HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: China and Health Care interviews
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:59:41 GMT

In article <92290.122929DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.040610.15970@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu
>(john peter wagner) says:
>>
>>Both of my roommates are graduate students from mainland China;
>>one is in anthropology, the other in economics; they agree that
>>Clinton's ideas as expressed in the debate would be very bad and
>>that Bush's granting of MFN was wise in that it opened the way
>>for peaceful 'westernization' of China(free-market tendencies)
>>rather than cause China to close up and crack down(defensiveness).
>>        Some orthopaedic surgeons I spoke to agreed that Clinton's
>>health care was a crock, saying that "it will never work."
>
>Several physician groups have endorsed Clinton's plan, and several
>bipartisan groups have examined the two plans and agree Clinton's
>is far superior.  Maybe your orthopaedic surgeon friends are more worried
>about their own self-interests than the health care system.
>
>>        Taken from the mouthes of people who know and live it, not
>>the people who live off the government's presence thereof.

>Dennis G. Shea, Penn State

	Both physicians are very highly qualified, skilled, and experienced.
People who want a good doctor, or private groups that want to provide the
best care would always hire men like them.  But yes, I think you are
right, if the Clinton plan comes through such skilled work will no longer
have rewards, and medical service would be about as professional as the law
would allow.
	The organized groups above would be characterized by the fact that
they would include both shoddy as well as decent and even good physicians.
They have no reason to want to increase the competition in the medical care
market, as a matter of fact, they would love it if more and more money went
to them.

  You'll note that the best fighters don't like to be held back by regulations.
It is the weakling who does not wish to change, improve, who hides behind
the sword-wielding government.

  The physician groups must speak for those weaklings. Consider the practice
of licensing boards in states; these are primarily used to limit supply
and thus artificially elevate prices.  The physician groups have close
rapport with those entities.

		John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:13:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.123552.1919@gacvx2.gac.edu> emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.175613.24041@cbnews.cb.att.com>  writes:
>>vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>>True, but I wouldn't even think of voting for the common hippie who survived
>>>the sixties. Yes, a lot of people have reformed... where are you addressing the
>>>issue that because Clinton used drugs, he is someone to look up to? 
>>
>>His problem is that he smoked cannabis. We now have evidence that this
>>drug can stay in the system for up to 23 years or more!
>
>So? He still has more brain cells in use than Bush and Clinton together!

	Wow! Somebody should tell Godel this!  Oh, I forgot, he's dead :)


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9955 alt.politics.perot:2018 alt.politics.bush:8798 alt.politics.marrou:1576 alt.politics.elections:16341
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:08:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Oct12.163244.749@novell.com> chey@novell.com (Cindy Hey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.054903.29070@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>>Also, CBS "lost" IMO by deciding that a baseball game was more important
>>than the joint appearance.  I really thought they'd be more responsible
>>than that.
>
>So did I!  I even counted on it.  I wasn't able to watch the debate live,
>so I set my VCR to record it.  I can't tell you how dissappointed I was
>to discover 90 minutes of baseball on my tape rather than the debate :-(
>Luckily for me, C-SPAN repeated the debate, in its entirety, several times
>throughout the night.  Thank you, C-SPAN!
>
>Cindy Hey



If you read the papers today you would discover that by CBS
and baseball's contract, CBS couldnt interrupt the
coverage of the ballgame for the debate.  All you
free market, liberatarians should be happy at that result --
yeah, for market results.

Anyway, if Bush's pathetic winging speeches about nonissues really
got to you, you had a place to go and watch something else.  :-)

Not that I indulged in that, I wanted to hear the Bushit straight from
the mouth.
And, I was right, it sure was.  We are not a football team and he
is not a cheerleader to tell us things are not so bad,
he is supposed to be a leeader.  And he fails miserably at that.

His cure for the economy - things are not that bad and let me
give Jim Baker the job.  How about himnself?  BUt then again he didnt
know there was a recession on until months into it.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10282 talk.politics.misc:51585 alt.politics.elections:16643
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: state by state poll
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:26:06 GMT

It should be pointed out the state polls are notoriously less accurate
than national polls.  Usually smaller samples and greater problems determining
who is actually going to vote.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Coup de grace:CLINTON Cowardice
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:38:02 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
:StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
:> A couple of questions: Why?  Can't you think of anything new to say?
:That was 'a couple'? 

Two questions = "a couple of questions."

:Oh well, I digress. No, actually that is precisely what I
:am accusing the liberal Dems. of doing. I posted this a long time ago and they
:shied away from it. If they are going to continue to ignore anything that the
:Conservatives post on this Net, I shall take the time to force our points down
:their throats.

While I agree, to a certain extent, with the message you were posting, I
was just questioning the need to post it over and over and over and... over
again.  So the net.population didn't really comment about it.  So what?
I am sure that there are lurkers out there who agree with you.  Many
people read and do not post to the alt.politics.* groups.  You made your
point.  Repetitive reposting of the same article is like beating a dead
horse, is a waste of bandwidth, and makes for good kill file fodder...for
those people fortunate to have newsreaders with working killfiles.

As far as forcing "conservative" points down the throats of others, it
does NO GOOD.  If anything you will be turning off moderates to your
message.  People tend to ignore or react hostily to concepts forced
down their throats, regardless of whether or not they agree with them.

If you are going to argue against or ridicule "ultra-liberals" or "arch-
conservatives" or "extremist-whatevers" (and believe me, the ultra-liberals
and arch-conservatives out there are frequently deserving of ridicule, IMO),
fine.  At least try and be a little creative about it rather than just
repeating the same article over and over and....

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:41:52 GMT

>>|> In article <1067@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> > Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
>>|> > Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.  
>>|> 

I don't have your original posting so I don't know if you continued
on from this point.  What in your opinion, are they asking for and
what do they want?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:55:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.004937.16785@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>... and while Clinton claims to be against "tax and spend", his own
>"Put Government First" program shows this to be untrue. Clinton
>*will* raise taxes significantly, and will increase spending significantly.
>
>It is the upmost in hypocrisy to criticize Bush for a tax increase that
>was constructed by the Democrats, supported and voted for by Al Gore,
>and which Clinton has no intention of reversing.
>
>
>*All* tax increases hit the middle class, including Clinton's tax increase
>proposals. Business will pass on costs, etc.
>
>Okay, Boy wonder Clinton, what will you cut?
>(His spending "cuts" in his economic plan are a bogus collection of 
>minor nicks, e.g. "end the $20 million tax subsidy for honey producers".
>Boy, that'll make a difference. NOT. )
>
>The President has proposed significant reforms in entitlements.
>Ignored by the Congress so far.
>
>
>Good for him. The leave act only strengthens the bureaucratic values
>of the nation. These things should be left to the voluntary actions
>of employer and employee.
>
>I agree. And then he passed the scaled-back 1991 Civil Rights
>Bill. It contained the language "this is not a quota bill."
>To say that Bush vetoed a bill without saying that he signed the
>bill after it had been modified (as he requested) is quite dishonest.
>
>*Only* $2 billion. That is quite a hefty sum, and I am sure it is
>far more than most other diseases.
>
>The trial lawyers are raising big bucks for Clinton. 'Nuff said.
>
>
>Pat
>		Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo candidate



You know Pat, after your responses, a quotation from British author
Chris Boucher came instantly to mind that applies well to you:
"You're a classic example of the inverse ratio between the size of
the mouth and the size of the brain."



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11110 alt.politics.elections:17444 talk.politics.misc:52599
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: ==> Alert! IMPOSTOR is posting as Clinton for President
Supersedes: <92290.130825U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 16 Oct 1992 21:07:01 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Alert!  IMPOSTOR is posting as Clinton For President

Readers,

        Compuserve user id: 73266,3110  is NOT CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

Please report any bogus posts by this UID.  I will send copies to
Compuserve management until this situation is corrected.

Thank you very much
Jock Gill
Clinton/Gore HQ
Little Rock AR

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:36:23 GMT

hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

>He just seems too wishy-washy and eager to please, and
>its a bad omen for the first Democratic president in twelve years.  How is he
>going to stop the Democrats favorite pork projects that have been sitting 
>on the shelf for 12 years just waiting for Democrate to pass them?  All 
>in the name of 'infrastructure' or 'putting people first', of course.  
>You think the debt is bad now, I'm getting extremely bad vibes from Clinton 
>in that area.

>By the way, I'm undecided as of now.
	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like "I didn't inhale".

>SEH

-Larry Watanabe

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 08:14:20 GMT

In article <92284.043954MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> Golly, you're right. Whan an incredibly well-formulated and devastatingly
> complete argument. Why, I have been totally converted over to the conservative
> view of the world, and will advise all my friends to vote for Bush. Thank
> you for showing me the error of my foolish liberal ways.

Why... you are more than welcome... golly... I would have never... jeepers...
the ability that liberals have with sarcasim is truly demeaning, I think I have
too sit down now... I just feel so hurt...  

> (Snort!)

(God bless you) <-- The easiest way to offend a liberal, mention God. (Gasp!)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10291 talk.politics.misc:51599 alt.politics.elections:16653
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 13 Oct 1992 21:31:43 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: ==> Clinton On Choosing A Running Mate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 For Immediate Release:
 October 13, 1992


                Statement by Governor Bill Clinton

      Choosing a running mate is the first major decision that a
 future president makes.  If the American people were to vote on the
 basis of that decision alone, the Clinton-Gore ticket would win a
 landslide.  Tonight, Al Gore made it clear that he has the character,
 judgement and vision to step into the Oval Office should, heaven
 forbid, something happen to me.

      Al Gore said it all in the first minutes: A Clinton-Gore
 Administration will not take four years to discover America.  Indeed,
 in the first 100 days, we plan to change America.  We plan to offer
 the country an end to trickle-down economics, a real jobs program, a
 bold lifelong learning agenda and a truly comprehensive plan to offer
 health care with real cost controls to all Americans.

      I'm proud of Al Gore.  And tonight all America knows why.  In
 January, Al Gore will be a Vice President America can be proud of.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8818 talk.politics.misc:49942
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:50:21 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct7.072505.1166@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>The broadcast networks will be able to charge
>>cable companies for redistribution, basic cable rates will skyrocket.

>Why would broadcasters charge for redistribution?

Because the new cable bill requires the cable companies to pay it.
If you could get money for nothing, wouldn't you.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: None
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:45:32 GMT

In article <1bjsd9INNq6p@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.033144.2716@netcom.com> mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye) writes:
> >skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
> >
> >>The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
> >>due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
> >>of his billions last year. 
> >>Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!
> >
> >I don't suppose you know why?  Of course not.  You just know how to 
> >complain.  If you are too ignorant or lazy to do enough homework on 
> >Perot to know why he paid that much in taxes, they lay off.  There
> >is a LOT of information on Perot out there - including DETAILED info
> >on his wealth.  Go look it up.
>
>Sure where do I "BUY" the book.....

Any book store....its a #1 bestseller since it came out...

>The point I was making is:
>Is it fair to the average working person making 30,000 per year 
>to have people such as Ross Perot who I can bet made more than 30K
>last year pay the same amount of taxes ? 

Perot does not advocate that...

>No it is not ! Ross Perot talks all about whats wrong with this 
>country and PACS and special intrest while on the other hand 
>he takes (legal) advantage of the tax system. Not that what he did 
>was against the law but he has no right to the moral high ground he 
>claims to represent, he has been lobbying in cong. for years and 
>securing under the table deals for gov. contracts for years. 

Whats wrong with working within the law? 

>Perot is the biggest hypocrite I have ever seen, you say Im 
>ignorant ? Im not stupid enough to fall for his line. What a hypocrite.

What makes you say that?

>Perot campaign stratagy:
>do a TV show
>hide from the media and the public
>debate
>hide from the media and the public
>do a TV show
>hide from the media and the public
>
>I guess he still can't handle the heat in the kitchen....

He has made his case in his book, for all to read. If I were him,
I would ignore the liberal biased press as well - UNLESS they agreed
to stick largely with the issues. 

Perot is a person who gets things done, instead of our current grid-locked
government. Democrats want to spend and spend. Republicans are often locked
up with lobbyists. The Congress passes numerous laws but EXEMPTS ITSELF.

>Any canidate who runs and hides from the media and the people does not 
>deserve to be on the same stage as Bill Clinton.

Thats your opinion...

Have you read Perot's book? If not, you are NOT an informed voter.
I have read all four platforms and decided on Perot.

>Timothy B. Reynolds
>CLINTON/GORE
>Election Campaign '92
>Houston, Tx 

Joe
joec@morgan.com



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:56:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.143655.28330@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.122932.6171@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>>> > Clinton went sightseeing in Europe during...
>                                 ^^^^^^^
>> Well there is a bit more to it than that. Several independant and
>>> very liberal people (hardly Bush supporters) say that Clinton
>>> organized anti-US protests there.
>
>>(1) "There" = Moscow?  ...
>
>No, Europe (see above). Clinton has claimed, for example, that he met
>a priest who is a professor at Georgetown in Denmark by accident but
>did not aid the priest in any anti-war activities. That same priest
>claimed in his biography that Clinton was in fact one of the orginizers
>of the protest in Denmark.

There's a portion of the text that's missing that implies that you
meant Moscow.

**** Begin included text ****
In article <MATT.92Oct12130546@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>> No to both of the questions. The problem is the same old thing, character,
>> or lack of it. Why is Clinton not answering questions about Moscow honestly.

>What questions are there to answer?  Clinton went sightseeing in
>Europe during his Christmas vacation, and one of the places his tour
>went to was Moscow.  

Well there is a bit more to it than that. Several independant and very
liberal people (hardly Bush supporters) say that Clinton organized anti-
US protests there.
********** end included text *********

Next time, be more clear on your posts.  It'll save us all time and
effort, and will keep you from being accused of using Bush's "The
Captain wasn't drunk today"-style comments.



--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey)
Subject: Re: Romantic Gossip (was Re: Insane Dornan)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:20:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.190928.17415@beaver.cs.washington.edu> barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.144116.21484@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>[otherwise sensible pro-Clinton stuff deleted]
>>bypassed the law.  I may think George has been a low life character attacker
>>and whinny accuser these days when he has nothing better to say about himself
>>but his lover Mary Matlin says he's doing the right thing. Many people 
>
>I don't think there has been any credible accusation that Bush is or has
>been sleeping with Mary Matalin, one of his campaign officials.  Bush
>probably slept with Jennifer Fitzgerald, now a State Department employee,
>at some time in the past, though (a) this has not been proven and (b) he
>presumably, having more political savvy than Gary Hart, has stopped.
>Matalin, curiously, is romantically involved with James Carville, a leading
>Clinton campaign official.
>
>Four More Weeks,
>Dave MB
>
>


	I don't get the whole Matalin-Carville thing. How can the
	campaigns allow it? Or maybe the leaks are so bad anyway
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10925 talk.politics.misc:52374 sci.econ:8146
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Regulation/Deregulation
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:08:27 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.152318.11256@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.004824.4823@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
> demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>	The recession has one primary cause: higher taxes.
> 
> This is a gross over-simplification. Anyone who has studied macroeconomics
> knows that it is never as simple as this.
> 

	Dr., note the use of the phrase "one primary cause".  I'm sure anyone
who has studied English understands what that means.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10901 talk.politics.misc:52344 alt.politics.bush:9448