HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: more predictions
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 16:48:16 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

> In article <uqcDqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
>
>   > In article <1992Aug28.150841.13262@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu
>    (alex)
>    >>     A strong president can keep congress in line, look at Ronald Reagan
>    >> first term. Bush just doesn't have any direction, so congress does
>    >> whatever the hell they want.
>    >>
>    >> During Reagan's first term, the Senate was a republican majority.
>
>    Only for the first two years.  And the House hasn't been in GOP hands
>    in almost forty.
>
> Right. So don't blame the Repubs!!
>

Why?  If Bush wants credit for everything that's gone right under his watch,
he's got to accept responsibility for what has gone wrong.  Example:  Communism
never would have fallen without the defense buildup of the early '80s.  Most of
that build-up was a result of spending begun in the end of Carter's term, and
the first three years of Reagan's.  During that time, the House was always in
the control of the Democrats, and the Senate for most of the time.  So, if you
blame Congress for the economy now, you have to give them credit for spending
the money to put the Soviet Union out of business.

This is yet another example of the Republicans wanting it both ways.  Only
someone quite foolish will believe that everything good is 100% to the credit
of the GOP and everything bad is 100% the fault of Congress.



|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|
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41422 talk.abortion:33068 alt.politics.bush:2575
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Deignan does DearOldDoug
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:24:41 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
] matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
] 
] >Except, of course, where Bush's or Quayle's relatives are concerned...
] 
] You wouldn't happen to have a reference for this libel, would you?
 
This statement is not correct.

] Thought not.

This statement is Too Apparently Correct.

] MD
] -- 
] --  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
] --  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /  parents never had it, chances 
] --    UUCP: ...!uunet!anomaly!mpd         /   are you won't either...
] -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /

It is such a shame that Michael does not get out
into the Big World Out there more often.

As has already been pointed out, this whole
matter has been a splash in the newspapers,
radio and television news media....


So is your point Michael that you are

1. 'fresh off the boat'

2. the news Media is a ToolOfTheDevil[tm]

3. You were born ClueLess and like to advertise.

And Now for the MachoGuyThing,

"So big boy, ready to admit you were wrong?"

ciao
drieux




-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fishkin@Xerox.com (Ken Fishkin)
Subject: Re: The buck stops where?
Reply-To: fishkin@Xerox.com (Ken Fishkin)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:04:55 GMT

In article <l9khs7INNq3n@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
> Harry Truman also bashed the 80th Republican Congress long and hard. Can
> anyone who knows or has read David McCullough's bio of Truman tell us if
> the 81st Congress was i) GOP dominated  ii) As uncooperative as the 80th
> Congress?
    I just finished reading it - it's very good. As far as Truman's
"congress-bashing" campaign of 1948, the essentials were these:
    -) Truman had been trying to get various 'Fair Deal' pieces
of legislation passed for years, without success, due to the GOP.
    -) The GOP plank of 1948, however, stated that it was _in favor_
of several of these pieces of legislation.
    -) Truman seized upon this, calling a special session of Congress,
and daring them to "put up or shut up". The bills were re-introduced.
    -) The bills were not passed due to GOP opposition.
    -) Truman seizes on this hypocrisy and hammers and hammers and
hammers on the GOP (not really Congress, the GOP) during the 1948
campaign.

    I may have the details wrong, but this is the gross outline.
    Decide for yourself how similar this is to the 1992 situation.

-- 
Ken Fishkin	fishkin@xerox.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:57:25 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <550HqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> 
>> In article <19959@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>> >Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
>> >explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?
>>
>> Maybe as next President of the United States, he owes it to the residents to
>> see the damage directly himself? Just a thought.
>>
>> ---
>> Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
> 
> According to AP, he (Clinton) was invited by Chiles.  Maybe Chiles figured that
> if Bush got his photo-op, Clinton was entitled to his.  Clinton remarked last
> week that he felt it was better for him to stay away.  I guess that, given how
> useless Bush is, at least Clinton can go down there and help build somethng
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> like he did in Atlanta for that project of Carter's.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> |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|

     It was funny watching the video-bite of Clinton "helping" to build
the house.  Did anyone else notice that Clinton was hammering away, but
hitting the head of the nail only about 50% of the time?  More importantly,
does this indicate what kind of President he would be (he can't hit the
nail on the head with the issues either...)?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:37:30 GMT
Keywords: Elections, Candidates, Presidential politics

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> The problem is that we should not confuse political professionalism
> with leadership or good ideas.  

The candidates' problem being that evidence of bold leadership will be met
with a resounding loss at the polls, as various selfish interests defect to 
the other side. What this country needs is a new batch of voters.
Throw the rascals out!

----
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
"Slick Willie" is the consumate 
> politician; but despite many terms as governor of Arkansas, his state
> is at the bottom of just about every economic, environmental, and
> educational metric there is.   Nor has anything he's said convinced me 
> that he has any new ideas to correct the nation's many problems.
> Just more of the Democrats' tax-and-spend, big government approach to 
> everything.
>
> Of course it goes without saying that Bush is clueless and his party
> deserves every bit of its reputation for cynical greed, right wing
> loony-tunes and religious fanaticism.   
>
> So we're stuck again with that classic American problem of having only
> two viable political parties, and both of them complete horror shows:
> Nighmare on Pennsylvania Avenue, Aliens, and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre
> all rolled into one.   Of course there are tiny fringe parties:  the LP,
> the Socialists, etc.  But it's not just that they're not politically viable; 
> none of their ideas stand up to close scrutiny; all require a degree of
> religious devotion to whatever their underlying premise is.  
>
> On what possible basis does a thinking person make a decision in this
> swamp?  The lesser of two evils?  Oh, sure.   Stomach cancer or colon 
> cancer?  Lose a leg or poke out an eye?  Die in a plane crash or a car
> accident?   Eat the moldy bread or drink the sour milk?   *I* can't
> decide.   
>        
>
>---peter  
> 
>   
>  
>
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:44:27 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Distribution: usa
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <2391@unet.UUCP> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>In article <19959@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>>Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
>>>explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?
>>---
>
>Maybe to try to learn a few lessons on what not to do in the future. There

I would hope he would go just to see what *will* happen when a BIG 
hurricane hits Florida or other places on the Gulf or Atlantic coast. 

For the past two weeks, I swear I must be the only person who is not a 
meteorologist who realized how bad this would be.  This is mainly because 
I have heard Bob Sheets (Hurricane Center) speak on Hurricane damage and 
evacuation.  It is clear that Sec. Card, Pres. Bush, Gov. Chiles, the 
head of FEMA, maybe even the local emergency people, have not heard this 
talk -- or comprehended it if they did.  Otherwise, they would have 
expected total destruction of retirement communities consisting of 
mobile homes, as my wife and I did. 

Sheets makes the point that evacuation saves lives, but only building codes 
and zoning and luck can protect property.  He shows zillions of before/after 
pictures (hurricane people collect before pictures and wait) that show how 
adjoining houses suffer very different outcomes due to different methods 
of construction.  He observed that Hugo hit the one place on the entire 
coast where the cost of a class-5 storm would be the least.  Andrew hit 
a vulnerable area and did a lot, but Andrew was only class-4  .... 200 mph 
would produce something like 4 to 8 times the wind force on structures.  

Unfortunately people are not taught about the big ones: Everyone knows 
about the SF Earthquake in 1906 (?) but not the hurricane of the same 
year that killed 10 times as many people in an area with a relatively 
miniscule population.  Hardly anyone knows that a storm in the 1930's 
sent a wave across the peninsula of Florida. 

I hope Clinton sees it, and learns from it so that silly things like 
building on barrier islands will stop -- and perhaps FEMA will get a 
Winnebago with generator and telecommunications equipment so they can 
at least set up a headquarters in an area where a real disaster has 
occured.  There are many lessons to learn from this, since it will 
happen again.  Buildings cannot flee from a storm, and storms happen. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:33:46 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Alex Goykhman writes:
>Jeff Davis writes:
>>
>>It's just that these magical varieties of money which require a leap of faith.
>>
>>money in the pockets of the wealthy = good money, productive money
>>money in the pockets of the poor = bad money, inflationary money
>
>    Here's a better set of equations:
>
>        money paid for being economically productive = good money;
>        money paid for giving birth out of wedlock   = bad money.
>
>        money spent by the private, more productive, sector = good money
>        money spent by the public, less productive, sector  = bad money
>
>    Shall I explain why?

It's not really necessary. I've seen the light. I figure my economic
activity must be bad economic activity. So, if I find a pile of money in 
the street, I'll figure that it's bad money and leave it alone. 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Keywords: Endorse Bush US Senate female Pro-Choice
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:57:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.195951.18217@ryn.mro4.dec.com> walsh@starbd.enet.dec.com (Thomas Walsh) writes:
>
>In article <galluzjj.714782156@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:
>>After hearing the speeches,  I have decided to stick with
>>my Republican beliefs.  I was raised in the Great State of
>>New Hampshire with the belief of family, lower taxes and a
>>strong feeling against big government.  It is with this that
>>I endorse George Herbert Walker Bush for another four years
>>as President of the United States and J. Danforth Quayle as
>>the Vice-President.
>>
>
>You're for lower taxes and against big government and your going to support 
>Bush?  Where is the logic in that? 

The logic is simple.
Bush has vetoed tax increases passed by the Deomcrat-controlled
Congress this year. Bill Clinton proposes misbegotten
tax increases on income, business, and a "pay-or-play" health
care plan that will be a further burden.
Meanwhile, Clinton and the Congressional Democrats propose
large spending increases.
Your taxes will be higher and Govt spending will be higher
with the Clinton/Democrat Congress.

The economic program Clinton proposes will most likely
cost (according to various analyses done) 700,000 to 1 million
jobs over the next four years, as he chokes off small
businesses.

If you think this is better than what Bush has to
offer, you are mistaken.

>>I urge all undecided voters to vote for the President and
>>to make the tough change -- vote out Congress!  

Agreed.

>Both branches of government need a change. There is plenty of blame to go
>around.

But Bill Clinton, not Bush, is the "status quo" candidate.
His tax proposals are just extensions of what was proposed
and passed in 1990.

---
Pat
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42443 alt.rush-limbaugh:4033
From: DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:40:45 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

<1992Aug27.212402.10909@s1.gov>

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>>criticized for her political views e.g. kids suing their parents,

refering to, of course, Hillary Clinton.  The GOP should have never
brought this up.  As it happens now it has brought these writings
into the spotlight, and they are being talked about everywhere as
being very well written and highly regarded by members of the law
community conservatives and liberals alike.  They tried to use it
to put down the Clinton campaign, but it's turning out to be a real
boost as people begin to understand what it's *REALLY* all about.
It has really helped bring all of the wonderful work Hillary has
done for children all over the country.  Oh, by the way, she has
received letters of praise for her work from Barbara Bush.

>>marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are

In her writings she uses this analogy to demonstrate a point about
what is *WRONG* about some familys.  In other words, she was describing
what a family should *NOT* be like.  Are all the lying right wing
radicals staying with me on this or am I using too many negatives?

>>The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
>>for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
>>the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?  Sorry, they
>>opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.

And after all, with Reagan we did just get one decision maker didn't
we??  I can still see that poor man standing in front of reporters
with Nancy standing in the background whispering "...we're doing all
we can.", and then watching him parrot her.  At least we were knocking
Nancy for things she did actually do!  I have yet to hear a knock on
Hillary that can be substantiated.

>>I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary

Ahhh, that explains your radical rightwing extremist point of view.

>>is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
>>State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
>>of her legal and political positions is in order.

Well you know what they say, if you read it in People Magazine, the
National Enquirer, or hear it on Rush Limbaugh, then it must be true.

>
>>Don't forget Hillary said, "If you get one, you get two of us."  With
>>that statement she painted a big fat bullseye on herself.  If you can't

(Well, that's not what was said or who said it, but I get your point.)
Hey, why stop with his wife, why not go after their daughter, friends,
other relatives and pets too!?  Sounds like a tough decision to make,
it depends on who is most vulnerable "...hmmmm, what kind of grades did
their daughter get last year? ...has she failed any spelling tests??".
Fortunately for the Demos they don't have to go after Barbara or
Marilyn because George and Danny boy are vulnerable enough, buffoons
that they are.


Marty L. Dart
My opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: smccabe@armstrong.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:50:33 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <4926@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
>#c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>#|Perhaps I didn't word it right.  I didn't really mean to say that 'consent
>#|to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like 'consent to
>#|sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'  
>
>#|So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
>#|a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
>#|be held accountable for your actions. 
>
>#And, of course, getting an abortion is a legal, responsible
>#way of discharging that accountability.
>#
>#Thank you for playing, Martin.  The exit is to your left.
>#
>#Next!
>
>Sorry, I think I'll exit to my right! :)
>
>But before Martin goes, can you [not Martin] tell me how abortion is "responsible"?

Well, I am not CJ, but IMHO, abortion can be a responsible decision under
a lot of circumstances.  For example:

Young woman who abuses her drug of choice (alchohol, cigarrettes, crack,...)
becomes pregnant.  Said woman has virtually no job skills and very few 
parenting skills.  It would be more responsible to have an early term
abortion than to continue this pregnancy and deliver a deformed child only 
to place the burden of financial support on society's shoulders and to
subject said child to a neglectful home life.

'Nuff said?

Sarah McCabe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:46:43 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

In article <Dhl-2rB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>
>Check the growth of the money supply.  You will probably find that it
>increased during the time of high inflation.  The boom was probably
>fueled by a combination of reduced tax rates, which encouraged increased
>economic activity, and loose money, which artificially encouraged
>increased economic activity.  The boom caused by tax cuts would not
>lead to either inflation or recession.  Increases in the money supply,
>or artificially low interest rates will cause businesses to expand
>more than they would otherwise.  The loose money gives a false impression
>of the state of the economy.  At some point reality clicks in and you
>have a recession.  Allowing people to keep more of their own money
>will not lead to inflation or an overheated economy.
>

It's just that these magical varieties of money which require a leap of faith.

money in the pockets of the wealthy = good money, productive money
money in the pockets of the poor = bad money, inflationary money

money from tax cuts = good money
money from cheap credit = bad money

I'm really trying to understand. How does money know if its good money
or bad money? Why do businessmen fueled by low credit make bad
decisions? Why do businessmen fueled by low taxes make good decisions?
Why don't businessmen, hip to the problems with low taxes, just  
pretend that this money in the street was theirs all along and
make good decisions? Is low credit BAD all of a sudden? I'm really 
trying to understand, here.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:24:51 GMT

In article <17bu1nINNk27@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.161428.2901@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.194135.14255@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>
>]not pay a small tax rate than those who must work. Index the capital
>]gains tax for inflation if you like, but don't give some stock
>]speculator a break that I, a working person, can't get because I can't
>]take all of my income as capital gains.
>
>>You imply that those who make their living by investing (speculating is
>>too strong a word) in stocks are not working. Do you know any of these
>>people? I know several, and they are the hardest working people I know.
>>They are working in the information industry: they are allocating capital
>>in our economy based on profit potential. I see nothing wrong with
>>rewarding these people for their labors, because the work they do is
>>as important as the work that you or I do.
>
>But is it MORE important? ALL taxes in some way impinge on the economy.
>
>andy

Precisely. The main argument against the capital gains tax cut isn't that
it 'benefits the rich'. It is that the tax code shouldn't prefer some sources
of income to others. It is the job of the market to make these decisions.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ