HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:21:46 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <BuKovn.6D7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep13.164548.29818@cs.cornell.edu>
>: allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
>
>: >As has been posted before, unemployment peaked in 1987 under Reagan.

Well the claimed numbers are wrong, wrong, wrong.

As has been posted before (thanks to Peter Nelson):

 year    '50 '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87  
    %     5.0 5.5 4.5 4.9 8.5 7.1 7.6 9.7 9.6 7.5 7.2 7.0 6.2
  (source: BLS)  

It PEAKED at 6.2% in 1987 !?! harrumph. It peaked in '82, at 9.7%.

Note also that these numbers hide the huge increase in total jobs,
something like 16 million from '82 to '87 alone, as the labor force
was expanding.

>: The figures peaked  when we were still operating under the effects of the
>: Carter policy. It takes a year or more for the effects of a new administration
>: to take effect.  Of course, once it did we had ten good years, until the
>: next administration decided to adopt the Democratic party's platform.

Correct. The peak was in 1982, while the Volker recession was cleaning
up the Carter inflation. This was definitely the hangover from Carter's
inflationary economic incompetence.

>Well if that year given above were correct, I'd say you need to check
>your math.  1987 was the sixth year of the Ronnie Ray-Gun dynasty.  :)

Yes. And unemployment as well as inflation were low and falling.
This 'peaked in '87' is just bluster.

>What you are saying is true, of course.  _Part_ of the poor economy
>in the early eighties was the result of Carter's policies.  _Part_
>of the problem was due to the influences of the international markets.
>To just blame the President(s) solely for economic problems (or to
>give them total credit for economic successes) would be wrong.
>
>At least Reagan tried to do something about the economy, though....

More importantly, he did the right things: Lower taxes, restrain
inflation, keep regulation and spending in check, encourage trade.

Bush is 2 for 4 on this score (inflation, trade good; tax and spend,
like a Democrat).

>I would vote for Reagan, if he were able to run again, provided
>some guarantee could be made about his health, he didn't choose 
>a boob for a running mate, and if he didn't pander to the ultra-
>conservatives too much.  I cannot in good faith vote for
>GHWB (or for Clinton, for that matter).

Pat , Bush, '92, to hold the fort until Kemp '96
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5479 tx.politics:5237
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:37:27 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep14.124914.4691@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>                                          Banks aren't failing to lend
>the money through choice; the credit markets are just that soft on the
>demand side right now.

Actually, banks aren't lending the money because they don't want to
get whacked by the government if they screw up.  If you'd invest some
of your money in the stock market you'd know that housing stocks are
low right now because the banks aren't floating interim financing in
enough quantities to keep new construction underway.  We've had
several houses on this street (which is less than a year old) stop
suddenly because the next phase of interim credit fell through.  This
is happening all across the country.  It isn't limited to Texas.

This is just a theory (meaning I really have 0 evidence and am certain
to be taken out of context ...), but I believe that consumers are
paying off the debts because banks won't lend them any more money.  I
have another theory as to why which says that banks don't want to
make loans at these very low rates because the fear interest will rise
again and they will be stuck with real low paying loans for a real
long time.  Jeanette and I have been chanting "Debt Free in '93" for
a few months now, partly because lenders keep telling us we've been
pre-approved for loans that two years ago would have been insultingly
small.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5485 alt.politics.homosexuality:5994
From: edjans01@orion.spd.louisville.edu (David Jansing)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:13:27 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In <1992Sep14.162833.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>     Once again, I appreciate your perspective.  But when I look
>up the word "natural" or "nature" in a concordance, practically all of the
>passages talk about the "sinful nature" of man (e.g. one does not
>have to teach a young child to lie or to be greedy).  This is
>what leads me away from your interpretation.
>     I think you can see where I was leading you -- with 
>"natural lust" meaning lusting for one of the opposite sex, and
>"unnatural lust" meaning lusting for one of the same sex.  Note
>that Biblically, both natural and unnatural lust are sinful.

Cary,

You note that natural and unnatural lust are sinful according to Scripture.
Does this eliminate (in your opinion) the possibility for a consenting, 
monogamous, intimate relationship between two persons of the same sex?

Dave

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Jansing                     | "What we call the beginning is often the end
Electrical Engineering Department|  And to make an end is to make a beginning.
University of Louisville         |  The end is where we start from . . ."
                                 |  -- T.S. Eliot, "Four Quartets"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:	The opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not
		necessarily reflect those of the Department of Electrical
		Engineering or any other department within the University
		of Louisville.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5031 alt.politics.bush:4815 soc.rights.human:3417 alt.society.civil-liberties:673
From: koontz@lysithea.jupiter.com (David G. Koontz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:46:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Jupiter Systems, Alameda, CA

In article <1992Sep8.170251.18589@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
|> 
|> 	Well, actually, everyone seems to be ignoring the British-protected
|> opium dens of China.  The British wanted to make money, so they protected
|> the dens and their customers from the Chinese government which was against
|> the opium dens, as well as some other things.  There were some battles
|> fought on the matter.  It is not without reason that drugs have been
|> illegalized in many countries around the world, although they were
|> influenced in no-way by 'prudish' Christian groups.

China required payment for tea ( cafeine - another drug) in the form of
silver.  China traders being a smart lot made a market for opium, and set
up a 3 way trade.  Think of the economics of the situation as a machine, 
setting energy in motion.  The spare energy came from the opium addicts,
who got entrophy, everyone else got rich.  All for the 4 o'clock cuppa.

The question is whether or not someone "made" the market.  Informed consent
is one thing, pushing is another.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Defense and other spending cuts (was Re: SC rally)
Summary: Defense is 25% of spending
Keywords: budget, defense
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:53:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.160142.16669@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (The Conservative) writes:
>
>  . . . I have a quam with Clintons economic plan on two 
>major points.
>
> 1. He propose raising taxes on the upper class. Forbes showed that
>    this will bring in around $200 million extra.
> 2. He says that he will cut taxes on the middle class to balance the 
>    upper class tax hike.

I think he has pretty much abandoned the middle class tax cut idea.
At least Paul Tsongas seems to think so.

>. . . We must cut everything back, ie streamline.
>Take a little out of defense, which has been done twice over the past
>two years even though defense is 5% of the budget, and take a lot out of
>the 66% chunk of the budget known as social securities.

NO.  In fiscal 1990 (the latest I have numbers for), we had

defense           $ 290 billion
social security     245
interest on debt    265
health & human svcs 194

Total outlays      1252

Other departments each spent less than 100 billion.

>. . .
>SS increased by 4% in the same two years as defense has been cut, this
>amounts to a $300 billion deficit. 

Go ahead and argue for cuts in SS, but remember two things:

1) part of SS increases are due to an increasing number of people
collecting benefits--this is caused by demographics, not policy.

2) Social security is paid for by a regressive payroll tax.
It doesn't matter how poor you are, if you work, you pay 7.65%
for this tax, and your employer has to kick in the same on top
of that.  The justification for this tax is that you are
contributing to a fund that will pay you back when you retire.
You cannot balance the budget by cutting Social Security
unless you keep collecting this tax but you stop devoting it
to the Social Security Trust Fund, which would be an outrage.

>Richard Dyrda                    | ".. but when you look underneath 

-----------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:43:26 GMT

>>
>> 1.  There is no absolute proof that he did this (Flowers is *not* a
>>     credible witness, she received $$ for her story which was full
>>     of holes).
>> 2.  If he did do *something*, his wife has at least forgiven him.
>> 3.  Would it have been better to get a divorce or to work out his marital
>>     problems?

>Given that Bush's own daughter got divorced instead of working out her marital
>problems, it would seem that divorce is OK in the Republican 'family values'
>pantheon.

Remember that Ronald Reagan got divorced too.  I wonder if he was involved
in something non-family-values.  He was involved in those liberal hollywood
values at the time wasn't he?  Or was this after that?  I don't think that
it matters.  But since this election is being based by some on things that
happened 20 years ago, alleged marital problems that got resolved, and
Carter's record (maybe I'll write him in since he seems to be brought up
so much)... may as well bring everyone into the race.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4965 talk.politics.misc:44882 alt.politics.bush:4763
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:11:47 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <lb1ivgINNns0@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>You mean the Maria Shriver that is a member of the Kennedy clan and
>the wife of Democratic VP candidate?  

You're half right.  Maria Shriver is a Kennedy, but she is married to
Arnold Scharzaneger (sp?).  Arnold has been known to be active in
REPUBLICAN circles.

The wife of the Democratic VP candidate is Tipper Gore.

>That's like expecting Buchannon to be impartial.

I don't "expect" anyone to be impartial.  I only get upset when someone
claims to be impartial and them isn't.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5083 tx.politics:5147 alt.politics.bush:4855
From: messwein@nimbus.worldbank.org (Mark Esswein)
Subject: Re: Clinton a Fraternity Man??
Organization: World Bank
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:55:54 GMT

FYI on the Clinton/Frat question:

Except for Honor Societies and Service Organizations,  Georgetown doesn't
have fraternities.  There was a social frat connected with the Foreign
Service School but I don't think it was national.

------
The opinions expressed here are my own and not to be confused
with those of my employer.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5576 talk.politics.misc:45640 alt.politics.bush:5242
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:52:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: gte

In article <92255.073034DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
> In fact, economic studies show that the demand for medical care is very
> insensitive to price.
> 

Either you're quoting out of context, or the studies are seriously
flawed.

The cost of medical care will have very little impact on necessary 
medical care.  However, free healthcare will be needlessly used
far more frequently than healthcare which you pay for.




-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Poverty
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:58:36 GMT

In article <92248.100227DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
><<<Statistics deleted>>>
>
>Most of the content of this thread came from the Census Bureau report
>on poverty and an editorial page article in the Wall Street Journal.
>Someone else has started a similar thread in sci.econ, I think (maybe
>talk.politics.misc).  I want to make a couple of points about the article
>in the WSJ.
>
>First, the author castigates the Census for not counting noncash benefits
>as income.  That ignores the fact that Census has had a major research
>effort into this issue for at least the last 7 years with two publications
>on the effect of benefits on poverty.  The results from this research
>are well-known and have, in fact, been the subject of front page articles
>in the WSJ (I think, maybe editorial page).  Draw your own conclusions
>about the article in the WSJ.

  The article to which you refer is by Mr. Rector of the Heritage
Foundation (for those who missed my other post.)  I have since
taken a closer look. :-)

  You are correct in your assertion that Mr. Rector does ignore the
other census bureau report.  However, to be somewhat fair to Mr. Rector, 
he was taking issue with the specific report that claims that more
than 30 million Americans live in poverty.  He (correctly from
what I can tell) assumed that it is the 30+ million figure that
the media would pick up on and took steps to counter it as the
initial paragraph of his article indicates.  I have since heard enough 
pundits conclude that 1 in 7 Americans are in poverty to decide that 
Mr. Rector was not entirely out of line with his assumption.

  While the second report (which you note) may get attention in
such publications as the WSJ, it seems not to have made it to the
national TV media from which many get their information (for better
or worse.)

  Mr. Rector's conclusions may or may not be true and certainly you have
noted problems with his methodology.  However, I fully understand
his desire to take steps to counter the report that the media picked
up on.



Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Poverty
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:13:13 GMT
Distribution: usa


Oh great.  Another lying ultra-conservative to stick in my kill file.
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Campaign final few days' conservative slide
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:37:19 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>: 
>:    last Gallup poll before 1988 election: Bush 54%  Dukakis 41%
>:                    1988 election results: Bush 53%  Dukakis 46%
>: 
>: So Bush's plurality actually shrunk from 13% to 7%. 
>
>Ever hear of something called a "margin of error" on polls like this?

One thing about margin of error: often the assumption seems to be made that
if a percentage is say "50% with a 4% margin of error" then the actual
number is anywhere between 46% and 54% with equal probability. Actually,
the real value is most likely 50%. If the 4% represents one standard
deviation, then there is only a 1/6 chance or so that the real number is
46% or less. So you can argue that the above results are consistent 
somehow with the margin of error, but I think it's somewhat more likely that
Bush lost some support at the last minute. In any case, there was no
rush in his direction at all, and again, against a weaker opponent.

>The  "undecided" factor can play a bigger role in elections than you
>might realize.

Sure, but the last poll taken this time will undoubtedly have some
undecideds, too. My point was that Clinton need not have to have any 
"cushion" at all going into the election to still win. If the undecideds
want to flock to him on Nov. 3rd like you seem to be assuming they did
with Dukakis, then so much the better.

----
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Taiwan, Bush & China
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:46:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.181806.21506@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>guess would take place around the year 1999 AD.  Given 4 years of lukewarm
>foreign relations, the country would be ripe for another Woodrow Wilson
>in 1996 who might give the Chinese enough lee-way to invade Formosa.

I guess then we'd find out if the ROC has any nukes.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
Vote for Clinton: protect the right to keep and bear sporting goods.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4893 talk.politics.misc:44788 alt.rush-limbaugh:4563 alt.politics.bush:4700 alt.politics.elections:12832
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:57:36 GMT
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
: 
:    The point isn't that Bush was involved in the in the Iran-Contra affair,
:    but that he has lied about it.  The fact is, he was not out of the
:    loop.
: 
: The point is that you can't prove that Bush lied about Iran-Contra but
: you can prove that Clintone lied about his draft shenanigans.

Speaking of Bush lying, does the phrase "read my lips" ring a bell?
At least Clinton admitted his mistake fairly quickly.  Bush should have
known that his promise was unkeepable when he made it.  Just another
example of GHWB saying what is needed to get elected, and then "forgetting"
about all those "promises."

: 
:    This nonsense about Clinton "lying" about something that happened 
:    twenty years ago when he was a young man being a "character issue" is
:    absurd when our president has lied to us about what he did as
:    Vice President of our country.
: 
: Again, prove it.  The fact that the lie was twent years ago or twenty
: minutes ago is not relevant.  Just PROVE it was a lie.

Ah, but have you forgotten that in the past 12 years, "guilty until
proven innocent" has become the law of the land?  It seems the
burden of proof lies with you, sir, in this instance.  :)

:   He "bravely"
:    promised to not raise taxes, then not-so-bravely raised
:    them.  George Bush has shown that he will abandon principle
:    at every turn.  Who do you trust?
: 
: Glad you brought this up.  It raises a very important point the Bush
: campaign is missing.  The fact is that Bush did indeed say "Read my lips"
: and then went back on that.  The other disturbing fact is that he struck
: an agreement with the ever so honorable dems to cut spending.  As soon as
: they had his John Hancock they backed off the deal.  They are at least as
: big a bunch if liars as he is.

I thought it was a given that you cannot trust Congress.  That's makes
it all the more important to elect a President you CAN trust.  Shame
that the Democrats and the Republicans aren't running a trustable Presidential
candidate this year....

: Gee, you sound almost as smart as Doktor LaFaive.  (I no eye speld it
: rong)

And your spelling-flaming is doing nothing to enhance the appearance of
your intelligence.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I stand by all the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 misstatements that I've made."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us		
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: xyz
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:52:42 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:


>	Actually Bush has always been voodoo on economics.  He hasn't done a
>thing to continue Reagan's supply side economics, much to his detriment. 
>Although he has gotten some of that ol' time religion for this election.

>	But then again, a draft-dodging philanderer isn't the answer, either.

The reason it isn't the answer is because it has nothing to do with
the question.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties