HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:20:00 GMT

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

>True, but misleading; that's also a description of the typical NON-abuser,
>since it describes the typical "Joe Average". The only statistics I've
>seen that address the subject indicate that homosexual men molest children
>in about the same proportion that heterosexual men do; i.e., it doesn't
>seem to be related to sexual orientation. 
>
>I might suggest, however, that certain homosexual groups (i.e., NAMBLA)
>have a reputation that far exceeds their numbers. 

Is NAMBLA a homosexual group?  You said "groups" (plural).  What are
others?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10102 talk.politics.misc:51410 alt.politics.bush:8920
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 1992 17:42:12 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct12.111941.13258@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>Have you bothered to include the number of people who purchased houses
>many years ago and today are unable to sell them because they would get
>socked with taxes? Nah, thought not.

Given the roll-over provision of the tax law AND the once-in-a-lifetime
exclusion for the elderly, I don't know a single one. How many do you
know? How many are there (cite please).

>> Since 1980, the United States has been transformed from the world's
>> largest creditor to the world's largest debtor.

>This implies a change of status, which is false. The U.S. is still the
>world's largest creditor nation.

Gross vs net. We are now net debtors, we used to be net creditors.

>> RHETORIC: On taxes. George "Read My Lips" Bush gave us the second
>> biggest tax increase in American history. 

>I must have missed it when the democratically-controlled Congress assumed
>blameless status? Did the original 1990 budget that Bush submitted have a
>tax increase in it? Or, was the tax increase added by Congress?

Bush's original budget had an even LARGER deficit and had to be revised
because it furthermore had absurdly optimistic revenue projection.
Howver, Bush's 1993 budget AS SUBMITTED had several tax and fee
increases.

>> In January of this year,
>> Bush proposed a tax exemption of $500 per child but he reneged on his
>> proposal one month later. 

>A $500 exemption per child is really useless.

Not to us. (My share of the Reagan tax cut you are so ecstatic about was
less than $8.) Anyway, if it's useless, why did Bush propose it?

>> RHETORIC: In his Midsession Review, George Bush named selected options
>> that would cut $2 billion in child support enforcement funds.

>Is it the responsibility of the federal government to enforce locally
>awarded child support payments?

A major problem is with parents leaving the jurisdiction. That's just
what the federal government was supposed to be about....

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: vjrao@owlnet.rice.edu (Vinay Julapalli Rao)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:49:44 GMT

In article <1bk6bvINN20u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>
>Issues ! he doesn't have any yet, Im gonna fix-it !! Stay tuned !! 
>More Later !!
>He's just a cheap 1950's ad-man with a big wallet.
>He is hiding, just admit it, why doesn't he give his book out if it 
>is to help the American People ? It's not like he can't afford it.
>I have passed out over two-thousand copies of the Clinton Plan "FREE".
>
>
>-- 
>Timothy B. Reynolds
>CLINTON/GORE
>Election Campaign '92
>Houston, Tx 

Is the Clinton Plan really "free"?  The money to print the plan has to
be coming from somewhere.
-- 
*************************************************
Vinay Julapalli Rao         vjrao@owlnet.rice.edu
*************************************************
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Thu,  8 Oct 1992 00:24:13 -0400 
From: Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Make WAR not LOVE

That should solve the overpopulation y'all seem to be so worried about. 
What's Clinton's e-mail address?  I think I'll send this to him.  Maybe
he can discuss in light of Vietnam and Gennifer Flowers
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10002 alt.politics.perot:2028 alt.politics.bush:8832 alt.politics.marrou:1579 alt.politics.elections:16388
From: joe@sol.asl.hitachi.com (Joseph Augenbraun)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:08:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hitachi ASL
Originator: joe@sol


It's interesting that the consensus here is that Bush was the big loser in
the debates.  Perhaps it is a measure of how low my opinion of him has
fallen, but I considered his performance in the debate to be much better
than I expected.  He showed that he was much more in touch with the issues
than I had previously thought he was, and he defended many of his
controversial decisions quite well.  He didn't win me over by any means,
but he changed my very negative opinion of him to a far less negative
one.

Clinton had the opposite effect on me.  I was leaning slightly towards
Clinton, but his performance in the debate reminded me of why I didn't like
him in the first place.  He was terribly insincere, and was just trying
to say whatever was necessary to be politically correct.  Particularly
interesting was the point at which he and Perot answered one of the
questions the same way -- that after elected that he would set up a
commision to figure out what to do.  When Perot said it, he made you
believe that he was trying to find a way to expedite solving large numbers
of problems in the shortest time.  When Clinton said it, I felt like he
was trying to make it look like he had a solution when in fact he had
nothing substantial to offer.  Clinton looks to me like a good politician,
but a bad leader.

Perot stole the show.  Unfortunately, I think Perot would be excessively
harsh and insensitive as president.  And the man has shown a severe lack
of tact and judgement, which could be very dangerous for foreign policy.

So, maybe we could draft Tsongas :-)


-----
Disclaimer:  These are my opinions only, and do not reflect policy or
		opinions of Hitachi America in any way.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:52:34 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Of course he gets 100 times the services.  First, he has much of his income
>in tax-free government debt (who do you think we owe all that money to).
>Thus the government provides him with major tax shelters.

That's a service?  I pay taxes so that the government will provide me with
tax shelters?  I thought I paid taxes for defense, police protection,
schools, and things like that.

>Third, he employs more than 100 times as many people as Bush and
>owns more than 100 times the property, so his use of services is probably
>much more than the 100 times difference you question.

I was not aware that Perot's employees were not required to pay income taxes
on their salary.  Or do they work for free?  Otherwise, what do their use
of services have to do with Perot?

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10367 alt.politics.bush:9114 alt.politics.elections:16725
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 14 Oct 1992 14:09:17 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct14.033109.1691@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
...
>
>I believe that this trip, to the capital of the enemy, during a war,
>while part of a group protesting the war, needs to be fully explained.
>-- 
>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! - -


John, you seem to be an intelligent person. It would seem to me that you
should be able to remember things that George Bush has done that casts some
doubt on his veracity and moral character. Can yoy?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:12:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.184202.25368@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>From article <1992Oct12.135851.4597@ms.uky.edu>, by fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis):
>> Pardon. What difference does it make? Are you supposed to have one set of
>> beliefs at home and different ones abroad? If you think soldiers
>> are dying needlessly and your voice might spare them, are you supposed
>> to check the map before speaking out? I've never understood that.
>> Sorry. 
>
>Did he participate in any demonstrations in the US?  If not, its somewhat
>like smiling to someones face, but talking behind their back.  
>
>'I'll do my demonstrating over hear in England where no one will see, and it 
>won't damage my political viabiltity.'
>
>SEH

  No son, you don't do your "demonstrating" where no one will see. You do
things like masturbating where no one will see.   *-)
  
  Frankly, I don't understand it either why one can not demonstrate in 
England when in England. Do you suggest that to be correct one has to 
come back to US to demonstrate here first then go there to demonstrate ?
Well, at least you are a little less rigid than the Bush campaign's 
understanding of the consititution. Thanks for giving us that revised 
freedom of speech . I hope you don't too much more of Bush's idea later.
 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:14:08 GMT
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu



   The debate was OK, but it was really evident that the format sucked, no one
could follow-up anything, nor good they answer any charges made by anyone.
This of course set up the perfect stage for Perot's usual wit but no substance
performance.  But of course, this was perfect food for the ignorant voters
out there.  Thursday' single moderator debate will show Ross's true colors,
he'll get his ass kicked.  I think Clinton did OK, but he seemed a bit stiff
especially if people had to compare him with Perot.   This ego trip campaign
of Perot's is really a pain in the ass. He originally decided to get out
because he couldn't win, he couldn't take the heat, and he was "disruptive
to the process".  Those same facts exist today, except this time he's screwing
up Clinton's campaign.  Imagine last nights debate without Perot, Clinton
would have put the last nail in the coffin of Bush and he would have
solidified his voters support.  Thank god, it looks like from the preliminary
numbers that Clinton didn't lose anything, but didn't solidify like he
could have without Perot in the picture.  The single moderator format
on Thursday will be the most favorable to Clinton, he's the only candidate
that has an indepth understanding of an economic plan and how government
works. In addition he's the best in spontaneous discussions, and he'll
come across more relaxed than he did in last night's debate.  Speaking of which,
I don't think he should have taken the advice of the people that told him
to appear calm and talk slowly without spouting of tons figures, personally 
I think he's at his best and most effective, and most natural when he talks 
fast and spouts figures left and right...it would have been a perfect antidote
to Perot.  I think we'll definatly see that in Thursday's debate, and coupled
with the holes the will be blown in Perot's texas talk, he should be
the hands down winner on Thursday. At least I hope anyway. 

-Chris


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:17:11 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <Bw6CCx.1uG@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
|> 
|>     You are comparing apples and oranges: 80+% of all taxpayers pay more in 
|>     SS taxes than they pay in federal income tax, and that figure does not 
|>     even include the payroll tax that their employers have to pay.
|> 

While I'm no defender of SS, you must realize that SS is meant to act as
a form of retirement 'savings'.  For the most part, the more you pay in,
the more you get when you retire (assuming the system is still functioning).
A person making $1,000,000 for much of his productive life will receive
no more than the person making $50,000.  When discussing tax 'fairness',
tax 'burden', deficits, spending, etc. you really need to separate
FICA/SS from the rest of the budget.

|>     Using your own numbers: the bottom 90% of the population pays $250B 
|>     in income taxes, and close to $400B in "Social Insurance" taxes.  But, 
|>     hey, don't we have the lowest income tax rates in the world because
|>     of that?
|> 

And as a percentage of their income, they will also receive the bulk
of any SS payouts.  If we raised taxes on the 'rich' but didn't raise
the level of benefits received by the 'rich' when they retire, we
would simply accelerate SS slide towards a general welfare program.

Instead of arguing about who pays what towards SS, and how much
SS spending has increased, we should be looking a solid ways to
get rid of the thing.  Imagine how nice it would be if you were
allowed to save 15% of your income in a retirement fund which *you*
owned and which couldn't be taken away by the government in the
future.  At the same time, the government wouldn't be building up
trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities needed to pay you
when you retire.  We need to continue to provide benefits to
current retirees and reduce the promised benefits to people who
have yet to retire.  The further you are away from retirement, the
less you will receive when you do retire.  At some age, your
benefit drops to zero.  People will still have to pay a FICA
phase-out tax, but that should be less that what people currently
pay.  The rest would go into personal retirement plans owned
by the individual, not the government.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10748 alt.politics.bush:9366
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Magic Johnson (Was Re: Debates)
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:30:32 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

In article <1992Oct14.031444.26715@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

|> You believe NPR?? Radio Socialiste National, National Proletariat Radio??
|> Geez, I'd believe anybody before believing NPR.

Since NPR interviews people who present a very wide variety of opinions
and broadcasts segments prepared by people of multiple political positions,
it is definitely not a matter of "believing".  It is a matter of being well
informed.  I have heard such "socialists" as George Will, William Safire,
and Linda Chavez on NPR.  I assume you won't "believe" them because
they were on NPR. 

NPR is, in my opinion, the best radio you can find on your dial today when
it comes to news and information.  I have a high degree of respect for people 
who listen to NPR because I know that they are well informed and interested
in what is going on in this country  and in the world.  You can even listen to 
the BBC and the CBC on NPR stations.  But you probably would call these
world renowned stations Radio Communist or something like that.

You probably "believe" Rush Limbaugh instead, right?

    Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       | 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10949 alt.politics.bush:9468 alt.politics.perot:2270
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Shrub wins! Shrub wins! -- Harry Caray
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:24:34 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1bmgruINN8jp@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.235249.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     H-O-L-Y C-O-W!  Shrub wins!  Shrub wins!  (O.K., I'll stop
>>the Harry Caray imitation.)
>>     It was pretty close in the C-SPAN post-debate viewer call-in;
>>by my tally it was 18 pro-Bush, 14 pro-Clinton, and 6 pro-Perot
>>(with a bunch of nebulous calls -- your tally may differ).  It
>>didn't seem like too many viewers changed their vote based on
>>the debate.
> 
> I guess we weren't watching the same debate (possibly a different
> country?) A poll of a group of undecided voters by a major network
> (the one with Peter Jennings) just after the debate indicated about
> 30% decided to vote for Clinton, 17% decided to vote for Bush, and
> about 6% decided to vote for Perot. 

     I guess only "rich Republicans" watched the debate on C-SPAN.
The economy is so bad that only rich Republicans (and some
looters in south-central LA) even own television sets.   :-)

>>     Now, let me give my views.  First, it was hard for me to
>>maintain a high level of interest toward the end of the debate.
> 
> yeah, you're right, there just wasn't enough entertainment...
> all that boring talk about the issues, it was *really* tough
> listening to how they were going to improve the state of the
> United States. I mean, who could possibly be interested in the
> issue and the future...

     Did you learn anything new from this debate?  I did not.
I guess if one has had one's head buried in the sand for the
past couple of months, one would have been impressed with
the discussion of issues.

     C. Perttunen
From: PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (Peter Laws)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: National Debt
Date: 8 Oct 1992 13:22:09 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Geez, Joe telnet to 128.52.46.11 1992 for a reasonably accurate, up-to-the
-minute total.

You really didn't know the debt was 4*10^12 and growing 'till you read
Pee-roe's book?

Peter Laws              |"The '90s are gonna make the '60s|   pcl@engr.uark.edu
n5uwy@ka5bml.ar.usa.noam| look like the '50s"--D. Hopper  |plaws@uafsysb.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: test2
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:26:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.221024.24085@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>this is another test.
>
>Norman
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company

Norman, it works.  I said, Norman, IT WORKS.

NORMAN ... NORMAN ... IT WORKS! 

Stop him before he posts again!!  :)


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10153 tx.politics:6024 austin.politics:203 austin.talk:256 austin.general:3197
From: rrt@mpd.tandem.com (Robert Teisberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:24:24 GMT
Reply-To: rrt@amadeus.UUCP (Robert Teisberg)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <qStPr*S41@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>                                           Wasn't it Jefferson (or was it
>Houston) that said "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the
>Legislature is in session."

I believe it was Mark Twain.

-- 
Bob Teisberg @ Tandem Computers, Inc. | rrt@mpd.tandem.com
14231 Tandem Blvd.                    | (512) 244-8119
Austin, Texas  78728                  |
Jimmy and I have a deal.  Jimmy doesn't hack code; I don't speak for Tandem.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10491 alt.politics.elections:16848 talk.politics.misc:51840
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:48:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <15OCT199208493270@utkvx1.utk.edu>, drevik@utkvx1.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes...
>In article <1992Oct14.231919.4815@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes...
>>	Just so everyone gets the timeline correct:
>> 
>>	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
>>it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can point
>>to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that was
>>only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did not" vote
>>for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.
> 
> 
>This kind of finger-pointing is the thing that ticks me off the most
>about Congressional politics.  YES, he DID vote for it.  But you and
>Quayle neglect to mention that it was part of a larger trade package
>whose benefits ourweighed the downside of the Car. Init.
> 
>A congressional bill is rarely one-sided and is never single-issued.
>It has riders, subsections, etc.  And when it comes time for a vote,
>each Congressman has to outweigh the good vs. bad.  It's called 
>comprimising, something the Bush has not clue of how to do.  If Bush
>could have learned to comprimise, he could have had a successful
>presidency and might keep his job.  But by vetoing 35 bills and
>crying his eyes out for a line-item veto, he put us all in this
>terrible situation.

"No compromise" I agree. It's active COLLUSION. Evidence -- $4 Trillion
dollars of federal debt. And a $1.5 Trillion dollar FY'93 Federal
budget passed last week with no spending cuts and no borrowing cuts.
And nil media coverage.

It takes methodical and active cooperation to scam that much money
out of 100 million people. The democrats and republicans are guilty as sin.

-- Stephen Tice   Arlington Texas   10-15-92 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9730 alt.politics.bush:8643 talk.politics.misc:50928 alt.sex:32676 sci.skeptic:17789