HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Can someone check this out?
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:05:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

From the Congressional Quaterly's Washington Alert 08/21/92 (38/53 items)

1) Bill Clinton endorsed $100B in tax increases passed by Democrats
in Congress this year.
??? Can someone itemize what these taxes were ???

2) From a "Q&A section on taxes." I don't know who the interviewee is.
Q: You say Bill Clinton raised taxes 128 times. The Clinton forces say
this is not true. What's your answer?

A: The source of this fact is the Arkansas Legislative Tax Handbook, an
official status report published by the Arkansas Bureau of Legislative
Research -- an arm of the Democratically-controlled Arkansas legislature.
The rebuttal of this list of tax increases was written by Michael Kinsley
and his research assistant, a Clinton campaign volunteer.

??? Can someone report if the Handbook actually said Clinton raised taxes
128 times ???


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Keywords: Assh*le...
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:36:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.170008.19886@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>
>So you're telling me that I can't get AIDS from my dentist and that any
>infected dentist has a right to continue his practice without notifying
>any patient?  Same goes for surgeons -- do you think that they have
>a right to operate on you without letting you know that they have AIDS?
>
>That attituded is why AIDS is going to be the plague of the 21st century.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. Of course there is a risk of you getting AIDS
from your dentist, or your surgeon, or your bank manager or anyone else.
The point is that the risk of getting AIDS in this fashion is comparable to
(or less than) the risk of being struck by lightning. Now if your dentist had
smallpox, the risk of you catching it from him would be about 50 %...

Of course, every cloud has a silver lining, and it's the paranoid attitude you
demonstrate, along with the common sense exhibited by most people re sexual
practices (whether you like it or not, if you aren't gay or an IV drug abuser,
you have a lot less chance of becoming HIV +ve than you do of dying in a
car wreck...) will ensure that AIDS will NOT become the plague of the 21st
century (in the IDs, at least).

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4293 alt.politics.clinton:4290 alt.politics.elections:12572
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:21:01 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Sep6.045247.5649@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, 
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) said:

> In Clinton you have a man who boasts proudly that he already had as
> a goal becoming President while in his teens, a man who claims to
> have more qualities of leadership than Bush, a man who says he
> firmly believes in his principles, and a man who eloquently wrote of
> how he could not morally justify fighting in the Vietnam war.  If
> all these things are true, wouldn't such a man have thrown himself
> into the forefront of the anti-war movement and demonstrated what a
> great leader he was?...  If Clinton was of presidential stock, he
> would have stayed in the US and worked his way into the leadership
> of the anti-war movement, instead of worrying about future
> 'political viability'.

I don't agree with your reasoning.  Why should Clinton have sacrificed
his chances of making a big difference in the future in favor of
making a small difference in the present?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: gte
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:56:07 GMT

In article <Bu9IKy.Mou@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
> : walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
> : |> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
> 
[...]
RE:Clinton:
> : |> >He will raise taxes.
> : |> 
> : |> I hope so!  I am not looking forward to the gov't going bankrupt.
> : 
> : It is ok if you want more taxes just send them in.  As for me I want to keep
> : my hard earned buck.  I know better than the government how to use it.
> 
> Remember who you are defending, here.  George Bush, the person who wants
> to pass a balanced budget amendment, one of the most unrealistic ideas of
> our time, unless taxes are increased.  I'd love to see our spineless
> President OK the cuts in various programs needed to balance the U.S.
> budget without increasing taxes.  I just don't think it's going to happen.
> 

With Bush, we're going to get growth in entitlments kept to a minimum.
With Clinton, we're going to get lots of growth in in entitlements, taxes
AND the debt.

The only real choice is the Libertarian party: cut gov't, cut taxes,
let people be free -- unless you like getting 50% of your income taken
away in taxes.

Andre Marrou for President.


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
From: tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Libertarianism
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:43:55
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

Okay, okay, okay.  So voting for Marrou (sp?) is the end-all of public
services.  The only problem I have even CONSIDERRING Marrou is that I know
NOTHING about his and/or the Libertarian Party's platforms!  Call it a failure
of the media if you wish.
	I have, however, noticed that a good half of the responses which I read
straight through in this newsgroup have tacked on the end 'Marrou/Lord in '92'
or, 'so avoid the hastle and vote Libertarian'.  Maybe, then, you can give me
a bit of information on the platform of the Libertarians.  Give me a bit of
information, please, more analytical or in-depth than the sound-bite editted-
for-tv crap I can get anywhere else on Bush/Clinton.
	Thanks in advance
		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu

--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4136 talk.politics.misc:43855 alt.politics.clinton:4108 alt.politics.democrats.d:3
From: dm@think.com (dave mankins)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: CLINTON: STATEMENT ON BUSH NIXING DEBATE #!
Date: 5 Sep 1992 00:39:00 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: wingit.think.com

In article <1992Sep4.194642.3183@genome.wi.edu> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>BUSH BACKPEDDLE ON DEBATES A DISSERVICE TO AMERICA

>     George Bush is hiding under the table when
>it's time to put the issues on the table.
>
>     With Labor Day approaching and the President's
>men now rejecting the proposal of the bipartisan
>Commission on Presidential Debates

Bush could always show up four days late, claiming that with all the
wind, he'd confused the debate for a hurricane.
-- 
david mankins (dm@think.com)
			Gregor Samsa awoke one morning to find himself 
			transformed into an enormous software defect.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4663 alt.politics.clinton:4842 alt.politics.elections:12806
From: greenie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: ANOTHER Live Online Conference: US Elections
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:39:46 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

Sorry about the last blunder... I got my wires crossed.  Here's the blurb
on the next conference...

----------------

I'm posting this message for the Conference Hosts;

The IDS World Network will be holding a "live", CB-Simulator chat conference
on the 1992 election and the candidates.  Topics currently being considered
include The Economy, Healthcare, Education, Family Values, Abortion, and
"World Leadership Role".


The *NEXT* discussion will be on Friday, September 11th, from 7:00 PM 
EST to 8:30 PM EST.  The topic will be: "The Economy"

We invite everyone to participate.  CB Chat discussions on the IDS World
Network are completely free.

To reach the IDS World Network, TELNET to ids.net [155.212.1.2].  If you have
an account already, you're all set, although you can apply for one by signing
on with GUEST as a username.

That's September 11th, 7PM EST on the IDS World Network CB Simulator.
telnet ids.net [155.212.1.2]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:08:47 GMT

In article <16862DB86.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <BuKF4I.HFz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
>jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
> 
>...proving that he never read a newspaper before 1981 ;-). The first S&L
>deregulation bill- note that's S&Ls, not banks- was signed by President
>James Earl Carter in 1980. There was no banking deregulation bill. The only
>changes in laws that facilitated the issuing of credit cards were the states
>that repealed their obsolete "usury" laws.
> 

	I've heard this before, and it's a bit misleading. Didn't Reagan
sign another S & L deregulation bill in 1982? Which one do you think is
more responsible for the S & L's failure?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Family Leave (was Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:02:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.203232.5464@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>The family leave bill is going to help rich yuppies have children,
>and that's about all.  

Huh?  Vetoing a bill because it doesn't help "everyone" or
doesn't solve all problems is weak.  What do you mean by "rich"?

>A company will likely fire any poor, working
>class individual who takes advantage of the 12 week unpaid leave
>authorized by the bill.  Companies know they can easily replace
>untrained, unskilled workers, and they won't be happy about a
>worker who takes temporary leave -- it costs them money to find
>a temporary replacement.  It'd be cheaper to fire them, and replace
>them with a new worker.

You have COMPLETELY confused "poor", "working class", and
"unskilled".  The vast majority of workers in the USA are
not "unskilled", and replacing them is definitely NOT a 
cost-free alternative to businesses.  No doubt that granting
UNPAID leave will still place a cost on some businesses,
but replacing workers will cost even more in most cases.

The proponents of the bill claim to have studies that indicate
that most uses of unpaid leave will be considerably less than
the full 12 weeks.  And the scope of the bill excludes
small businesses (I think, under 60 employees).  
>
>The bill may have provisions to allow workers to keep their job after 
>they return, but there's nothing to prevent the company from firing them 
>for some contrived, unrelated reason.  

True.  No doubt that some managers will do this to send a
"message" to other employees to not take unpaid leave, or just
to punish an unpopular worker.  Contrived firings go on now,
and will go on regardless of the fate of the unpaid leave bill.
>
>And in those situations where the worker doesn't get fired, the costs 
>of finding and training a temporary replacement will hurt American
>businesses, and possibly cost other people their jobs.  A President
>who is concerned about "family values" will veto this bill, because
>it will ultimately cost American jobs and hurt U.S. competitiveness.  
>
Since every other industrialized nation already has such 
labor regulations (and some grant unpaid leave for longer periods,
and some even grant PAID leave for women after giving birth),
the competitiveness argument is irrelevant.

Hmmm.  A bill that will help families survive stressful
episodes is actually contrary to "family values"...
Thank you for my daily minimum requirement of Orwellian-speak.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush sucks
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:09:31 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Sep7.120231.5280@ucc.su.OZ.AU> jasonh@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Jason Haines) writes:
>Great, so Bush buys votes from the agriculture sector, and the asians laugh
>at both the USA and the EC, and farmers in Australia, Canada and other non
>subsidy driven countries, can cry in their beers....
>
>Personally, I think Bush's America is a 20th Century Rome, and Bush is Nero.

Leave out the Canadians, they get subsidies too.  By the way, where did this
Jason guy come from, he sounds like a Democrat that crawled out from under
some rock.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4902 alt.politics.clinton:5139
From: dione@argus.lpl.Arizona.EDU (Matt Cheselka)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: We need to hear about deficit reduction!
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:46:53 GMT
Organization: Lunar and Planetary Lab, U of AZ

I simply ask the candidates to start REALLY talking about deficit reduction.
$330,000,000,000 is too much to ignore and is destroying our country.

What could we do with this and the $400,000,000,000 interest on the national
debt?  I could think of wonderful things to do with $730,000,000,000.

Peace,

Matt Cheselka
dione@argus.lpl.arizona.edu
--
***************************************************
*   Matt Cheselka                                 *
*      "My country is the world and               *
*       my religion is to do good" - Thomas Paine *
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4496 alt.politics.clinton:4564 alt.politics.elections:12688
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: "Needs-blind admissions"? (was Re: Whatever happened to ...)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:19:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Nice euphemism.

In article <27672@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>   Where is the "education president?"  Is he the same guy whose
>justice department is fighting MIT when MIT and the Ivy Leagues try
>to offer "needs-blind" admissions?  

Gee, silly me, I thought MIT was being tried for colluding with the Ivy 
Leagues to set financial aid packages, something the Ivys implicitly plead 
guilty to (something reinforced by the guilty verdict in the case against
MIT).

>Doesn't this seem like a stretch
>of the anti-trust laws?  Professional baseball was granted exemptions
>from anti-trust laws; why not MIT?

Professional baseball owners were found to be guilty of colluding against 
free agents in the 70's.  MIT was found guilty of colluding with the Ivys
against the interests of prospective students.


>
>						- Lee Campbell


-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4273 alt.politics.clinton:4261 alt.politics.elections:12557
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: A few things in Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:08:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
:elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
:>1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions. He's not abortion on demand. While not
:>a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.
:    Once again, I have to ask, who the hell else are they going to vote for?
	Ok, I assume we're talking about Bill. He may not be personally
in favor of abortion on demand, but why is he publicly advocating that
he will have a litmus test for Supreme Court justices regarding choice?
Saying that Mario Cuomo is qualified to be on the Supreme Court to me is
one of the most stupid things I've heard Clinton say!
	And I agree, the likelihood that NOW will endorse George Bush
for President has about the same probability of the sun reaching a core
temperature of absolute zero in the next two seconds.

:>2. He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.
:    Obviously not, looking at the polls.  Popular perception is that he's only
:for raising taxes among the upper 2% who aren't paying enough now.
	Sorry. I don't like this "class envy" politics that Clinton is
using to "buy" votes from middle-class Americans. I am not a member of
this upper 2%, but I sure want to get there! As I've said, if you soak
the rich, you drown the poor.


-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my life.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Can someone check this out?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:34:43 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

: ??? Can someone report if the Handbook actually said Clinton raised taxes
: 128 times ???

I don't know just what the Handbook said, but there was a news report
recently that said that Clinton raised taxes _and fees_ one less time
than Bush claimed that Clinton raised taxes in Arkansas.  (The Bush
folks later said that GHWB meant "taxes and fees.")  However when
you consider that many of those increases were things similar to
raising the examination fee for getting a driver's license....  Is
that statistic really a big deal, especially considering just how
many tax and fee increases Bush has approved during his term in
office?

Yet another non-issue.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I stand by all the
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 misstatements that I've made."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

Marrou/Lord in '92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:44:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.182437.3884@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>> >There are plenty.  Switzerland has the second highest hand-gun associated
>> >murder rate.  It is literally less than 5% of the US's.  Media distortion?

>GREAT!!!  EXCELLENT!!!  Let's use Switzerland's firearm laws as a model
>for our own!!!  Can anyone out there give me their opinions on the best
>full-auto rifle to own?  I want to stay within our *NEW* firearm laws  ;->

Sorry, if we adopt Switz laws, you would get the standard issue
assault rifle: In the case of the United States, an M16A2 (which
I doubt would be anyone's first choice...) But look on the
bright side: Under such a law, you wouldn't ahve to buy one, instead
the government would issue one.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Bush sucks
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:34:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.120231.5280@ucc.su.OZ.AU> jasonh@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Jason Haines) writes:
>>I raise wheat, barley, and sugar beets in NW Minnesota (USA).  The US farmer
>>has to compete with the massive subsidies provided to the European, Argentinian
>>and Australian farmers by their governments.  In fact, we produce wheat much
>>more 
>>efficiently and cheaply per bushel than any of them.  The governments of
>>the EC pay upwards of $6 a bushel to insure a profit.  We have to at least
>>be business minded in an open commodity system where the price can vary
>>from $2.50 - $4.00 depending on whether there will be another coup attempt
>>in Russia.  Furthermore, we get no more for a bushel of wheat then my father
>>recieved 20 years ago.  In fact in 1974 he recieved over $5 a bushel.
>
>Where did you read such crap about Australian farmers? Australian farmers
>get no subsidies. Granted the EC is largely responsible for starting this
>latest round of trade warfare. I've seen EC farmers in their farraris and
>designer leather jackets protesting for more subsidies for their dairy produce,
>so their mountains of butter can be seen from space with the naked eye :-)
>
>>Bushes' promise of subsidies pales in comparison to what is "provided" to
>>the farmers of other industrial nations.
>
>Great, so Bush buys votes from the agriculture sector, and the asians laugh
>at both the USA and the EC, and farmers in Australia, Canada and other non
>subsidy driven countries, can cry in their beers....
>
>Personally, I think Bush's America is a 20th Century Rome, and Bush is Nero.
>

Canada, Australia, and Argentina don't have large enough domestic
economies to subsidize their agricultural exports like the EC and the
US.  We mostly are just innocent bystanders trying to survive in the 
agricultural trade war between the US and Europe.

Gerald

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton