HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnnyp@HALDI.LCS.MIT.EDU (John D. Piscitello)
Subject: George Will's Article
Originator: johnnyp@HALDI.LCS.MIT.EDU
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:47:50 GMT


	Has anybody read George Will's article that says George Bush should
step down? Where was it published? I haven't seen it in the Boston papers
or in Newsweek.

	If anybody has it, would they mind posting it to the newsgroup? 

	Thanks...

Johnny P.  . . .. .....  . . . .. .   . ...  . . .           .. ..........
MIT_LCS  .    . . . .         ..      .......  .....   . .........  .  ...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Congress and the balaced budget scam
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:00:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul25.225425.10460@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.192831.13488@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>From article <Brwo8M.MFz@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
>>>    More ca-ca.   It's apples and oranges.   A vote for a balanced budget
>>>    amendment is a vote for something abstract.   A vote for a cutting a 
>>>    spending program is a vote for something quite real and concrete.  
>>>    Only a moron would think these are comparable.  
>
>Yes, they are different.  But it is wrong to say a balanced budget amendment
>is "abstract". The Bill of Rights is "abstract" is you want to look at it
>a certain way.  But it has a very real and concrete influence on
>Governmental behavior. 

  What I mean is that a balanced budget is a mom & apple pie issue -- 
  I have *never* heard a politician oppose it *in principle*.  But 
  in practice the actual steps that would have to be taken to balance
  the budget such as huge spending cuts or massive tax increases along
  with some guarantee that these increases could only go to deficit
  reduction, were/are politically impossible.   Moreover there was genuine 
  concern about what effects such steps would have on the national
  economy.  A few weeks before the vote a large group of economists
  including six (?) Nobel laureates wrote an open letter opposing the 
  BBA.  

>The Balanced Budget Amendment, because it would be permanent and beyond
>simple legislative override, would have a powerful and concrete impact
>on the budget process. Consider this: if we had a balanced budget amendment
>over the last 30 years, would we have had 29 unbalanced budgets?
>Would we have been 1 for 30?

  But note that putting in a BBA *after* you've already run up a $400
  billion deficit is different (politically) from doing so beforehand,
  because the former doesn't require massive austerity and sacrifice.
  Nobody wants *their* ox gored (I'm referring to voters, not just
  politicians).   

  What scared people about the BBA was/is the uncertainty of what would
  be the concrete steps taken as a result of it.  The only politically
  possible way for a BBA to pass(not just the House, but the states) would
  be to have a bipartisan agreement BEFOREHAND on the necessary spending
  cuts/tax increases; THEN vote on a BBA as a kind of "enabling" or
  "enforcing" measure.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pgf@srl01.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: QUAYLE: Vote for Clinton!
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:56:16 GMT

barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:

>Did everyone catch Quayle's quoteable in Newsweek this week?

>"it's not enough to change the president" - Quayle

>"Yes, Danforth, we need to change the VP as well." - Arsenio Hall, 7/21

Yah, that way we can get a Vice President who wants to consolidate
all the areas of space research away from DOE and DoD where believe
it or not real research still gets done and put it all back into
NASA, which thanks to his budgets of the past 10 years doesn't explore
but just doles out pork.

That way he can shut the whole dang thing down at once and replace
it with "Mission To Planet Earth"...

I say I'd rather have Quayle than Gore. Gore sucks, big time, and
I don't care what that 6 year old idiot with his own talk
show thinks.

BTW, did you notice the date on that statement he made? July 21st?
That's a poor day to declare support for someone who wants to shut
down the space program.

BTW, Arsenio Hall, if you're reading this, I'd like to say, personally,
that you suck too.

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418
"There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message
"57 channels and nothing on" - Bruce Springsteen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Say no more, I know what you mean ...
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:55:16 GMT

In article <11471@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Have you missed the prolonged discussions in soc.motss about "breeders"?

With heterosexuals like you, you think that people could understand why
we have issues...


># I don't think you've ever really thought about ***WHY*** you've thought
># homosexuality is disgusting. I can't think of any child who comes to this
># conclusion without accepting it as an act of faith from their parents or
># their church, or their friends.
>
>How about as a result of being molested?  I know such a man.  He was
>molested by a homosexual Scoutmaster when he was 10.  He never uses
>the words "gay" or "homosexual."  It's always, "faggots."

I can name 10 women off the top of my head who were molested by their
stepfathers.

Why is it that you can see homosexual molestation, but you can close your
eyes to heterosexual molestation?  Oh yes, then you will invoke the spectre
of NAMBLA (try reading the letters to the BAR or the Sentinel concerning
NAMBLA... They are not too popular amongst homosexuals either)...  Try
again...  Why do you insist on ignoring the evidence the most molestation
is heterosexual in nature?


FWA
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Date: 22 Jul 1992 22:04:20 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

|> >>As usual, you believe incorrectly.  A CNN poll several months
|> >>ago found that 60% of the Americans polled believed that
|> >>sexual orientation should not be the basis for discrimination.
|> >
|> >Polls are notoriously inaccurate...look at what's going on in specific
|> >jurisdictions...Oregon, Colorado.
|> >
|> This is just plain stupid.
|> 
|> Polls are inaccurate, but they are better than saying: "Look, over there.
|> In these places, gays are disliked."  Sure, you might be able to convince
|> me that people in No-Blow, Oregon, believe gays should be discriminated
|> against.  So what?  I can point you to any of a number of communities
|> where the majority would decide that gays shouldn't be discriminated
|> against.
|> 
|> Oh, but George Bush wouldn't count some Americans as Americans.  Read
|> his off-the-cuff comments about atheists...

What?  Polls are perfectly accurate (within their accuracy rating).  Its
just hard sometimes to figure out what they are measuring.

About 15 years ago, there was a proposition in Cal to ban pornography.
When asked by polsters, people said they would support the proposition.
It was soundly defeated.  Polls cannot measure attitudes people would
rather keep from others.

Polls cannot accurately measure how people would answer a question
in the future.  They represent a slice in time that no longer exists
when the poll is taken.  By the time Wednesdays polls were released
showing how many people would vote for Perot, he was no longer a
candidate.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Republican Dream tickets (was Re: California Fields Poll)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 22:51:56 GMT

In article <adams.712605531@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>
>>Imagine the energizing effect of a Jack Kemp/Vin Weber ticket...
>
>Nah, I think Jack Kemp/Tommy Thompson would be better...Ol' Tommy's the
>welfare reformer Guv'nor of Wiscosin...that ticket would play well, I
>think.

Kemp/*anybody* would play well, because Kemp would be a better candidate
and a better President than Bush, and would be a damned sight better for
this country than Clinton:

Kemp/Carroll	Kemp/Weld	Kemp/Thompson	Kemp/Weber
Kemp/Cheney	Kemp/Armey	Kemp/Bennett	Kemp/Hatch
Kemp/Gramm	Kemp/Dole	Kemp/Quayle	Kemp/Danforth
Kemp/Gingrich	Kemp/Powell	Kemp/Perot(!)   Kemp/Bush(!?!!!)
etc.

But most importantly ....  Kemp NOW.

The VP doesn't matter when we are faced with flawed Presidential
contenders, with flawed and mediocre economic plans.
- Kemp would have fought and *won* from Congress a real economic recovery
plan, that would have gotten us moving again. What Bush proposes,
Congress disposes; and then they compromise by throwing out the best of
Bush's plans, and keeping the worst. What Clinton proposes (tax/spend/
industrial policy) will greatly damage the country.

As I said before:
" Kemp has shown time and again to have vision, energy, and a true
concern for the problems we are facing in this country.
If we want to rebuild America, he is far and away the best person
for the job."

Jack Kemp. The best for America.
----------
P. McGuinness		Kemp '92!
			Call your Congress/media/representative today
			Spread the word!
From: ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deficit expected to be lower than predicted -- A First??
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:38:42 GMT
Reply-To: ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>UPI reports:
>
>	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The federal Office of Management and Budget
>lowered its forecast Thursday for the budget deficit for fiscal 1992,
>estimating the annual shortfall at $333.5 billion.
>	The Bush administration had projected in February a $399.7 billion
>budget deficit.
>	Fiscal year 1992 began last October and ends Sept. 30. On Wednesday,
>the Treasury said the deficit in the nine months elapsed in the fiscal
>year -- a period running Oct. 1 through June -- stood at $227.74 billion.
>	The OMB estimated the 1993 deficit will run at $341 billion.
>


Simple reason why -- Money for the latest installment of the S&L bailout is
not being appropriated now, but will be appropriated in fiscal 1993.

-- 
===============================================================================
 Mark Ricci - CATS          |   Perot For President -- oh well, not anymore
 Commodore Applications and |             Hello, Andre Marrou
 Technical Support          |             
 ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com |       (but I'd still rather have Jack Kemp)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35605 alt.politics.elections:9027 alt.politics.perot:1056 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2023
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Farewell Perot
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:47:39
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<22JUL92.15386207.0024@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU>
	<1992Jul23.183547.14221@gvl.unisys.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: martha@gvlf7-o.gvl.unisys.com's message of 23 Jul 92 18:35:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.183547.14221@gvl.unisys.com> martha@gvlf7-o.gvl.unisys.com (Martha Sherman) writes:

> Since Dominos Pizza is a major contributor/supporter of the 'Right
> To Life' movement, I wouldn't be surprised if they toss out all of
> the Democratic party registrations they make.

Here in California, at least (and, I suspect, in other states as
well), that would be a very serious violation of election laws.  

I hope that Domino's is going to do this; if they do, then I expect
that they would be caught, and severly punished.  Unfortunately, I
don't think that they are that stupid.
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34940 alt.politics.elections:8705
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot sued!!
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:58:23 GMT
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA

In article <adams.711728184@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
}rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
}
}>What does she want, to force him to run again, or to recover her losses?
}
}Force him to run again...
}
}Of course, my thought on the matter is that the only person who should be
}President is one who doesn't want to be...

Like I've said for years:  Nobody so crazy as to want the job should be
qualified to have the job.  Also, the requirements to GET the job are not those
required to DO the job.

Well, Perot doesn't seem to want it, nor does he seem qualified to perform the
various and sundry political theatrics required to get elected.  So maybe he
is sane enough and qualified to actually do the job.
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Platform
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 05:12:59 GMT

In article <l6uatqINN3p9@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>In article <rdippold.711922721@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> >Have you raised children to the age of responsibility?  The only way to
>|> >"supervise them closely enough" is to be a jailor, not a parent.  Not
>|> >on my watch.
>|> 
>|> So now you'd like to force everybody else to by a jailor for you.  No
>|> thanks.  Supervision doesn't have to mean hovering over them constantly.

>No.  Just lock up the low-life that is selling/giving drugs and alcohol to
>children.  We just found a basic difference in philosophy. I'll never
>make a Libertarian.

Excuse me, but unless that low-life is shoving drugs down your child's
throat or forcing her to do so at gunpoint, your little darling is
buying / taking the drugs.  Nor is little darlin' incapable of getting
either quite easily even without that low-life.
-- 
The personal computer market is about the same size as the total potato chip
market. Next year it will be about half the size of the pet food market and is
fast approaching the total worldwide sales of pantyhose
  -- James Finke, Pres., Commodore Int'l Ltd.(1982)
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What is Bush's veto record?
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:18:28
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: bills@sequent.com's message of 20 Jul 92 21:50:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.215036.5932@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:

> I have heard that Bush has vetoed more bills than any other president in
> U.S. history.  In addition none of these vetoes have ever been overridden
> by congress.

Correct.  Bush's strategy, when presented with a bill he doesn't like,
is breathtaking in its elegance and simplicity.  If there is not
enough support in Congress to override it, he vetos it; if there is,
he signs it, pretends he supported it all along, and takes credit for
its passage.

What astonishes me about this strategy is not its monstrous cynicism
(I see no evidence that Bush has any principles whatsoever), nor that
the press has ignored Bush's misrepresentations when he tries to take
credit for a bill he signed only grudgingly, but just that Bush has
been so very successful in his calculations.  Performing this strategy
requires that he always knows exactly how much support he has in
Congress, so that he never accidentally vetoes a bill that actually is
popular enough so that the veto will be overridden.  His assessment of
this support is much more precise than I would have thought possible.
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35614 alt.politics.clinton:514
From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:10:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Jul22.231600.4862@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <archer.130@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.145318.424@cos.com> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>
>>>2. If we ever get a President who hasn't 'fooled around' it
>>>will be a frosty day in July - what does that have to do with
>>>the ability to govern?
>>
>>His ability to abide my his marriage vows is seen by many as a reasonable 
>>indicator of how likely he is to keep other oaths.  

>Ahem.  JFK, Washington, Jefferson, ....

     Some of us *do* consider how well someone keeps their marriage vows to 
be an indication of how well they will keep other vows.  However, this does 
not translate into "he commited adultary, therefore I won't vote for him."
It's not an either or thing, merely something to be appraised of when 
considering candidates.  (BTW:  Knowing what I do about them, I'd have voted 
for Jefferson, but not Kennedy.)

>>
>>>3. If Governor Clinton has done such a lousy job in Arkansas,
>>>how come they re-elected him 4 or 5 times?
>>
>>Because the american people will vote for whoever sounds best, regardless of 
>>performance levels.  Style of substance.  As long as he made pretty 
>>promises, why not re-elect him?

>I can understand someone winning an election once or twice based
>purely on style (Reagan), but 5 times?  After the first time, people
>usually press you to keep your promises (look at Bush).  Are you
>saying he fooled all these people all these times?

     Local guy was mayor for more decades than I like to count.  (Many, many 
years ago.)  His position was that he could do anything he wanted as long as 
he did what the voters wanted three months before the election.
 
     He was right.

>And how do you explain why Clinton was voted Governor of the Year
>by the other governors in the country, both Dem and Rep?


     Having watched a few governors, I'm not sure that's a good thing.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:35074 talk.religion.misc:12449
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: CLINTON: Acceptance speech text - Bible misquote
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:56:14 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Jul21.160203.11384@infonode.ingr.com> haefner@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner) writes:
>>|> By the way, Clinton's use of "covenant" was taken by many in the media
>>|> covering the convention as a way to make the southern christian groups
>>|> feel that they had something in common with Clinton. Try though he may,
>>|> Clinton will not get the southern vote.
>>
>>I heard no such analysis.  And even if someone did give such an analysis,
>>so what?  It is an analysts job to pick things apart.  

I heard a similar analysis.  If I am not mistaken, it was on PBS.

Link Hudson.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36614 ca.politics:6146 ba.politics:3883
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:52:19 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11468@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>But you are the ones denying our right to choose who to associate with.
>I'm prepared to live and let live.  You aren't, you want the government
>brought in to tell me who to rent to, who to hire.


Live and let live as long as you keep away from me, my family, my schools
my churches, my organizations, my government, my pets, my business and my
home is not "live and let live"... It is "keep away from me".



FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 07:14:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul20.154352.4143@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>And, I doubt that you'd call him a liar to his face.  I guess the annonymity

Put the boy in front of me, I have no problem calling a liar a liar.
Anonymity hell, I use my real name!

>
>	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"

The most intelligent thing I can attribute to you (even though
I've heard it before)
-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax

To say that Bill Clinton's alleged successes as Governor of Arkansas
qualify him to be President of the US is like saying the shoeshine
stand operator in the airport is qualified to be CEO of IBM.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc