HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Deficits and the public debt
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:10:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Real/Time Communications

In article <1992Oct14.213559.3711@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>Many people blame the President for our huge public debt (now around
>$20,000 for every American and growing at $4 per day per person).
>
>But I mostly blame Congress since only they can authorize the spending of
>money- its in the Constitution. Granted the President can veto but since
>Congress buries so much pork-barrel in the spending bills, the president
>often has no choice but to accept the bill.
>
>See Article 1, sections 7, 8 of your local copy of the Constitution
>for details.
>
>As to the massive deficit and debt, lets put it in perspective:
>
>It averages out to about $20,000 per American man, woman and child.
>It grows at the rate of $9,000 per SECOND, $40million per
>hour etc. This nets out to robbing every American of $4 per day.
>That is like YOU losing $4 per day, every day.
>
>You may not think this is bad yet, consider this:
>1-The average household had debt equal to 60% of its annual income
>2-The fed has total debt equal to 400% of its annual income
>
>Clearly, its time for action.
>
>Only Perot has a concrete plan (in his UNITED WE STAND book) that spells 
>out steps to take to reverse this massive debt and for reasons like that,
>I support him. 
>
>Some may say his plan will damage our weak economy. Perot is not a fool 
>and he says his plan will not kick in until 1/94 until the earliest. 
>If the economy is still bad then, I am sure he will review the timing again.
>
>If you are unsure or opposed to Perot, only say that AFTER you read his
>book. [But it may be hard to find, its been a NY Times #1 bestseller since
>it came out]. By the way, its only $4.95 - a small price to pay to be
>a more informed voter.
>
>Joe
>joec@morgan.com
>Usual disclaimers...
>

I've lived in Texas long enough to know what Perot is all about, I don't
have to read his book.  What America definitely DOESN'T need is some
cackling billionaire straddling us with enormous tax increases (like the
50-cent per gallon fuel tax) while cutting every program in sight
willy-nilly.

While Perot talks and talks about "personal sacrifice", did you know
that under his own plan, Perot himself would be paying LESS in taxes?
-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
From: so690561@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Susan Elizabeth Olson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Perot plan posted to alt.politics.perot
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:51:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu

For those who are interested, most of the contents of Perot's book
were posted to alt.politics.perot (~ atricle #s 3353-3356 according
to our newsreader) on 10/13/92 - in case you don't get enough
tomorrow night in the 2nd infomercial on NBC).  It may/may not
help uncommitteds to reach a decision.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8615 alt.politics.clinton:9679 alt.politics.elections:16088
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:36:25 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

I made this statement, and a few people sent email saying that I didn't
have any facts to back it up.  Those people are very mistaken.  Here you go:

aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) said..
>
>Furthermore:  James Baker, George Bush, Bob Dornan, and three other
>Republican congressmen met, at the oval office, Tuesday morning (48 hours 
>*before* the larry king show) to calculate a strategy for making this
>into an "issue". 

Headline: Dornan urged Bush to attack Clinton's anti-war activities

	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- Rep. Robert Dornan, R-Calif., read to President
Bush a transcript of a taped conversation allegedly between Democrat
Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers ``to annoy the hell'' out of the
president before urging him to personally attack Clinton's Vietnam-era
visit to Moscow, The Los Angeles Times reported Friday.
	The newspaper said Dornan was part of a delegation of congressmen who
urged Bush to attack Clinton's patriotism during a Tuesday breakfast
meeting at the White House, which also included White House chief of
staff James Baker.
	The Times quoted Rep. Randy Cunningham, another GOP member of the
delegation, as saying he told Bush, ``This is an issue that will kill
Clinton when people realize what a traitor he is to this country. In
some countries if something like this came out, he would be tried as a
traitor. Tokyo Rose had nothing over Clinton.''
	Dornan, who has made a series of speeches on the House floor
attacking Clinton, told the Times that in order to ``fire up'' the
president at the breakfast meeting, he quoted from a transcript of a
tape-recorded conversation allegedly between Clinton and Flowers, the
woman who early in the campaign accused the Democrat of having an affair
with her.
	``I knew that would annoy the hell out of him,'' Dornan said. ``I
told him, 'Mr. President, Clinton holds you in contempt, but still
thinks he has the moral high ground. But look at this lying over leading
anti-war demonstrations. And stonewalling on his trip behind the Iron
Curtain....Mr. President, you've got to take the gloves off.''
	Bush, asked about the reports on the ABC ``Good Morning America''
program Friday, denied that his decision to raise Clinton's Moscow trip
came out of the Tuesday meeting.



Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9458 alt.politics.clinton:10916 alt.politics.elections:17258
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - Important
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:05:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.041447.7017@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>the public to judge him based on his full background.  Maybe Bush has one 
>thing right - who are YOU going to trust?
>
 
    One thing for sure,  NOT George !  He's proven a liar.

    Clinton may be (justly or unjustly ) accused to have been pandering, George
is (factually) proven to have been lying and distorting. 
 
    So let's ask the question again, (since the Bushniks like that so much),
 
    Who are YOU going to trust ? 
 
    Maybe not Clinton, BUT DEFINITELY NOT GEORGE !

 
    We voters are not stupid. Don't you Bushniks assume we will trust Bush
because he's George H.W. Bush ! Don't you assume we will buy your labels 
of "tax and spend" for democrates !  Our eyes are open, and our brains are 
not dead yet even for years people like Nixon and Bush have been trying to kill 
the inquiring minds. We still see facts, we still can tell what is a lie and
what is a distortion. 
 
    Who are YOU going to trust ? 	DEFINITELY NOT GEORGE
    Tax And Spend			George Bush
    Borrow And Spend			Ronald Reagan
    Steal And Spend			Richard Nixon
    Hate And Divide			George Bush And Pat Bucannan
    Hate And Hypocrate			That "lady" Schlafly (I don't really 
                                        know her name)
 
    So Who are YOU going to trust ?  
 
    Definitely NOT George. 

  
    Now there, I feel much better :-(
 
    Really, for so long our intelligence has been insulted by the Bushniks'
assumption and preassumption. There is a threshhold to endure those insults. 
  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9061 alt.politics.clinton:10285 alt.politics.elections:16645 alt.rush-limbaugh:7346
From: aras@ms.uky.edu (erode)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ... [REPOST]
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:20:17 GMT
    <1992Oct13.222322.6203@seas.gwu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.205054.27002@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>
>>ALL I WANT IS A DEFINITIVE
>>
>>      "NO ONE MAKING < $200,000 WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TAXES"
>>
>>Give me this and you'll have me and others on the net marching to
>>the polls for Clinton in November.  If you don't come up with a direct

Clinton has not said that he will not raise taxes for <$200000. So
you should vote for Bush. He has ofcourse promised NOT to "ever ever" raise taxes
again. Or has he?
Even if "no taxes ever ever" actually means never, can he be trusted 
to keep his words?
On this point Bush is real slick (having it both ways). Without making a 
'read my lips' promise (not that it matters) he keeps saying that Clinton 
will raise taxes. Remember, officially , Bush  has never said that he 
will not raise taxes.
-aras
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:41:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.170749.23176@unet.net.com> 
stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

> One more time---the pro-choice position has been and is
> that the woman has a choice to have an abortion if she desires BUT 
> late term abortions should only be allowed unless to save the life 
> of the mother. 

I have a surprise for you Mr. Knight -- your definition of
"pro-choice" is NOT accepted by most of the radical pro-choicers  
on talk.abortion. To them, a person is not really pro-choice
unless they support abortion rights throughout the term of
pregnancy. 

On a side note, several pro-choice women on talk.abortion 
have been viciously attacked by radical pro-choicers for 
their support or non-opposition to third-trimester abortion 
restrictions. I wonder why these radical pro-choicers rarely 
attack men (such as yourself) who express the same opinion? 


>Stan Knight


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: evasquez@dewey.NMSU.Edu 
Subject: Re: Why I can't stand the Democratic party
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:10:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.031914.7299@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> 

>   It's just that Clinton's pandering is so OBVIOUS, to the point where it's
> sickening.  People used to complain about Reagan's flag waving rallies,
> Clinton's overly slick campaigning makes that pale in comparison.

How can you attack Clinton for pandering when George Bush is continually giving  
away billions of dollars at every campain stop he makes.  Perhaps George isnt  
pandering...he is just buying votes. 

> -- 
> Richard Mulac                                      
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
> NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH   
44135
>
E Vasquez
"This president is going to lead us out of the RECOVERY. It will happen"-
Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9373 alt.politics.clinton:10753 alt.politics.elections:17107 alt.rush-limbaugh:7539
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: More democrats in congress?
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:35:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1992Oct15.122120.5554@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

|> >	Sorry bud, but it looks like we're not only looking at a
|> >democratic congress, but we're looking at *more* democrats in the
|> >Senate and a continuing majority in the house. It's a good thing 
|> >Bush won't have to deal with that, huh?
|> 
|> More demos? Where did you get that from?

	looking at the local polls around the country, I would predict a
gain in house seats by Republicans, and a gain of senate seats by Democrats.
California, for example, is looking *very* democratic this year, and will 
send two democrats to the senate and a whole bunch to the house. I expect
to see 60 or 61 Democratic seats in the next senate.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9445 alt.politics.clinton:10882
From: mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz)
Subject: Re: Parental consent (was Re: I'm surprised!)
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:00:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.150922.16577@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:

> 
> MYTH: 
> Parental consent laws should have exceptions for those *really* tough cases.
> 
> There are *already* laws in most (all?) states that allow a minor to petition 
> the courts for emancipation.  Seems to me this would allow for all of those
> exception cases quite nicely, and would force the child to think a little 
> harder before doing an end-run around their parents.
>

*Some people (especially children) can't afford to go to court.
*Some people (especially children) don't know how to go to court.
*Going to court takes a LONG TIME.  The sooner you have an abortion, the
safer it is, but courts make you wait months and even years.
*Some are afraid of taking their parents to court and LOSING. If your
parents are physically or sexually violent, the prospect of taking them to
court is especially scary.
*After a teen is "emancipated," how are they supposed to take care of
themselves and survive?  For a child, that prospect might be just as if not
more frightening than staying with their parents.
*What if they don't want to reject/be rejected by their families?  What if
that's the whole POINT of not wanting their parents to know?
*Assuming that you want to go to court and that you are able to, it is very
difficult to prove grounds for emancipation.  Particularly in cases of
physical and sexual abuse, our court system requires witnesses and scars
before they will take action.  

> Fact is that pro-abortion groups don't like parental consent laws because
> they stand to lose business? (some of their easiest customers?)
> 
BULLSHIT!

Most Pro-Choice groups and individuals do not work for abortion clinics,
and if they do, they work not-for-profit.  Pro-choice does not mean
pro-abortion.  Physicians who perform abortions could make a lot more money
being regular OB/GYN's, but they work in clinics because they believe
abortion is an important service to have available.

Next time, think about what your saying before you make ugly accusations
like this.

Melanie
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:9013 alt.politics.clinton:10216 alt.politics.elections:16575
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Blame it on SOMEONE, George Bush
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:21:17 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

First George Bush blamed congress for all of his economic woes.  He 
had a good plan, or so he said, but just couldn't get it through congress.

Now comes word that in his second term, Bush will fire his
economic team.  This is the same economic team that put together 
his "Agenda for American Renewal" and other campaign proposals.  

George Bush is trying to put the blame on Budget Director Richard Darman
and Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady now -- presumably because he doesn't
think they are good advisors.  

He's trying to say, "I have a good economic agenda," but at the same time 
telling THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT that he doesn't think they are any good.

Seems he has about as much "faith" in his economic agenda as I do. 

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: Private School Re: Public Education
Organization: Organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:13:00 GMT

In article <5770@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>
>>Hmmm. Last I saw, a Bush voucher was worth about $1000. But private
>>school tuition (secular) runs at least $6000. I don't see the poor
>>scraping up the other 7K. Sure, a few people on the margin will be able


   6000-1000 is 5000, not 7000.  And the vouchers would be a lot
more than $1000, since no state in the country spends that little
per student, not even Arkansas.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Anyone else notice the polls? (MEDIA BIAS)
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:20:52 GMT

crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:


>I think anyone who could watch the major networks and not
>see some bias is really out there, farther than the buses
>go.

>Chad

Having been entranced with Sebastiao Salgado's photographs of
Chad, I at first reading glimpsed this country as the place
where buses don't go.  I think I'll try to hold on to this
image anyway.

Bill
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8212 alt.politics.clinton:9109 alt.destroy.the.earth:659
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:49:10 GMT
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN

In article <1992Oct6.181637.26841@unet.net.com>, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.000021.14558@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>>
>>     A.  Man does not have the capacity to destroy the planet.
>
>You CAN'T be serious. *Nobody* is this stupid!

It's not stupid, it's true.  If you disagree, then simply provide a detailed
scenario for the destruction of the planet by man with existing technology.  If
Shackelford's claim is as stupid as say, this should be absolutely trivial, no?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The essence of Clinton
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:47:06 -0600

In article <1992Oct6.124605.1@acad.drake.edu>  writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.145611.20363@cs.wm.edu>, jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton) writes:
> A very republican attitude is "if you're
>> poor, its your own fault..." which also means "if you can't afford it,
>> too bad..." hmmm...doesn't sound like they want to provide aid of any
>> kind be it welfare, medicare, or financial aid to promising college
>> students. 
>WHAT???WHO THE HELL SAID THAT? NAME THE PERSON THAT YOU'RE QUOTING FROM!! Name
>ONE Republican who has said that!! I want to see SOURCES!! FAX me, e-mail me,
>write through the postage system, call collect! Is this the only way you can
>provide meaningful disscussion, through blantant lies? Are you trying to
>address the idea of 'individual responsibility'? If so, you are WAY off the
>mark!  
Boy, you sure can think, can't you?


>
>> Just wondering, exactly how would the politically correct crowd have
>> any more power under Clinton than they do under Bush? Some of the
>> strongest support for Bush comes from Pat Robertson
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The politically correct crowd that Simon is referring too are the special
>interest groups that control Clinton's every thought. If Clinton were to be
>elected, these groups (ie the PC crowd) *would* gain considerable power,
>because they have a friend in the White House. It sucks, but that's politics.
>By saying that the strongest support comes from Robertson, do you mean "greatest
>amount of contributions"? If so, you are mistaken. Or are you simply trying to
>paint fanatical support, because then, you just have a pointless arguement.
When you say Clinton is ruled by special interest groups, you are 
referring to "the people." Bush's special interest groups are the
car companies, the oil companies, the logging industry, the war
industry...


>> 
>> John
>Here endith the lesson
>
>--
>		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Parental consent (was Re: I'm surprised!)
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 03:53:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.145658.3102@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <AVFRBB2C@cc.swarthmore.edu>, mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>>
>>Many of the biggest opponents of parental consent laws are parents of now
>>dead teenagers who had illegal abortions or committed suicide...
>
>Such things are tragic, but they don't justify destroying parental rights. 
>Luckily, all of the parental consent laws I've heard of have allowed a judge
>to determine when the consent requirement can be bypassed, i.e., many of the
>above scenarios.
>

Not all of the proposed or passed laws have that feature.  In fact, it is
the most common reason they are struck down.

I was surveyed on abortion last night.  By telephone, out of the blue.
There were 2 questions and I have to choose between one of two answers, no
middle ground.  I think, from the reaction of the questioner to my
responses, that it was done by a religious group opposed to abortion.

The questions were, (1) which is closest to your position:  abortion should
be legal for any woman who wants one, or abortion should be illegal except
in cases where the mother's life is threatened; and (2) no minor should be
able to obtain an abortion without parental consent.

Forced to choose between those options, I voted a straight pro-choice
ticket.  I did point out to the caller tho, that the absence of
alternatives to parents was a serious flaw in the second question.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle