HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:47:31 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)
Distribution: usa

|> steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
|> 
|>  ... Eventually the family becomes economically secure and might free it-
|>  self from the bondage of labor. They still will have to pay taxes though.
|>  At least for now.

I could not believe this when I read it.  So, the ultimate goal of promoting
family values is to free ourselves "from the bondage of labor".  It just so
appears as if you meant any work whatsoever.  So people with the right
family values will eventually become so wealthy that they won't need to 
work any longer.  

So, if we all follow the Republicans' advise and behave by their strict 
code of "family values", we will free ourselves "from the bondage
of labor".  Nobody will have to bake bread, nobody will have to build
houses, nobody will have to drive buses, nobody will have to teach children.
What a wonderful world you are envisioning!!  No wonder you think
Bush and Qayle are the best thing since sliced bread!  I am impressed!

  Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com      
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5204 alt.politics.homosexuality:5960
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:04:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: -

In article <1992Sep13.171912.18924@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.145020.781@calmasd.prime.com> 
> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.050324.16807@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
>>wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>>> [Much deleted]
>>> You will note that jews didn't go
>>> around in the old testament to non-Jewish areas and kill homosexuals
>>> because they were homosexual.  They may have killed the homosexuals
>>> if they were threatening the Jews, but they did not go out of their way.
>>
>>Gee john peter, the implications of what you are not saying here are
>>quite interesting.
>>
>>So, then why did the Jews go around in the old testament to non-Jewish
>>areas and kill homosexuals?  And were there like tribes or bands or
>>gangs of homosexuals that wandered around in biblical times and
>>occasionally threatened Jews?  And you also seem to be implying that
>>there weren't any homosexuals that were also Jews.  (Of course if
>>there were, luckily they had another tribe they go join.)
>>
>>Jim - (who realizes that most of this was just sloppy attempt to
> 
> 	So, I suppose you are ignorant of the story of the city
> which wanted to forcefully copulate with a Jewish family.  You are
> probably familiar with the name.  Angels escorted the Jewish family out
> of the city and God destroyed it.  

Gee, now I'm convinced that this *really* happened.  Just how does a
city have sex with a family?  Got any other good fairytales?

> There were no instances in the bible
> in which Jews went out of their way to kill or molest homosexuals.  

Thanks for clearing that up.  I didn't say there were, it was your
sloppy expanation at biblical history (Something you are quite good at
I might add.) that implied it. (You can read it again if you like at
the top of this post.)

> That
> is what I said.  In your defensiveness you lend yourself to ignorance
> and fear.

You've mistaken ridicule for defensiveness.  Ooo, but that makes you a
martyr.  Hail, jesus.

Oh, and to clear up that fear thing, yes I do fear where your
conclusions are leading.

> 
> 			J. Wagner
> P.S. Do you have a problem with my name?

No, your name appears as john peter on your post.  I don't usually
call people by their last name, but if that's what you'd like I don't
have a problem with it, J. Wagner.  (Talk about defensive.)

Jim
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5358 talk.politics.misc:45381 alt.rush-limbaugh:4794 alt.politics.bush:5077
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: SC flamefest
Date: 14 Sep 1992 21:49:58 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

<much flaming and counter flaming deleted fro the sake of others>

> I didn't grow up with them, but then again some of my best friends are
> rednecks. ;^)

> I am sorry you feel this way.  Sounds like you need to get some professional
> help to get rid of these feelings of hostility.
 
Sounds like you need to go home and have your mother reteach you some manners.
If I sound hostile, it is because the irresponsible voting of this
portion of the electorate does affect the rest of our lives.

> BTW, what does the condition of the local economy have to do with the
> inhabitants political views.  Does this include whether the local economies
> are improving or not.

It doesn't seem to matter one way or another. Their "issues" have nothing to do
with how they live, but how and what they think.

> It is possible that the locals might like the way they live.

Oh, I suppose you would like not being able to put food on the table,
not having any health care, losing your farm/job.... Sounds like big
fun to me. These people aren't stupid. It confounds me how much crap they are
willing to take to keep there in-bred societal biases and views intact.

> Small town
> life does have some advantages.  Anyone who doesn't like it is free to
> leave.  

It does have it's advantages. However, enlightenment on the issues is not
one of them. You get biases, bigotry, and narow-minded doctrine spewed at
you for the entire time you live there. I repeat, go to one of
these towns and listen.

> You did.

And despite that fact, their influence continues to follow me through their
naive, irresponsible, sheep-like natures.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Mark, I suggest that unless you like this flame war, we end it here.
This group should be for polite debate and dissemanation of information.

Norman (for the anti-intellectuals)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5045 talk.politics.misc:45017 alt.rush-limbaugh:4641
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Date: 12 Sep 92 04:00:43 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>Please explain the duplicity in explanations which you claim Bush has
>used to describe why he signed the tax increase.  If you are saying that
>the fact that he did it even though he had said he wouldn't is equivalent
>to the draft dodging issue then I submit that you are wrong.  One is a
>personal decision and the other involves the common good (bad in this case).
>
>Mike Best
No, that's no what I'm saying. Right after he signed the increase, he
made a statement concerning the need for more revenue, etc, etc.
There was a detailed posting of exact quotes to this effect on another
group. Now he's saying the democrats forced him into it, etc, etc.
Both cannot be true statements. The same thing happened in 1988 when
he denied calling Reagan's policies "voodoo economics", until someone
pulled up a video of him saying it. But beyond even this stuff,
I have a REAL problem with this. Does anyone believe that when Bush
was head of the CIA he didn't know about Norreiga's drug dealings?
Considering the damage done by drugs, "national security" can never
be used as excuse to deal with or ignore stuff like this.

Yea, Olie is a big hero, right? I'm sure the folks down in
Nicaragua would love to have him come down so they can say
thanks for everything.

As for you logic on calling Hill a liar, it is simply not there.
In my office we had a sexual harrasment case in which the person
being harrassed was too scared to say anything about the person
doing it because he was her boss and ran right over people. However,
he got caught red-handed by someone who saw him come up and
fondle her when he didn't know they were watching. The girl was
lucky she had a witness or she would be gone and not him.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5004 talk.politics.misc:44934 alt.politics.bush:4790
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
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 23:22:17 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <cummings.716240047@milton>, cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings) writes:
|> 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?  
|> 
|> 	Since when is Arnold Schwarzenegger a Democrat, much less a
|> Democratic VP Candidate?  I would think being married to him should cancel
|> things out :-).
|> 
Whoops.  My apologies.  Sister of a Democratic Candidate.
|> -- 
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5638 tx.politics:5291 alt.politics.bush:5307
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Poverty
Date: 16 Sep 1992 03:49:08 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <FOX.92Sep15155653@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>   In article <1992Sep10.210606.21998@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>   "
>   "These poor Americans live in homes which are on average 150%
>   "the size of the average Japanese worker -- think about that.
>
>It boggles the mind.

Gosh. I imagine that the average Japanese worker is about 1.8 meters
tall (or so), and about a meter on a side (give or take a half meter).

So these poor Americans live in households (1.5)*(1.8m*1m*1m) in volume,
or about 2.7 cubic meters!

:-) :-) :-) for the humor impaired.

But seriously, folks, isn't this a fairly pointless statistic? After
all, dwelling size is not a perfect indicator of social or economic
well-being.  Sharing an efficiency apartment in a clean,
well-maintained, low-crime area might be considered infinitely
preferable to a spacious, run down house on the edge of huge urban
sprawl with high crime and poor public transportation.

No, the average Japanese worker may not enjoy these benefits, nor is
every American in poverty lucky enough to have a roof over their
heads. Quality of life is not necessarily determined by the size of
your bedroom.

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
# at all. There's been a terrible mistake.                                  #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human
From: mbrinker@mizar.usc.edu (Michael Brinker)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Clinton and Trilaterism??? Who knows?
Followup-To: mbrinker@mizar.usc.edu
Date: 10 Sep 1992 10:30:35 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu
Summary: Looking for Clinton's position on the Trilateral Commission

  Does ANYONE know what Clinton / Gore 's position is on the Trilateral
Commission?  Is he a member of the Trilateral Commission?
  From the tone of his speech to the World Affairs Council it sounds like
he supports a "New World Order" with one world government and centralized
world "justice".  His views seem to be right in line with those of the
Trilateral Commision (world government and "The New World order" are great
ideas and are neccessary, EXCEPT when a handful of International Bankers
are the ones creating the design to bring them personal prosperity!)

  The staff at Clinton's L.A. HQ had not even heard about a group called
the Trilateral Commission (no political education required to work there I
guess) and his US HQ in the Issues dept. they said they had received a lot
of questions about his affiliation, but "would have to get back to me..."
Others have sent me speech text and position papers on foreign policy, all of
which has no information pertaining to the TC...
  
  When Congressmen, governers and even presidential candidates (Pat Robertson)
are warning the U.S. People about the devistating impact this group has and
will have on U.S. government, I think it should be an issue!
 
  I would like to vote for Clinton, but I do NOT want another house cabinet
filled with elite lawyers and international bankers who are ALL members of the
Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission...  It would be nice
to get a President who will stand by the people of this country, instead of
exploit them for the prosperity of International Bankers...
 
  So, If 'ya have any information on Clinton's affiliation (Already know Bush
is a TC Member for life...) with the Trilateral Commission, I would
appreciate it if you could drop me an E-Mail.  Thanks.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:06:46 GMT

In <1992Sep14.170104.6283@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.131935.5875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <21510@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>It's based on what happens when you raise tax rates on the upper class
>>>and other such tricks that Clinton is proposing.  If my tax rates go up,
>>>I will be investing every spare dollar in the nearest tax-sheltered
>>>investment I can find.  Millions of other upper-class taxpayers are
>>>going to be doing the same exact thing.  That will reduce tax revenue,
>>>not raise it.
>>
>>Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, you will find that one of
>>the better things to do with your money is to invest in long-term
>>investments,

>Haugh didn't write "long-term", he wrote "tax-sheltered".  Haugh
>currently makes long-term investments because they pay off.  He'll
>change to tax-sheltered for the same reason.

Pardon me, but where did I say that he DID write 'long term'?  Also,
please explain to me how it is suddenly better, because of a 2%
increase in tax rate, to shift from a long term investment, which
would then be receiving a tax cut of more than 2%, to a tax shelter?

>>due to the targeted capital gains tax in the Clinton plan

>Right.  We've tried that.  It was the pre-1980 policy.  It didn't work
>as promised.  It was a subsidy program for various political
>interests.

Then we just need to make sure that it doesn't become that, don't we?
Seems to me that it all depends on what the criteria are to get on the
'target' list.  I don't think we've done what is being proposed
before, even if something was called a 'targetted capital gains cut'
before. 

>We're going to bring back the buggy-whip industry.

Cute comment, but I'm afraid the relevence simply doesn't exist.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4324 tx.politics:4901 alt.politics.bush:4321
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 8 Sep 1992 04:16:56 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <KeiDr*tX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <186sbjINN10f@agate.berkeley.edu>, Andrew J. Lazarus writes:

>> Bush could have either (1) kept the Democratic spending
>> and said "but we don't even need new taxes to pay for it" OR (2)
>> kept to his no-new-taxes promise, and SAID WHAT SPENDING HE WANTED CUT.

>1.  No, he couldn't.  You see, he worries about how the bond market will react to
>these things.  You don't care about the bond market?  You should, that is where
>the debt is financed!

In other words, without a tax increase we could not afford the spending
programs which both Bush AND Congress wanted so the "bond market" would
have been unhappy.

>2.  Foley and Co. held his programs hostage in order to get him to break the
>tax promise.  This was their goal since Dukakis lost the election.  In 1990,
>they finally succeeded.

NAME THESE PROGRAMS. What do you think they were -- the National Potato
Chip Week resolution? They were the budget programs!

Congress wanted Bush to find some way to pay for THESE PROGRAMS. They
held up the budget until there wassome compromise between cutting
programs and raising taxes.

Bush's programs were held hostage because he hadn't indicated how to pay
for them. It's just like Bush vs Clinton on job training. Clinton says
he'll pay for it out of a payroll tax. OK, maybe that's a bad idea. 
(Actually, it sounds OK to me.... )But
how about Bush? He promises his own training program -- and doesn't say
one damn thing about where the money will come from. Contributions from
space aliens?

I repeat again. It is now 1990 over again. Tell us what you and Bush
will do differently. Be specific. Do not say "I won't raise taxes." Tell
us the cuts you will make instead. Tell us how you will finance your
prorams.

Enjoy your free lunch.
 andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Patriotism (was Re: alt.politics.clinton)
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:22:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.050832.16980@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.033301.7789@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep8.190043.7426@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep8.000005.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:
...
>>	Well, to be fair, this guy just did get out of the Marines.
>>While the USM may be the sharpest spearpoint in the world, they don't
>>train their men in critical political thought, and I don't blame
>>them.  Also, there's a certain high, I'm sure, to being in combat,
>>doing the job, and getting out safe.  A couple of guys I knew who were
>>in the Marines definitely did some thought recalibration when they got
>>out, but it took a few years.  All said, I've still got to give the
>>D.S. troops credit for a sharp job.  Too bad they were reined back.
>
>	What? You would send him to his death so you could carry
>the head of Saddam Hussein, alienate the political world and
>give his seocnd-in-command the post of leader? You sound just
>like the John F. Kennedy that got us into the Vietnam War.
>
	I simply mean that if you are going to commit troops to an
action, make sure you know why and what you're after.  Then get out of
the way, and let the troops do the job they do so well.  Death is an
occupational hazard of soldiering.  

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Bush & Truman
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:05:06 GMT
X-Comment: Someone remind me to flame the creator of rn one of these days for the long attribution lines it uses.
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
: > ballard@panther.adelphi.edu (Terry Ballard) writes:

: >>    1.  Truman was a genuine and likeable human being.  He did not
: >
: >	People hated Truman.
: 
: I guess that's how he got re-elected.  

He was _barely_ re-elected.  Anyone remember the famous headline, "Dewey
Defeats Truman" ?

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"C'mon boys, don't bother me.
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 I'm debating Danny Quayle.
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 The boy's retarded."
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Sen. Birch Bayh
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

Marrou/Lord in '92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: SC flamefest
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:35:44 GMT

In article <1955@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep14.214958.696@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> ->> I didn't grow up with them, but then again some of my best friends are
> ->> rednecks. ;^)
> ->
> ->> I am sorry you feel this way.  Sounds like you need to get some professional
> ->> help to get rid of these feelings of hostility.
> -> 
> ->Sounds like you need to go home and have your mother reteach you some manners.
> ->If I sound hostile, it is because the irresponsible voting of this
> ->portion of the electorate does affect the rest of our lives.
> 
>  Dr. Norman, you say that you visit a library to do your own research.
> I visit UCLA's academic libraries quite often. Could you kindly tell us
> what libraries you visit and what scientific or periodical journals you
> read. Most of my research dosent involve politics. However, I am starting
> to ponder which periodicals concerning political affairs might be infor-
> mative and interesting.
>  I am serious. Thanks for any advice you can give us.
> 
>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
> 
> 

Hi Steve,

I find the Congressional Record to be useful since it is almost completely
unbiased. It is very useful in getting a handle on some issues, voting
records, floor speeches, etc.

As for others, it depends on the issue. The almanac is good for getting some
statistical data. The reports of the GAO should be taken with a grain of salt,
but can usually give you some statistics. Most committee reports and studies,
both government and independent can be found in good libraries. Medical,
scientific, economic, and technical journals and magazines can be very useful
if you make
sure you read both the articles and the rebuttals, and if you make sure that
you read a variety of articles to cover the sides of a given issue.
I have found calling my
representative's office to be useful if you are requesting a particular
number or statistic. I think CSPAN is excellent if you can bring yourself
to sit through it.

I suggest that you pick three to five issues, depending on the amount of
free time you have, that are of concern to you and research them first.
By using a wide variety of sources, you can usually cut through the
political rhetoric, biases, and misinformation and get at the heart of an
issue.

Norman (for the anti-intellectuals)]

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
concentrate on them first.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality