HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fzchen@othello.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Bush meets angry voters head on (POW/MIA speech)
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:33:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

OOOOOWEEE!  Sure do love those images of Bush yelling and pointing
his finger wildly at the guy he asked for support while the crowd
was yelling at him.  Better yet, how about the very presidential,
diplomatic "Will you Shut Up!!!!"  

First he gets tear gassed in Panama.  Then 60,000 baseball fans at
Jack Murphy stadium boo him (even with the Splendid Splinter at his side.)
Then he gets into a spat with a crowd venting frustration at him.  Dan
Quayle would support his daughter's right to choose, though he would
take it away from every other woman in America.  Unemployment is
almost 8% nationwide and 9.5% in California.  Its gotta be Congress'
fault.

-MeatHead

From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Time/CNN poll 18th July
NewsSoftware: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
NntpPostingHost: utarlg.uta.edu
MessageID: <18JUL199222243469@utarlg.uta.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 03:24:00 GMT
X-Bytes: 711

In article <1992Jul18.222523.3687@ms.uky.edu>, aras@ms.uky.edu (P. I. Arasu) writes...
>Heard it on NPR today, 18th July:
> 
>Bill Clinton 	49%
>George Bush	29%
>Undecided 	22%
> 
>margin of error 4%

Polls are bullshit unless they tell how big the population was, who
participated, and something about the questions. Natl Enquirer material
otherwise.

 /                                                                   \
(   Stephen D. Tice     |     Human views are based on the writings   )
 >                    S   of 240 generations, the experience of  < 
(   Arlington Texas     |     1 small planet, and a very brief life   )
 \                                                                   /    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:30:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.183431.22539@udel.edu> lintz@buster.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>In article <3573@keele.keele.ac.uk> csp48@seq1.keele.ac.uk (J.W. Kirriemuir) writes:
>>(1) The USA will take some form of military action somewhere; judging by
>>the recent news reports, a sudden air strike against Iraq is more likely
>>than anything involving Yogoslavia. A side reason for this (which was
>>picked up on in last nights newsnight on BB2) is that Bush's popularity
>>would take a welcome boost.
>
>This I can see happening. Look what happened to Bush's approval rating
>because of Desert Storm.

Questionable.  It can be construed as not paying attention to domestic
concerns.  Further, if the action is against Yugoslavia, that action
should be clear cut and have a high probability of success, both of
which are unlikely (I don't think anyone would want to commit ground
troops there in an election year).  If the action were against Iraq,
the Democrats can ask why Saddam wasn't removed before, when we had
the chance and it would have been cheaper.  The whole post-war record
of the Bush administration can be called up, along with all of Bush's
props for Saddam prior to August '90.

>
>I get the impression that Reagan doesn't like Bush. Remember a while back
>Reagan didn't attend Bush's fundraiser in CA because of "prior committments",
>the political equivalent of washing your hair.

Didn't Reagan also say that he had no idea what Bush was doing in the
White House, or something to that effect?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: FW: Andre's Responce to G. Will
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:57:23 GMT

Norm's snappy guide to Andre Marrou:

egrep '[Ss]ocial' ~/News/marrou.txt

demonstrated the failure of socialism. Unfortunately, while the
increasingly socialistic. After all, socialism is just more
     Here in the U.S.A., socialist ideals are most fully realized
controlled by various levels of government. Like other socialist
is American socialism; is it any wonder that Libertarians oppose
     The U.S. Postal Service, another socialist entity, employs
Democrats want socialism and government control of the economy,
serious third parties" like the Progressives or the Socialists at
George; even the Swedes have thrown the Socialists out of office.

A little red-baiting there, Andre?  Of course, every country in
Europe is more socialist than the US, but Marrou compares us to Nazi
Germany and the Soviet Union.

I lost interest in the Libertarians after they nominated Ron Paul in '88 
but only after reading this article did I realize what a jerk Marrou is.
Nary a mention of repealing repressive laws against victimless crimes, 
but the same old tired rant against the 'socialist' post office.  I'd 
like to know of one major country that doesn't have a public postal system.

He also goes off on the public school system, which despite its failures,
is the main engine of upward mobility in the nation.  Public schools vary
widely from area to area and just looking at the inner city is a mistake.
If guys like Marrou ran the country when I was growing up, I'd be working
at McDonald's today.

Marrou's answer to the problems facing this country is to punt;  He's the
personification of the "I've got mine, Jack" philosophy that has screwed up
the US.

Norm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:27:14 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul24.162018.15509@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
]I guess all those homeless people, who's populations increased immensely
]during your 8 years of "economic growth", are my imagination, right?

A large percentage of homeless people are mentally ill or substance
abusers. This is hard to blame on the Reagan economic policies.
Furthermore, I doubt your statistics. I have yet to see ANYONE who
has been able to count homeless people.

]Who's telling lies here?  What is the point of economic growth if it is
]contained in the upper 10% of the class system we have in this country?

Yes, that would be a problem. In fact, Reagan bashers are happy to point
out that wages, in real dollars, have remained the same or declined since
1975. What they miss is that they went down under Carter and up under
Reagan. They further miss the fact that family income went up FOR ALL
INCOME groups under Reagan.
 
I would like you to point out any country that has less of a class system
than the US.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
From: jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.160508.24777@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
|> point was that Reagan/Bush was a change from Carter and Ford era of
|> high inflation and interest rate. (And if I recall Ford either did
|> not speak or did not get prime time slot at the convention).

Actually, Ford brought inflation down.  Carter and the democratic-controlled
congress let it run away.  (Ford was Republican.)  The way it went was:

Nixon brought inflation down.
Watergate happened and inflation started running away.
Ford sat down and worked and got inflation back down.
Carter came in and inflation ran away.

Currently, inflation is down to 3% (unlike 15% under Carter) ["Larry King Live,"
July 22, 1992].

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Where's all that money? (was: My thoughts on Clinton's character)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:45:47 GMT
Distribution: usa

fred j mccall 575-3539 writes
> No, flat taxes are not regressive.  Flat taxes are FLAT. 
> Please find a good economics text and check out the
> definition of 'regressive tax' and 'progressive tax'. 
> Flat SALES TAXES are regressive, but that is because of
> the relationship between income and consumption not
> being flat.  Flat income taxes are neither progressive
> nor regressive, by definition.  

No, flat salex taxes are flat too. In the long run all money which is earned is  
also spent. If you tax all sales or all income is an administrative and  
temporary difference. It does not change the basic progressivity of a tax.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: philip@reed.edu (Philip Moore)
Subject: Re: Perot....GONE!
Keywords: Senate and Congress
Followup-To: t.p.misc
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:10:49 GMT
Summary: Action this day

In article <1992Jul21.193129.3786@seas.gwu.edu> korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:

>
>A third party to bring competition to the Demopublican Party
>would be nice. But, perhaps as a long term goal for subsequent 
>elections for the house and senate. We'll see.
>
Not necessarily subsequent.  One of the many flukey things about Oregon
is that we had to actually form a third party to nominate Perot rather
than just petition to get his name on the ballot.  Now that he has
announced a withdrawal we are left with a very popular political party
with teh framework of a platform but no candidates.  In addition we have a
state senate race between two candidates with very high negative ratings.
We may end up running a "Perot" Senate candidate this November.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8788 alt.politics.perot:996 talk.politics.misc:35117
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:05:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <barrett.711687819@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
>
>>How can the king of status quo/budget deficits say he has _anything_
>>in common with R. Perot and what he stands for?
>
>But you forget, Bush ran in 1988 saying "we are change".  He's always
>known it was good to be an outsider.  He has to be an ousider, since
>he doesn't even have a home state (did I hear that his hotel has gone out
>of business?).

If I remember correctly from the 1988 Republican convention. One of the
main theme (if there is more than one) `sound-bite' was "we are the
change." This argument was made by Reagan and repeated by Bush. The
point was that Reagan/Bush was a change from Carter and Ford era of
high inflation and interest rate. (And if I recall Ford either did
not speak or did not get prime time slot at the convention).
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: barbehen@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Michael Barbehenn)
Subject: Re: More Bush-it
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:48:09 GMT

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>In article <1992Jul22.002517.17869@cs.tulane.edu> tcws@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Bill Sirinek) writes:
>>
>>Tell that to the moron who just posted his lengthy speech about keeping the
>>republican president, and wiping out the dems from the house....
>>
>>He obviously doesnt understand that the leader we have now isnt going to do
>>us any good, we need change, we need Bill Clinton.
>>

>Change huh?  Let's see Democrats have controled Congress for the last 40 years,
>we've had Kennedy, Johnson and Carter in the same time and your definition of 
>change is Bill Clinton.

>I hope you don't CHANGE your clothes they way you want to CHANGE your governmentotherwise your underware must have the stench of 40 years of rot.

>CHANGE HA!

>PSG

If you believe what they're saying (to use Perot's words) it's a
REVITALIZED, almost non-partisan, Democratic party.  It is somewhat
unfair to compare Clinton to past presidents because so much of the
world has changed, and he wants to CHANGE things.  I don't recall
another presidential candidate talking quite like this before...

And if you listen to the "experts" they say that the American people
like a Democratic Congress and a Republican President -- it offers
a perverse checks-and-balances.  Obviously they don't have much faith
in either...

??
--
-Michael Barbehenn
 AI Group/Beckman Institute
 U. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:49:30 GMT

<In article <1992Jul22.130005.3890@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:

<	   After listening to NPR this morning (7/22), 

	Shouldn't this be crossposted to alt.rush.limbaugh, as
	well?

<I got
<   to wondering about what effect any US military intervention
<   in Yugoslavia or Iraq would have on the election.  Consider:

	Since the probability of US military intervention
	into Yugoslavia is very close to zero...

<	   (a) Yugoslavia is shattering into more pieces every
<   day.  The UN seems to be moving closer to come kind of direct
<   intervention.  If they want to use more than the token force
<   they have there now, they will need assistance from the US military.

	Uh, there are a few countries closer than the U.S.
	to Yugoslavia. Their names are: Italy, Germany,
	France, Great Britain, Austria.....

	Since Bush has, from the start of the Yugo civil war,
	made it clear that he wants the EC to solve the problem,
	how do you see the US getting involved?

<	   (b) The UN investigators are having more and more
<   hassles with the Iraqi government.  The Washington Times had
<   a headline this morning which mentioned "war clouds on the
<   horizon".  NPR mentioned something about the possibility of
<   a "limited air strike".

	NPR has mentioned that rumor for over a year. 

<   So, the questions at hand are:

<	   If the US attacks Iraq, will that help Mr. Bush?
<   Hurt Bush?  Help Clinton?  Hurt Clinton?

	It would help Bush, in the traditional "rally round
	the president in a foreign crisis" mode. However,
	National Government Radio seems to be unaware of
	the fact that the required air assets for even
	a "limited" air strike are not present anymore
	in the Middle East (unless the Israelis decide
	to do something). 

<	   What about Yugoslavia?

	No US military intervention in Yugoslavia, no matter
	how bad it gets; Bush regards it as a "European"
	problem. At the most, the US might contribute a token
	effort if the French, Germans, Brits and Italians
	decide to do something. 

	At present, there are *at most* 2,000 Marines in the
	Adriatic with another 2,000 in the Med; not enough
	to do much of anything except get shot at.

<	   Just to get the ball rolling, here's what I think:
<   As a Clinton supporter, I do worry that Bush might time such
<   an attack as to try to appear more "presidential" and evoke
<   memories of the Gulf conflict.  In the broader view, however,
<   I don't think that it will affect his stature that much.  The
<   faltering economy and 10M people out of work are much more
<   important.  I think an attack at this point would get a lot
<   of people wondering why we didn't finish the job right the
<   first time.

	The last point is interesting, but I suspect it shows
	more the neo-isolationism of the US public; this 
	turning inward provides no support at all for intervention
	in Yugoslavia, which is one more reason Bush won't want
	to do it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Predictions for USA campaign
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:58:59 GMT

pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

>>I'm not so sure. By winning, Bill Clinton will have won a referendum on the
>>past 12 years being a failure, and when he throws this country into a depression
>>he will simply say that the country was now reaping what the Republicans
>>had sown for the past 12 years. It sounds far fetched, but when you have a
>>vindictive, spiteful media behind you, nothing is impossible. Hell, they've
>>managed to convince the American public that Ronald Reagan,
>>who brought 8 years of economic growth and won the cold war, wasn't that
>>good after all. Tell a lie long enough, and the people will start to believe it.

>I guess all those homeless people, who's populations increased immensely
>during your 8 years of "economic growth", are my imagination, right?

It is common knowledge (in New York, anyway) that many of the so called
"homeless" that live in the streets now were dumped out onto the streets
by the psychiatric wards. Liberals, in the name of compassion, saw the
poor conditions many of these disturbed people experienced while in these
wards, so they got laws passed to "free" them from the wards, without
providing any alternative homes for them. Sure, there are always the true
hard luck cases, but by and large, advocates of the "homeless" are quite
dishonest.

>Who's telling lies here?  What is the point of economic growth if it is
>contained in the upper 10% of the class system we have in this country?

The incomes of all groups in the 1980's rose, although some more than
others, I'll admit. Now, while we should always try to help all the classes
improve at the same rate, I won't complain as long as all groups are
improving. I don't agree with the politics of envy.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan)
Subject: New conflicts overseas and the election
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election
Reply-To: pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan)
Organization: Oceans & Ice Branch, NASA/GSFC/STX
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:00:05 GMT


	After listening to NPR this morning (7/22), I got
to wondering about what effect any US military intervention
in Yugoslavia or Iraq would have on the election.  Consider:

	(a) Yugoslavia is shattering into more pieces every
day.  The UN seems to be moving closer to come kind of direct
intervention.  If they want to use more than the token force
they have there now, they will need assistance from the US military.

	(b) The UN investigators are having more and more
hassles with the Iraqi government.  The Washington Times had
a headline this morning which mentioned "war clouds on the
horizon".  NPR mentioned something about the possibility of
a "limited air strike".

So, the questions at hand are:

	If the US attacks Iraq, will that help Mr. Bush?
Hurt Bush?  Help Clinton?  Hurt Clinton?

	What about Yugoslavia?

	
	Just to get the ball rolling, here's what I think:
As a Clinton supporter, I do worry that Bush might time such
an attack as to try to appear more "presidential" and evoke
memories of the Gulf conflict.  In the broader view, however,
I don't think that it will affect his stature that much.  The
faltering economy and 10M people out of work are much more
important.  I think an attack at this point would get a lot
of people wondering why we didn't finish the job right the
first time.

pat

--
                                                             patrick m. ryan
     nasa / goddard space flight center / oceans and ice branch / hughes stx
                     pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov / zmpmr@charney.gsfc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Help needed with Marrou petitioning
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:51:15 GMT

The following was posted to libernet this morning and I thought it
would be useful to repost it here.  Another message this morning
indicated that the MA ballot drive has been completed but some of
the other states listed below have very large requirements and very
little time, especially New York and Pennsylvania. If you would like
to help make more choices available on the ballot in your state
please contact the indicated Marrou petition coordinators asap.  The
deadline for many of these states is late July or early August.
Time his short.  We need your help to offer you the Libertarian
alternative.

/June
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Dehn <Joe.Dehn@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org>
To: Libernet
Date: 20 Jul 92  17:46:19

People to call if you can help with petitioning:

   CO  Chris Bogart     303 449 6327
   CT  Rich Loomis      203 745 2848
   DC  Stuart Reges     202 543 1988
   IL  Sue Walton       708 475 0391
   MA  Lee Nason        617 286 1719
   MN  Bob Kuhn         612 377 9888
   MO  Steve Schaper    314 481 1776
   ND  Terry Spath      701 280 0641
   NJ  Dan Karlan       201 444 2846
   NY  Jeff Russell     518 233 1344
   OH  Mark Ginter      513 671 2339
   PA  Richard Schwarz  215 854 8137
   RI  Stephen Lonardo  401 273 9079
   VA  Roger Menner     804 276 2438
   WV  Chris Fishbeck   304 263 0148
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Sex Rumors
Date: 24 Jul 1992 17:52:58 GMT
Organization: Sublimators
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


These rumors just in over the transom:

1) Someone will announce that he had an affair with Hillary Clinton.

2) James Baker and Margaret Tutwiler are an item.

--------------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:8901 talk.politics.misc:35296