HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: That issue in Oregon (?)
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:24:18 GMT
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:

>Heard a lot of hype beforehand, but not since the election...
>there was an issue the the Northwest regarding classifying
>homosexuality as an aberration, or something like that.  How did
>that one turn out?

Last I heard, it lost by about 10 percentage points.  Pretty
scary...but at least it lost. :-)

Later,
Adam Elman
aelman@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23702 talk.politics.misc:59990
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The US - laughing stock of the world
Date: 13 Nov 92 06:45:54 GMT
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <1992Nov10.020926.2191@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1diocbINNa2b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>>envy of the world to the butt of it's jokes.  Even if you don't believe 
>
>We have *been* the butt of it's jokes.  "Don't deal with terrorists.
>That's *OUR* job."  "World Court?  What World Court?"
>
>We're the butt of it's jokes when we make a big deal over things like
>Penthouse.   Or smoking marijuana.  No one else in the world would care
>about something like this.

No doubt our miserly two weeks/year vacations are also the butt of 
jokes worldwide.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington)
Subject: Libertarian ticket-splitting
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:29:58 GMT

Someone mentioned the fact that Marrou in California got a much smaller
percentage of the vote than did the Libertarian US Senate candidates.
There was some suggestion of election fraud.  My conjecture would be that
a bloc of voters (larger than the hard-core Libertarians) was determined
to vote for the most plausible candidate who was not a Democrat or 
Republican.  This meant Perot for president and Libertarians for Senate.

In New Hampshire, a state where the Libertarians are as well established
as anywhere else (they improved from 2 to 3 seats in the 400-member state
house of representatives) the same thing seemed to occur, according to my
5 November Boston Globe:

President: Clinton 39%, Bush 38%, Perot 22%, Marrou 0.7% (3547 of ~530,000)
US Senate: Gregg(R) 48%, Rauh(D) 45%, Alexander(L) 4% (18214 of ~520,000),
           Brady(I) 2%, Blevens(I) 1%, Haight(NL) 0.2%.
Governor: Merrill(R) 56%, Arnesen(D) 40%, Luce(L) 4% (20663 of ~516,000)
US House 1: Zeliff(R) 53%, Preston(D) 42%, Bickford (L) 2% (5663 of ~255,000)
            Bosa(I) 3537, Spitzfaden(NL) 1997.
US House 2: Swett(D) 62%, Hatch(R) 36%, Lewicke(L) 2% (5977 of ~255,000),
            Bingham(NL) 657.

Clearly, barring election fraud, lots of people voted Libertarian for lower
offices and one of the big three for President.

Looks like the LP is pretty clearly the third party in NH, and also had a
major impact in the GA US Senate race (Fowler(D) 49%, Coverdell(R) 48%, 
Libertarian 3%, 50% required to avoid runoff, Libertarian endorsed Coverdell
for runoff 24 Nov).  

Dave MB

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23631 alt.politics.clinton:16998 alt.president.clinton:365
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:18:01 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <1992Nov11.134730.192040@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
> grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel) states
> >In article <1992Nov9.202406.18220@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
> >>There is plenty of evidence that people want a less intrusive, less
> >>expensive, more responsive government. 
> >
> >There is also plenty of evidence to the contrary.  Propose cutting some
> >government program or other.  Then sit back and watch the fur fly as 
> >the "conservative" electorate scream bloody murder because their favorite
> >piece of pork is going away.  The American electorate has become used to
> >getting what they want and, for the last 12 years at least, without having
> >to pay for it.
>
> Ok i propose that we cut the budjet by 56%, only have to cut one thing,
> welfare and social programs. Somehow i doubt it would be the
> conservatives who would scream at this proposal.

True.  It would be the entire country.  You'd really have a revolution
on your hands.

> The meek can _have_ the Earth, the rest of us are going to thestars.(Heinlein)

Oh, _that_ explains the problem.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 18:29:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov05.164308.13494@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: I just happen to have that on tape.  I suspect you're playing the old
>: game that the press is so good at and taking something out of context
>: that was a thoughtful answer and using it to 'prove' something.
>
>Clinton really did say that he and Ross Perot disagreed on how much to raise
>taxes on the middle class.  It was in the closing statement.  I think he
>*meant* that Perot wants to raise them and he doesn't, but that's not what he
>said.
>

I just read some interesting information in my local newsrag.  It said
that Clinton had promised only to not raise taxes on the middle
class to pay for new programs; therefore he is perfectly free to raise
whatever revenue he thinks he can get away with from the middle class
to pay for existing programs and debt retirement.

Comments?  (Obtw, the section from the ';' to the '.' obviously para-
phrased, but well within the intent of the original, imho.)



thomas rush				thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com
compaq computer corporation		their employee,
deep in the hearth of texas		not their opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: sug6@benedict.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Reply-To: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:22:18 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>sug6@benedict.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>  Of course, you could claim that your "employer" pays the 1.5%, but
>>if you believe that, you probably believe in "employer contribution"
>>to FICA.  Businesses do not pay taxes, they collect them.  People pay
>>taxes in one way or another.  This is all fairly basic micro really.
>
>A prime example of proof by assertion, I see.  If you say something
>with enough confidence, people aren't supposed to questoin it?  Sorry,
>but the reality of things just isn't quite as cut and dried as your
>statement portrays it, nor is there anything like unanimity of belief
>in it.

  Review some economic studies and get back to me.  If you need any help with
text recommendations or that of studies in this area, I will be glad
to provide some.  You may want to look at the Chicago Fed's estimate
of the cost of regulations on jobs or studies done by Vedder and
Gallaway in the Fall issue of Policy Review.  New regulations have been 
repeatedly shown to cost jobs.  Certainly, the 2.5% increase in the cost
of labor since 1990 hasn't helped the job situation much.

   Perhaps, you would care to review Thomas
Hopkin's work.  He is an economist at the Rochester Institute of
Technology and has done the most thorough study to date of the gross
cost of federal regulation.  His results are considered extremely
conservative and yet they still display a dismal picture of regulations'
impact on jobs and the economy.  

  Feel free to continue espousing propaganda rather than economics.
Politicians do it on a regular basis.  There is no reason why another
USENET poster is going to make a significant difference.  The very idea
that corporations are somehow faceless taxpayers and that additional
regulations have no effect on jobs or wages just isn't true.  Take
a look at the above studies (or virtually any basic micro text) and you
will see the results.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:47:21 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov9.130131.60531@cc.usu.edu> fajack@cc.usu.edu writes:
>In article <1dm90nINNheb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
>> 
>>   Led by Senator Dole, the media revealed this weekend evidence of a
>> smoking gun linking "independant" counsel Walsh to the Clinton Campaign.
>> A Clinton press release concerning the new indictment levied against
>> Weinberger by Walsh on Friday, October 30, was dated October 29, 1992!
>> Bill Clinton refused to comment, while his staff used the excuse that the
>> date on the release had been a typographical error.  RIGHT!  And Richard
>> Nixon "accidentally" erased some of the tapes.  As further proof of their
>> subversion of the Constitution, here is their own e-mail release (again a
>> typographical error?).
>> 
>	<a lot of stuff deleted>
>
>>   Here is documented proof that Walsh and his stooges were working hand 
>> in hand with CG/92, giving them inside information and probably handing 
>> out indictments on orders from the campaign!  So now we know that Walsh 
>> was a collaborator with Clinton and the Democrats to gain control of the 
>> White House.  Is it too early to talk "impeachment"?  I think Congress
>> should appoint a special counsel to investigate special counsel Walsh.
>> 
>> -- 
>	You sore loser, why don't you accept the fact that your man
>has been rejected by American people regardless of whether he is in the loop
>or not.  The findings by Walsh has no effect on the outcome of the election.
>Accept it.

Although some Republicans believe that this announcement stopped the
president's momentum that was building during the week before the
election, I personally believe it had a small effect on the 
election at least by reminding the populace of Iran-Contra.  (as opposed 
to "no effect" as claimed above).

Regardless of the election's outcome, there are definitely ethical problems  
with Walsh planning the date of the release of such information
and informing the Clinton campaign of his plans, if that is in fact
what happened.  I doubt that the latter part is true, and I hope it is not,
but its possibility makes it too serious to ignore the press release
dating.

I hope for the sake of Clinton and the country, that this blows over 
before we hear TV commentators start comparing "It's a typo" to
"I didn't inhale."

Rocky Giovinazzo
giovinaz@hks.hks.com
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Markets
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:34:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.033417.17265@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <1992Nov03.234939.13173@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> >the larger ones are hurting.  On the other hand, Boeing has a large number
> >of orders for it's 777 fleet due in 1995 and 1996.  
> Why does Boeing have record orders (as you say) if there is all this
> slack in the airline industry and all these thousands of pretty new
> planes in good order sitting out there doing nothing?  Where'd all the
> spare planes come from if all these airlines are doing so well?
 
Did you read my message.  I said "for it's 777 fleet due in 1995 and
1996".  It doesn't take 3 or 4 years to manufacturer a plane.  I'm not
sure where you got the idea that "these airlines are doing so well".  As I
pointed on in my message, a lot of airlines are in trouble and the weaker
ones will probably get out of the business.
 
> for them).  As to why TI and Intel haven't eaten up Cyrix and Cyprus,
> you might be interested to know that TI MANUFACTURES Cyrix chips and
> got in on their lawsuit with Intel as an interested party.
 
So what's the point?  Intel and TI doesn't own Cyrix or Cypress.  You just
finished telling me how big companies gobble up small ones and become
monopolies, using electronics as an example.  For that matter look at
Tektronix.  They practically owned certain parts of the testing equipment
market, and now they are losing their shirts.  So much for the power of
monopolies.
 
> Microsoft is currently under investigation and potentially facing
> intervention. 
 
I'm aware that Microsoft is under investigation.  I also think it's a
waste of taxpayer's money.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:11:17 GMT

In article <BxB27J.FH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell) writes:
|> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >>>I just hope the 81% who didn't vote Perot remember to not complain
|> >>>when taxes go up and Congress gives itself another pay raise.
|> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> >>Uhmmm.  What are you talking about?  Perot proposed the largest tax
|> >>increases of any of the candidates.
|> 
|> >Ross proposed increase in use (gas) tax, not income tax, right?
|> 
|> He was going to raise both.  Raise income taxes on the top bracket to
|> bring in $31 billion, and raise regressive gas tax on middle and lower
|> classes to bring in $158 billion.  
|> 

#1)  The original post was about rampant irresponsible spending and
behavior in congress, vis pay raise.  

#2)  How much do you pay to use the road?  If I ride the bus every day,
or work out of my home, how much do I pay for YOU to use the road?  We're 
talking about paying for what you use, that's all.  Fair share sacrifice.
The proposal also included breaks for those whose livelihood depend on gas,
such as truck drivers.  Do you not think its fair for people to pay for
what they use if they are able?  

#3)  Where would you suggest we get the money to bring down our $300+ billion
yearly deficit and our $4+ trillion debt?  

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: MITI as a model for US industrial policy?
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:12:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.161317.13627@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512 writes:
>In article <BxGJK7.Gu4@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>
>And yet we continue to hear loud calls for a U.S. version of MITI.
>


From who? There are plenty of 'trade hawks' around, but from what I've seen
the idea of an American MITI has pretty much been abandoned, even by those
who at one time were associated with the idea of 'industrial policy'.


>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,soc.culture.african.american
From: wbrown@access.digex.com (William Brown)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:52:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.200425.27768@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov
(Allen Halsell) writes: 

>In article <1992Nov9.150210.23931@kpc.com>, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett
Kilgariff) writes: 

>> In article <1992Nov6.211001.19136@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes: 

>> >The DC vote has *always* mirrored the national African-American vote.  
>> >And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the African-American vote did indeed 
>> >go 87-9-4, Clinton-Bush-Perot, just like DC.
>> >
>> >Take your conspiracy theories to Scott Barnes.  The rest of us know how
>> >to think.
>> 
>> By the way, If all these African-Americans don't work for the government
>> (as the deleted part of Mr Frank's post implies), who do they work for?
>
>Mostly they don't work.  Or is cleaning toilets considered to be a plum
>government job?


    It never ceases to amaze me how bigoted people can be, regardless of
their jobs or responsibilities.  Even today, people like Mr. Halsell find
it necessary to try to belittle others through humor that was never funny
to begin with.  It's even more odd that anyone (including myself) would
expect any level of humanity or decency from say, a NASA government
official.  This country seems to have almost encouraged a type of
immaturity in some segements of the adult population that encourages a
lack of respect.  Mr. Halsell, to say that your joke is in poor taste is
an understatement.  To say that you didn't know that is probably a lie. 
And to say that you probably didn't care points more to your selfishness
than to a poor sense of humor.  I sincerely hope you just didn't know how
poor your so-called joke was - I would hate to think anyone could be that
randomly bad-mannered.


Peace

Bill

   What ever happened to adults acting, well, adult?


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Sad comment on democracy
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:31:52 GMT

In article <1dmj55INNktk@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.175045.13265@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>|> In article <1d9ai4INNi07@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) said:

>|> > Barbara Boxer elected to a Senate seat in California, 
>|> > despite huge numbers of bounced checks, 
 
>|> Really?  And just what were these "huge numbers," anyway?
>|> (Hint: This is a trick question.)

>I'll bite. 149 "bounced" (overdrawn) checks..

Well, that's one person you caught, anyway, William.

Real answer: 0.  No checks bounced.  Overdrawn, yes.  Bounced, no.
Difference?  Overdrawing your account is perfectly legal if you have
overdraft protection, which most major banks offer, as did the House
"Bank."

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23750 talk.politics.misc:60061 tx.politics:7285
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:55:47 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov11.005927.26485@radian.uucp> markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr) writes:
>When the US carmakers build something that meets the specs of the Tercel, or
>say, the VW bug (no, I never owned one), I'll buy one.

Now, what was the country of origin for that '80 Chevette you had?  Given
that GM owns a sizable fraction of Toyota, it's likely that the
manufacturer was Toyota.  As for the quality of an '88 Tercel, almost any
'93 model year American car has higher quality.  Ford quality in MY '93
makes Honda quality in MY '80 look like absolute crap.  Even Chrysler (which
I believe has the worst American quality) is superior today to Japanese
quality of just a very few years ago.  And surprise of all surprise,
American quality today is on a par with the Japanese.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: GrinchCo
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:24:00 GMT

In article <Bx97L1.C0n@wrs.com>, gak@wrs.com writes...
:>In article <Bx7rGq.43x@world.std.com> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes:
:>> Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
:>> George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
:>> Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent
:>> Andrew Marrou, Oth 278,528 - 0 percent

What I find interesting about these numbers is that my paper claimed that
Andre only got 115,000 votes nationwide,  and repeated the same statistic
the next day.  278k is still a humiliating defeat,  of course,  but it's
interesting to hear that he got well over twice as many votes as my paper 
claims.


:>It's a real landslide for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party!
:> 
:>Right.
:> 
:>What this tells me is that FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT of the voters do not
:>believe that Bill Clinton should be President.
:> 
:>---
:>Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4
> 
If you choose to look at it that way.  You could also say that there are over
250M people in the US (yeah,  not all of them can vote) and so Clinton
only got 1/6 of the people to vote for him.  But so what?  

Mr. Grinch