied for labelling of records, not for "cutting
off access."

But I agree that such a debate would be more interesting. HC and TG can 
probably articulate an argument much more coherently than GHWB.

-				|   "A guy with a hard-on is not
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|    my idea of art."
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    			- John Mellencamp
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Alexander Hamilton a Leftist?
Date: 14 Sep 1992 20:41:16 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

I would think of Alexander Hamilton as more of a Conservative rather than
a Leftist.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4568 alt.politics.clinton:4675 talk.politics.misc:44478