HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton dyes his hair
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:49:43
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Oct17.024014.27164@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com's message of Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:40:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct17.024014.27164@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

> Trivia note - Clinton dyes his hair.

You know, back in the Reagan years, some folks went around angrily
charging that Ronald Reagan dyed his hear.  There were news stories
about it, and the White House denied it, and people on both sides
furiously argued and presenting evidence.

You know what?  A few comedians thought it was funny, and a few
hard-core "yellow dog" Democrats thought it proved something, and 90%
of the people didn't give a damn.  You'll have to find a better issue
than hair dye.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: sunder@gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:46:06 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <Bw6Dyu.3zu@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) says:
|> 
|> >ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
|> >votes than George Bush.  Namely:
|> >
|> >	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush
|> >
|> >This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.
|> 
|>    Clearly Mr. Davis has a short memory and does not recall 
|>    what the polls had to say about John Major only days before
|>    this year's election.
|> 
|>    N.B. The above is no defense of the President.   I personally feel
|>    that none of the 3 major contenders have any more qualification
|>    to be President of the United States than the scum that forms
|>    in the bottom of my trash barrel if I accidentally leave it out
|>    overnight in the rain.

Amen.

Since u brought up the Tory victory this year, that might indeed be the GOP's
last best hope. Major, after all, pretty much won on the basis of the fact that
people knew that Labour couldn't do a decent job of the economy even if they had
a "How-To" book for it. Major's campaign also  focussed, like Bush's on attacking
the Labour party's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy by a fairly large %-age.
I guess there weren't that many personal attacks though (Major did get pelted by 
an orange once, which he smartly threw back, decent cricketeer that he is).

The polls were showed up as so much nonsense by the results -- even the
exit polls were off by about 30 seats on the seat tallies. It was a case of 
people either changing their minds in the poll booth or lying to pollsters 
simply because they didn't WANT to tell anyone that they were voting Tory. 
Given that Bush's negatives are at levels even worse than he deserves, maybe 
the same thing is happening here. And then maybe he really is disliked that much.



|> ---peter
|> 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Date: 7 Oct 1992 16:33:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   You didn't see any fixes because that will come in part II this Friday. To
fix a problem you must first understand it. Perot took an entire half hour to
show you all the problems. Think about that for a second. As to your remark
about it being "nothing new". Yes, the problems have always been there. The
problem is that our two candidates won't even pay lip service to them. Why?
Because they want to get elected and will say (or won't say) anything it takes
to do that. Perot is willing to bet the American people are sick of being told
what political people think they want to hear. He understands that a problem
can not be fixed if it is denied. If the people decide to deny our problems
then we are not ready to fix them yet. Maybe it will take another four years of
blood sucking before we realize we aren't being shown reality?
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: No on 9
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:46:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.190021.1501@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >It is impossible to be a 100% free man while living in a
    >society. Even if the sole purpose of govt is just the
    >protection of individual rights, that costs money, and
    >whether people will voluntarily support the justice system is
    >not assured by any means. If the system is not voluntarily
    >supported, society has the power (and a power is a legal
    >right) to levee taxes.
    >
    >So property rights are not absolute. The way to protect
    >property rights is not to claim their absoluteness (which
    >cannot be proven) but to show their utility to society at
    >large.

A woman has the right to NOT be raped. (This is a corrally of FOA
and of course, something I hold as an absolute).

Yet, every day, women are raped.

Because the right of a women to NOT be raped is violated, do you
then claim a woman has no right to not be raped?


In the same way, my property rights are absolute (my body, my mind and
ideas, my tangible property).

Yet, every day, they are violated (taxes and such).

Yet the right is no less strong.

    >The same is true of the Freedom of Association, or any other
    >right. Society has the power to circumscribe this right, as
    >it is currently doing. The way to defend it is to show how
    >necessary this right is in everyday life, and how it works
    >best if it is NOT circumscribed.

So therfore, by your logic, women do NOT have the right to NOT be raped.
After all, many societies accept the UTILTIY of slavery, and the
slave women thus, as property, could be raped by the owners. And it
was all just and O.K. by that society.

Sorry, I don't have to show anything or to prove to anybody that my
life is my own -- not to Caeasar, the Pope, the Kind, Stalin, Lenin,
Mao, Pol Pot, or Willie Brown.

    >Btw, in a previous article, you claimed that the Freedom of
    >Association is the most basic right of humans. Now you claim
    >that it is property. Which is it?

You have the right to your property, body (life), mind (ideas),
and tangibles (physical property to you). To have that right, you
must have the condition know as FOA. Any coercion to any of your
property (body, mind, tangibles) results in immediate loss of FOA.

Perhaps I should say: FOA is the first and basic derivative of the
moral premise that man has a right to his body, mind, and tangibles.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: So what is the Down Side?
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:17:31 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1992Oct14.231028.20375@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Bob, I am routing this downwards to talk.politcs.misc
>as being a 'safe haven' to discuss generic political
>notions of substance.
>
>bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>] In article <1992Oct14.001442.14752@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>
>I presume that your 'general' point is that it is
>prudent to have a 'loyal opposition' that can
>provide an effective means of protecting the
>'minority rights' from being trampled upon by
>a rush of "Well the Majority of US are in Favor of it..."
>

It is prudent to have a loyal opposition which has some hope
of preventing ill conceived "agendaish" legislation, yes.

>And hence that a creative opposition of forces is
>useful in the distribution of power?
>
>I would putforward the argument: 12 years has been enough.
>

If Congress weren't controlled by the same party as
the (likely) next President, I might agree with you.

>
>1. Things will get better and a Miracle will have happened.
>

More likely aliens will land and give us the true secret
of cold fusion in a washbucket. 

>2. Things will go the way of Democrat Dominated Legislatures,
>{as is the ugly history of Hawaiian State Politics.} and there
>will be a more reasoned approach to presenting a Valid GOP
>candidate who is NOT married to the 'Relgious Right Loonie Fringe'
>and can restore the GOP to its Patriotic, American 
>Traditional Family Values. {and then rescue the economy.}
>

I agree with you that the "loone fringe" needs to lose control
of *both* parties. I suspect choice three will be more like:

3. Citing the overwhelming "peoples mandate", BC & the Congressional 
leadership ram through a lot of very controversial and
some just plain ill conceived legislation as rapidly as possible 
(just about anything & everything in their party platform at a guess).
These laws, while generally acknowledged as nasty, can't be overturned
even when/if it throws the next election to the opposition (legislative
inertia seems to be a fact of life these days). Possible result: we're all
stuck with a herd of onerous laws with which to comply (or not). The deficit
grows at an even more alarming rate & the interest payment rapidly exceeds
the Income tax revenues. The new hundred thousand man National Police
Force begins "no knock" searches in earnest for "contraband" and to
further the "War on Drugs". Admittedly, "no knock" searches may be
the order of the day no matter who wins, but BC has promised the
100K NPF and they'll have to do *something* to look productive.
General downward spiral continues.......
-- 
==========================================================================
              Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's

        "If it's in the paper it must be true!" --- D. Doright 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Debate 2:  "Would you define in specific dollar goals how much..."
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:19:49 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio

From article <ldtu7dINNar1@spim.mti.sgi.com>, by mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen):
> Stephen Tice) writes:
> 
> You will note that Stephen gets real excited over Clintons "no" answer
> but ignores Perot's non-responsive answer and Bush's ducking the question
> altogether.

Were you watching the same debate as I was?  First of all, Perot has
pledged to serve just one term so the pledge to leave office  is rather 
moot. Second, Perot specifically said that he had agreed to the terms 
of the "Lead or Leave" movement which is much more than either the 
other two candidates have done in this area (although once again it's 
rather moot given his one term pledge).

Why do you consider that "unresponsive?"

And, yes, Bush definately ducked the question completely.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:00:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.194614.7472@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>There is no way LOGICALLY to grant personhood status to a non-viable fetus.
>>Any way you do it, it steps on some other person's rights.
>>
>>Jennifer
>
>Whether the fetus is viable or non-viable is not the question.  The question,
>bottom line, comes down to a fetus has a right to life since it's stated
>in the Bill of Rights that this right to life exists.  The corrolary to 
>that is whether the fetus should be allowed to develope with the basis being
>this right to life or do we ignore the inenvitable result - that of human
>being
>

I'm sure others have already asked, or will ask, you this:  WHERE in the
Constitution--anywhere--does it even mention a fetus?  You say that "a fetus
has a right to life since it's stated in the Bill of Rights".  Okay, WHERE?
Please educate me on this.  Have they changed the Constitution lately?
Unless they have changed it recently, only born persons are mentioned in
the Constitution.  Is YOUR definition of a fetus mean born?


>Spike Burkhardt

Jennifer
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50901 ca.politics:8620 ba.politics:6036
From: pkz0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER K. ZEITLER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: FAQ? Clinton campaign internet address?
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:03:43 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

Sorry if this is a FAQ...

What is the Internet address of the Clinton campaign? I saw a wire-service
article this morning discussing the campaign's use of email, but the address
wasn't listed.

Thanks--please reply directly to me.

Peter Zeitler (pkz0@lehigh.edu)
Lehigh University
-- 

Peter K. Zeitler
Associate Professor
Earth & Environmental Sciences
31 Williams Drive
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3188 USA
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:45:49 GMT
	<CB.92Oct8110123@tamarack13.timbuk> <8OCT199219514098@utarlg.uta.edu>
Organization: pubs
In-reply-to: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:51:00 GMT

Stephen Tice writes:

   >I can think of quite a few other people who probably took vacations in
   >the years 1965-75: Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, people like that.  I
   >sincerely regret the 50,000 American deaths in Vietnam, especially since
   >these men didn't, and couldn't, accomplish anything through their
   >bravery--the cause never made sense.

   1. So you see no reason to go into Yugoslavia or Somalia militarily now?
      And are there no parallels? 

Well, I don't remember those situations being part of this discussion,
but in fact I do see a reason to intervene in both situations.  There
are some superficial parallels, but in essence, no, I don't think these
are parallel to Vietnam.  *We* decided that the nature of Vietnam's
government had outsized significance as an indication about which side
was winning in the superpower struggle.  There were many other ways to
see it.  As of 1945 it was just a little colony trying to gain
independence from France, and our involvement began with a decision to
help France keep the colony.  How could France's continuing possession
of it affect our interests?  Our meddling had a lot to do with
converting the nationalist movement into a communist movement.

   2. On the personal level of people involved in war, when common folk are
      forced to fight without exemption, can you offer reasons why those-who
      would-lead-this-country should stand apart? If indeed there is valid
      criticism to be made -- should it not be made from within the system.
      (At least so that one knows what there criticizing.)

   I question Bill Clinton's willingness to work within the system, and 
   moreso his ability to lead when he finds himself in a situation he does
   not personally support.

I don't know what you mean by working within the system.  There's
voting; we all voted as much as we could against the war, but the voting
age was 21, so a lot of us couldn't.  Other than voting, the "nice" way
to oppose the war was to demonstrate; the nasty way was to do nutty
things like bombing labs.  Clinton took the nice route, as just about
everyone did.  As to his fitness to lead, well, I don't see that it's
related.  He opposed the war; that's all there is to it.  Why would it
be honorable to fight for a cause that you consider not just bad policy
but morally wrong?  The govt put us all in a moral quandary back then,
and I've never thought of a good resolution of it.  (I took Clinton's
route myself.)

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:51:00 GMT


In article <Oct.8.08.18.57.1992.4961@romulus.rutgers.edu>, 
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) said:

> > Well, certainly God is as entitled to his opinions on the subject
> > as is the next guy, but until and unless he comes up with a more
> > rational and compelling argument than "Because I say so" there
> > isn't really any reason I can see to follow his guidelines.
>
> Except, of course, that God's opinions will carry somewhat greater
> weight on Judgement Day than will William D. Starr's.

Yup.  But if "might makes right" is the best that God can come up
with, well, I guess I'm just doomed, because I can't hold in my heart
anything but contempt for that sort of reasoning and those who support
it.  And God, being omniscient, will know what's in my heart no matter
what party-line words I mouth or gestures I make, so why bother
pretending?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:37:53 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

In article <1992Oct13.003125.16298@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
(Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>Clinton wants to raise the tax rate on the "top 2%" *not over $200,000*

This is silly.  Tax tables are based on particular income levels; when you sit
down and compute your tax is there any possible way to fighure out what
percentile you are in?  If your AGI were 48000, fo example, do you really think
you could look up in a table somewhere and find out, with any precision, what
percentile of the population you are in.   Tax law is not written that way.  It
is written with certain marginal rates levied against particular income
brackets.  Clinton is consistently stating that his proposal is for a higher
tax on those making $200,000.  Now, I don't know if he is talking gross income
or AGI.  That makes a big difference.
Perhaps sdomeone in the know will clarify.  And i don't know if that is for
"married filing jointly" or "head of household" or what.

I would be interested in knowing what percentile a $200,000 income places one
in.  If it were, say, 1.6%, then rounding it to 2% in order to avoid sounding
nerdish would make sense.  But I have no idea what the percentile really is.

>(Clinton is not telling the truth on this when he says he won't
>raise taxes on those making less than 200,000 - his own plan has
>the following:
>Increase rates on top 2%,      
>         raise AMT, surtax on      
>         millionaires              17.8     20.5     21.6     23.0
>
>Remember, when we cut the tax rate on the wealthy in the 1980s, their
>share of taxes increased.  Clinton wants to reverse this virtuous
>cycle of tax reduction and increased welath creation by increasing
>tax rates again. When he does, the rich will hide their taxable wealth
>back in tax shelters and marginally-productive investments, and hide
>their slaries in perqs and benefits, and their share of taxable income
>will fall. Along with it, revenues will fall.

You are conviently ignoring the investment-encouraging aspects of his proposal.
 Instead of those shelters (which by and large have been eliminated from the
tax laws) he is providing substantial tax relief for income from job-producing
investments and long term capital gains.

He is also getting addition revenues by taxing foreign corporations at the same
rate as US corporations.
>
>>This exposes the problem with Clinton's tax proposal.  Clinton
>>doesn't tell us where the rest of the money is coming from.  He
>>tries to say that the only effect will be on people making over
>>$200,000 -- this is manifestly false.
>
>Right on. As Bush said, it's the old "soak the rich" bait and switch.
>"rich" will be redefined as $60,000. 

Wrong on.  As pointed out above, he has provided for additional sources of
income: taxes on foreign corporations.
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:21:43
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com's message of 15 Oct 92 19:55:50 GMT

In article <85143@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> Yet the media continues to treat these issues on equal terms:
> whether Bill Clinton demonstrated against the war 23 years ago and
> whether the Bush administration is willfully engaging in obstruction
> of justice.  Talk about media bias.

I've said this before, repeatedly, but I'll say it again: I do not
believe that this shows a press bias in favor of Bush or against
Clinton.  I believe that journalists take their professionalism
seriously, and that even if the reporters are pro-Bush, that isn't the
explanation for this type of coverage.

There is a bias here, but it is a structural one, not a political one
per se: it involves conventions of writing and reporting.  It involves
politeness (hence reluctance to call a lie a lie), and it involves a
fanatical desire for a mechanical form of balance---a form of balance
that results in issues being treated as equal even when they are
manifestly not.

Unfortunately, this means that it is easy to muddy a situation; if two
people are making opposite claims, the press can be counted on to
report the situation as a "controversy," even if one of the claims is
manifestly true and one is manifestly false.

The solution is less "objectivity," or at least a less mechanical
interpretation of what objectivity means.  Until we get a press that
is willing to take a more active role, manipulating the press will
continue to be as easy as it is today.

--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc