HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu (Goodman Byron)
Subject: Homosexuals in the military
Summary: Fags in the Army
Keywords: homosexuals
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:03:36 GMT

Well, for those of you that voted for him the first thing on his agenda will
probably to allow homosexuals in the military.  This country is going to be
screwed after four years.  Folks I dont think you understand what this is 
going to be like.  It will be worse the the Carter administration.  

We homosexuals are permitted to serve with hetrosexuals is the day our military
loses the rank of world power.  The will be so much inner-conflict that the
military will not be able to complete it mission.  I'm in the Marine Corps
and if anyone says that the majority of the soldiers want fags in your wrong.
Infact your dead wrong.  Homosexuals will destroty the combat effectiveness
of the Marine Corps.  When you hit the beach you dont want to worry about
someone grabbing your ass.  Your worried about getting shot.  People say
homos can reframe from their sexuals desires, but the a hetrosexual marine
cant stop worry if that fag is going to give him AIDS or truck to screw him
in the ass.

You people did a real good job of getting him in.  After the liberals get done
with America, it will not be a country of prosparity.  We will be a socialistic
society.  

Another thing Clinton is about to do is promote the Brady Bill.  That takes
your right which is in the 2nd amendmant of the constitution away.  "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,"  Read it.. Shall
not be infringed.  James Madison adamantly defended the indvidual right to bear
arms by stating: "Notwithstanding the militaty establishments in the several
kingdoms od Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,
the governments are afraid to trust people with arms.", he also wrote, "NO MAN
SHALL BE DEBARRED THE USE OF ARMS.

Some people would argue but they didnt have 12 year old carry guns.  And I
say to you that is a bunch of BS.  8, 9 , 10 ,11 and 12 year olds fought in the
War for Independence, the War of 1812, the Civil War and years, even WWII.

The problem is in the familys.  Liberals do not want to take responsility for
their childrens actions.  Instead they want to blame societys problems on
guns, racism, and our education system.  Open your eyes.  If our children
were taught morals, the diference between right and wrong we wouldnt have 
the problems were having today.

I welcome your responses. matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Organization: t.b, t.p.d, & a.d
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:58:54 GMT

Tim Starr (starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Nov8.203821.16878@netcom.com> cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton) writes:
: }I think the private-sector insurance companies, properly regulated, could
: }do a far better job than the government of balancing risk factors, 
: }charges and benefits.
: 
: And we libertarians all know, of course, that purely private sector firms
: tend to be self-regulating :-).
: Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

  Just to clarify, I'm not a libertarian (as I'm sure the libertarians
have noticed.)  My libertarian sympathies come from having read a fair
bit of economics over the last few years, once I finally appreciated that
economics was not claiming to be an exact science or an exact model of
economic reality.  
  On the other hand, I can't help thinking that many libertarians have
missed some key points too.  In particular, to have a "perfect market"
requires that the item being traded be a "commodity" (perfectly interchangable)
that there be an indefinitely large number of sellers, low barriers to
entry or exit for producers, and perfect availability of information 
about prices and quality (i.e. widely available information at zero cost 
or negligible cost.)  If you don't have all of these conditions, you are
not likely to have a highly competitive, optimum cost market evolve.
  So, in the case of insurance companies, where most of these assumptions
do not currently hold, government may have a very constructive role in
regulating the market -- preventing fraud or misleading sales, ensuring
that companies are able to meet the obligations they are assuming,
encouraging companies to offer uniform, comparable policies & payment methods,
publicizing information about rates and policies, and so on.  Some of this
can be done by third-party institutions like Consumer Reports, some not.
  -- Clifton

--
Home: cliftonr@netcom.com     +1 808 521 9073
Work: clifton_r@verifone.com  +1 808 625 3234
Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
"Have a revelation, the first one's free/Soon to be addicted to eternity" - HMR
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ipg@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Ian P. Gent)
Subject: Re: US Election: The Real Historical Parallel
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:58:03 GMT

In article <18953@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:
>In their first election after 
>World War II, the British kicked out of office Winston Churchill, their
>immensely popular war leader. 

In fact it was *during* WWII, after the defeat of Germany but before that
of Japan.  Furthermore it was *during* one of the big 3 conferences,
with Truman and Stalin.  Churchill attended the first few days, Attlee (sp?)
the last few.

>It seems to me there is a real parallel here
>to Bush losing after "winning" both the Gulf War and the Cold War. A
>victim of his own "success", Bush and his ideology became largely 
>irrelevant in the post-Cold War era, as Sir Winston did after WWII.
>Thoughts, anyone? I'm particularly interested if any of you Brits agree
>that there is a parallel here.

The one other parallel that strikes me most is that the ensuing government
enacted a massive health care reform, the National Health Service.   Needless
to say this is more than overdue now in the US.  It is poignant to me 
personally - my parents were married on the very day the NHS started.  
It would be nice to see comprehensive health cover for all Americans before
my parents' *golden* wedding.  That will be in 1998.

Ian Gent


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16322 alt.rush-limbaugh:9211 or.politics:483
From: batie@agora.rain.com (Alan Batie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Keywords: homosexual, marriage
Date: 3 Nov 92 03:04:35 GMT
 <jhansen.719683458@convex.convex.com> <1094@bug.UUCP> <BwqJB0.7Mn@agora.rain.com> <1103@bug.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Open Communications Forum

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>Well, I would like a little more in the way of evidence.

My parents, for one.  I've got no idea why they ever got married.

>In any case,
>I don't think we are doing enough to encourage people to properly care for
>their children.

I'll agree with that, although I would go even farther and encourage
people not to have them until they are really ready for them, and even
more, really want them.  There's too many people on this planet already.
Maybe try to get people to work at a day care center for 6 months before
they have kids.  Of course, people who would do this are probably going
to make good parents anyhow.
-- 
Alan Batie                               \
batie@agora.rain.com                      \       Vote NO on Discrimination
+1 503 452-0960                          / \      Vote NO on 9!
45 28 59 N / 122 43 20 W / 440' MSL     /   \
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lgc1@brand.uchicago.edu (lawrence gordon charap)
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:04:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.134652.24835@fia.dmg.ml.com>  
jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber) writes:
> If you ask me, this is a good strategy... let the
> Dems get control for four years to remind people how bad it is under a  
Dem pres with a Dem congress.
> Joe Ogulin

Strange, I actually heard from some of my liberal friends that it would be  
better to lose this election, because the country would be SO screwed up  
that the Democrat would get a landslide, etc. 

I have a feeling that this point of view was voiced in 1932 and 1980. And,  
well, it just didn't happen the way it should have. Look, Bush only lost  
because the election coincided with a business cycle. He might have given  
the impression that he was more concerned about it than he did, but the  
fact remains that if the economy hadn't headed south -- almost purely by  
random, I think -- when it did, he would have won. And I'm a liberal  
Democrat saying this.

So if he's lucky -- and he has a 50% chance of that at least -- Clinton  
should find himself in an economic upturn entirely not of his own, or  
anyone else's, making, in 1996. And he'll be re-elected, just like that.  
It's also unlikely that one-party government will destroy the country in 4  
years. The US has survived Democrats before... and re-elected them... it's  
not entirely wacky to suppose that this could happen again, you know...

Lawrence Charap
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16560 alt.politics.democrats.d:398 alt.politics.elections:23239 talk.politics.misc:59148
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:47:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov6.203939.25141@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:

|>I've heard this argument many times but never seen any evidence of it.
|>When people's tax rates go up as a result of increased income, people
|>don't decide that it's not worth the trouble and then seek lower-paying
|>jobs.  When I see people not bothering because the tax rates are too
|>high, then I'll believe this argument.

While they will not go out and take a lower paying job, they will invest less.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16262 alt.politics.democrats.d:358 alt.politics.elections:23012 talk.politics.misc:58690
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:58:16 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov6.052410.18442@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

|>In article <1992Nov4.230232.2011@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
|>>: I might add, Ralph, that two years ago Clinton 'promised' the people of 
|>>: Arkansas that if re-elected as governor he would serve the entire four years.
|>>: As we saw from the 1988 presidential campaign, what politicians promise 
|>>: during the campaign, and what the do in practice are often two completely 
|>>: different things.  In this case, I'll bet my hat (to quote Perot) that Clinton
|>>: raises taxes on people with incomes far lower than $200,000.
|>>
|>>I might add, Rick, that Clinton asked the voters if he should "go" for the
|>>presidency before he did.  They said yes...

|>And just how did he do that?  Was there a voter referendum, did he call
|>them all up, did he ask'em to send in cards and letters?  Just Curious.

Actually he went to a handfull of public meetings around the state that had
been carefully packed with Clinton campaign workers.  This small slice of
the Arkansas population, is the group that realeased Clinton from his pledge
to all of the people.

And you wonder why they call him slick.

-- 
Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
Sometimes they don't even reflect the views of the author.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: mkheintz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Michael Heintz)
Subject: Re: cost per vote
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:41:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.172621.21039@news.media.mit.edu> elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
>some statistics from the election.
>			  Clinton	  Bush		  Perot
>total votes		 43,728,000	 38,167,000	19,237,000
>total expenditures	110,000,000	110,000,000	72,000,000
>cost per vote		   $2.50	   $2.88	  $3.60

>The only conclusions I can glean from this are totally
>facetious: Clinton is the best businessman, and Perot is
>the worst, because Clinton acheived the lowest cost/vote!

Interesting analysis and analogy.  Thanks for sharing it!

The only complaint I have is that I think they all spent too much money... it
could have been used much more efficiently.

	...Mike
-- 
Michael Heintz, Oakland University - Rochester, Michigan
InterNet:  mkheintz@vela.acs.oakland.edu 
BITNET:    mkheintz@oakland.BITNET
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Some Exit Polls
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:26:44 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange


Thought you might like the results of some exit polls from our area.

Women voting for Clinton:		64%
Women voting for Bush			21%  <-- This is called a 'gender
						 gap.'
Women voting for Perot			15%

Re:  Ballot Measure 9 on homosexuals

Fundementalists voting for 9:		74%
Catholics voting for 9:			25%
Jews voting for 9:			 0

Clinton supporters for 9:		 7%
Bush supporters for 9:			65%
Perot supporters for 9:			36%

Democrats for 9:			16%
Republicans for 9:			62%
Independents for 9:			23%

Results are for n. Oregon.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16643 alt.politics.democrats.d:410 alt.politics.elections:23309 ba.politics:6942 co.politics:1733 ne.politics:2844 nj.politics:627 or.politics:538 ny.politics:150 talk.politics.misc:59282
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 10 Nov 92 05:23:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov9.214454.10845@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
>From article <1992Nov9.191921.28413@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, by doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver):
>> 
>> Calm down Jon! In fact you are right that consumption tax based on sales is in
>> general regressive.  But a consumption tax based on the level of consumption
>> would work just like an income tax, with progressive marginal rates etc.
>> The only real difficulty is how do you measure consumption, but this is not
>> hard at all.  It's something like cash-flow accounting.  On Jan.1 take all
>> income earned from all sources (capital and labor) ad in the begininning of
>> the years savings (taken from the previous years return) and subtract current savings:
>> consumption=earned income + other income + savings at the start of the previous year - savings at the beginning of this year.
>> The left-hand side is what is taxed with exemptions for income levels and pro-gressive tax rates.
>> For example: On Jan 1, 1992 my savings is at $5000.  In 1992 earn $10,000 in wages, and a return of $500 on my savings.  My total cash flow for 1992 (representing how much money I had to spend) was $15,500.  On Jan 1, 1993 my saving is at 
>> $7500.  My taxable consumption is $8000. See, wasn't that easy, and no need for
>> it to be regressive.
>> 
>> -David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
>
>OK now, let's see if I understand this correctly. A hurricane/earth-
>quake/what-ever takes place, my home gets trashed, and I have to pay
>a tax on top of that to rebuild?   
>How about my wife or children get sick and we have to pay a tax
>on top of the medical expenses?
>etc....
>
>See, wasn't that easy! I think I could grow to like this system. NOT!!!
>( or did I over look something ? )
>

Wow, I never thouoght of that!!!  And I can't imagine how we could work in
exemptions for certain kinds of consumption.  (Even though we manage now)
Oh well, back to the drawing board. ;-)

-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  9 Nov 92 15:59:41 GMT

de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

>In article <sulkanen.720886922@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>>
>>...the Hillarator...
>>
>>...Clintonistas...

>Come back when you're mature enough to refrain from petty, childish name
>calling.  Until you treat your opponent(s) with respect, they won't have any
>for you.

>P.S.--Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.  :-)

>-- 
>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)

Excuse me, but do you have any sense of humor? Since you're a Libertarian I 
presume you do. So cut me a little slack. No offense was intended in my 
labels. God Lord, the New York Times uses "Clintonistas"!

Martin Sulkanen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17055 alt.politics.democrats.d:516 alt.politics.elections:23691 ba.politics:7083 co.politics:1933 ne.politics:2954 nj.politics:704 or.politics:615 ny.politics:225 talk.politics.misc:59974
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:32:06 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Nov5.084320.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.233909.6664@s1.gov>,lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
$>In article <1992Nov3.070545.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
$>    Here's a little trivia quiz.  Who said the following?
$>
$>    "The modern individual family is founded on the open or
$>     concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society
$>     is a mass composed of these individual families as its
$>     molecules."

$> No, not Hillary Clinton, but Frederick *Engels*, author of the
$> Communist Manifesto. 

$	Or maybe they have read the Bible, which compares that
$ husband-wife relationship to the master-slave relationship [Ephesians
$ 5, 6]. The wife/slave is supposed to obey the husband/master, while
$ the husband/master is supposed to take care of the wife/slave. This, I
$ may add, is a _very_ asymmetrical relationship, and one that the
$ husband/master would have an easier time enforcing than the
$ wife/slave.

>     I do not want to get too deep into theology here, but the 
>husband-wife relationship is to be modeled after the Jesus Christ-
>Church relationship.

	Where does it say so explicitly? I thought it was that wives
are to submit to husbands as their husbands submit to God.

If the Church's relationship with Christ is
>consistent with your definition of slavery, then I'll agree with
>*some* of your comments.  It is important to realize, however, that
>the Bible and the Manifesto are diametrically opposed in their
>views of family roles.

	I will concede that point if you will concede that parts of
the Bible make a direct analogy between the husband-wife and the
master-slave and God-creature relationships.

	If you will find for me _any_ part of the Bible which commands
an _egalitarian_ marriage (not one with supposedly complementary
roles), I will concede that also. By egalitarian I mean something
comparable to friendships, especially between those of similar social
positions.

Another example of Hillary's adoption of
>Manifesto principles is in her so-called "children's rights"
>campaign.

	Like how?

$ 	I'm a bit disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not ask her
$ critics to read the Bible here.

>     Who knows -- maybe we'll find a copy of the Manifesto in every
>hotel room during a Clinton administration.    :-)

	Hillary Clinton has shown no evidence of being a Marx-thumper.
At least not yet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: President Clinton -- What a nice sound
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:30:16 GMT

So what will the future be like under Clinton??  Personally, I've
never been more uncertain about anything.



Simon
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:05:41 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Lee W Campbell writes:
   [in reference to an earlier post of mine (Jeff Davis)]
>
>> Stupendous Man writes:
>
>  [stuff deleted]
>
>> >	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.
>> >
>> ???
>> Using figures you provided some time ago, the deficit as a % of GNP
>> never fell below 3.1% of GNP during the Reagan years. The highest
>> % was 6.2% of GNP. The highest % of GNP under that old, irresponsible
>> Jimmy Carter was 2.8% of GNP. So, in that the percentage of
>> the deficit to GNP peaked at 6.2  (4.1,6.2,5.0, 5.4, 5.3,3.4,
>> 3.2,3.1) I guess, yes, you could say that the rate declined during
>> the 80s. Sort of like the pain is less when you stop sticking
>> 2 bamboo shoots under your fingernails and switch to only 1.
>
>
>   Brett, I never saw your reply to this question. Do you dispute these
>figures? they say that the deficit never declined as low as it was at
>its worst under Carter.

I need to correct my correction. I read Stupendous Man's numbers
with a program which wrapped the data oddly so I misinterpreted
which deficit was associated w/ which president.

Carter's years: 2.8, 2.7, 1.6 (!!!), 2.8
Reagan's years: 2.6, 4.1, 6.2 (!!!), 5.0, 5.4, 5.3, 3.4, 3.2

So, Reagan's first year under Carter's (more or less) budget he
managed to have a smaller deficit as a % of GNP than under
most of the Carter years. But note that Carter's best year
was half that of the next best Reagan year. 1.6 vs 3.2. 

The point is this: there may be tax-and-spend Democrats, but
Jummy Carter wasn't one of them. And there may be fiscally
responsible Republicans, but Ronald Reagan wasn't one. The  
larger, less partisan point may be that to insure fiscal 
responsibility make sure Congress and the White House belong
to the same party -- then vote out rascals if they futz up.
(I will be VERY shocked if Clinton's budgets aren't enormously
more austere than Bush's ever dreamed of being, simply because
there will be no one to shuck the blame off on.)
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> My bad.     
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Poor winners
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:20:08 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In <1992Nov4.024644.4864@athena.cs.uga.edu> stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton)
>In article <griffinb.720704607@unix1.tcd.ie> griffinb@unix1.tcd.ie (brendan james griffin) writes:
>>In <1992Nov2.093951.1196@beaver.cs.washington.edu> aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:
>>>Well, the latest polls are showing Clinton running away with
>>>the vote.  He's gained 7 points on Bush since Saturday in the
>>>CNN *likely* voter polls, and Perot is a flat as a board.
>>>My prediction:
>>>Clinton: 450 electoral votes
>>>Bush:    88  electoral votes.
>>>Perot:    0  electoral votes.
>>>Tee hee.
>>FUCK YOU!
>>Brendan.
>>
>
>Sore loser, are we?

	Almost as bad as being a sore winner, Cat.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!