HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:23:59 EST

From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)

>OK, I was wrong, Clinton wasn't the least popular president ever
>voted in, he's tied for fourth least popular.  That still makes
>my point that he doesn't have a mandate, and shouldn't act like
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>he does have one.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How do you figure that he is 'acting like he has a mandate'?

I remember Reagan acting like he was President, I am not sure if you
mean the same thing?

-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber)
Subject: Re: "Governor Taxes"
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:31:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.164318.23175@fia.dmg.ml.com>, jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber) writes:
|> Seems he just can't wait to make enemies out of his allies.  Billy boy has
|> already got the plans made up for even hihger import tariffs on European goods.

Spoke a little too soon on that one... that's what I get for only half-
listening to the press.

|> How long before he implements his payroll taxes to pay for his plans and drives
|> more industry from this country?  Sadie-boy's waiting in the wings for him too.
|> He's been laughing his a$$ off since the election.
|> 
|> Oh well... we have to live with this for four years...
|> 
|> Jack Kemp/Lynn Martin in 1996
|> (that's my ideal ticket right now)

The rest, however...

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@stardock.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15809 alt.politics.democrats.d:300 alt.politics.elections:22629 ba.politics:6739 co.politics:1586 ne.politics:2699 nj.politics:525 or.politics:422 ny.politics:52 talk.politics.misc:58186
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
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: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:02:25 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Nov4.060711.12219@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov04.040747.16409@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>>Why don't you complete the truth?  Clinton has promised to raise taxes
>>on the RICH!($200,000 or more)
>
>Is raising their taxes any more acceptable, just because they are
>a minority of the voters? By this logic, it is also acceptable to
>tax _any_ minority, if the majority feels like robbing them.
>
>                                                Frank Crary
>                                                CU Boulder
>

This is another typical tactic: when confronted with indisputable facts,
change the subject.

-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Newsgroups: alt.politics.election,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Cruel Joke?!?
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:17:47 GMT

scottm@intime.intime.COM (Scott Michel) writes:

>Happy to say, I was part of the 57% of the popular vote against Clinton.
>And, don't forget, that one gets what one votes for.

>-scottm

So were you in the 62% of the popular vote against Bush? Or
in the 38% or so who wanted stand-still gov't and heavy spending and
no accountability?
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:17:37 GMT

In article <sulkanen.720974651@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
> 
> >> = (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
> 
> >>2. USNWR suggests that the Clintonistas and Congress will quickly work to
> >>lift the gag rule on abortion counseling and lift the ban on fetal-tissue
> >>research. 
> 
> >It's already lifted.  It was declared illegal yesterday by a Federal
> >court.  _Darn_ the commie feminazies getting real medical advice!  Da
> >noive!
> 
> Oh, they can get abortion info, just don't spend *my* money for it...

We pay for your nuclear missiles and tobacco subsidies.  And boy,
giving out that information is so EXPENSIVE!!  Much cheaper to send
them to public school for a few years, put them on welfare and then
shunt them off to prison.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16403 alt.politics.democrats.d:372 alt.politics.elections:23100 ba.politics:6888 co.politics:1672 ne.politics:2801 nj.politics:593 or.politics:497 ny.politics:118 talk.politics.misc:58870
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
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: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:19:20 GMT
	<JTURNER.92Nov5110752@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<1992Nov7.173235.8511@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University

In article <1992Nov7.173235.8511@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

> If the rich really benefited from them[spending programs for the poor],
> why is a major
> goal of rich, conservative politicians to remove them from the
> budget?

	It's the classic contest between liberal and conservative.
The liberals think you keep the poor in line by buying them of
with subsistence level income, the conservatives think you should
just let the police/military do it.

					--Jeff Turner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:18:59 GMT

In <1dbj32INNaoh@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield) writes:
>niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>I think everyone should be left alone as long as they
>>aren't hurting anyone else.

>Everyone should be left alone as long as they aren't
>non-consensually hurting anyone else.  It's OK to
>"hurt" someone who has *freely* agreed to it.

I wouldn't call that "hurting" someone.  If they have freely agreed to 
it, then they're obviously benefitting from it in some way, so they're 
being helped, not hurt.

But anyway, it's semantics; I agree with you.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey)
Subject: Re: To all of the alt.politics.* people
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:40:42 GMT


Someone says they have found Perot supporters to have a
"since Ross isn't in, to hell with it" attitude.  I am sure
that there are some who are like that; there will be in any 
of the groups who supported people who did not win.

I have found that there are Perot supporters who are energized
by this election past; people who were NEVER into politics before
who have for the first time heard their own views echoed in that
of a major candidate (anyone who pulls 19% of the popular vote
is a major candidate, but lets not quibble).  These people have 
realized that they are not alone in their dissatisfaction with 
the two major parties.  There are millions of people who don't 
like the platforms of the democrats or the repoublicans.  Who
do not feel represented, do not agree with those parties.  

In the United party (or whatever it gets named, again, not 
important to my point) these people are going to have a voice.

If the democrats think that it is great to have a taste of the 
presidency after 12 long years, think of how a 30 year old 
woman or man feels when, for the first time, there are people
all about saying what THEY think and feel, a group of people 
united, where they actually fit in.

It feels pretty good ;-)

So, to the other parties, best of luck, but best that you go
deal with your own houses now.  To those who are on THIS train,
get your stuff together and lets get going.  We have 4 years to
put together a real alternative to the two parties that have 
dominated politics until now.  Lets put a tombstone on the two
party political system, saying that it died in 1992.



-- 
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice (301) 220-2020
doug@digex.com   Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new"   Email info@digex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." -DEVO
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: efstse@epsilon.eecs.nwu.edu
Subject: Newspaper Vartan front page headline: "FUCK OFF CLINTON" !!
Originator: efstse@epsilon.eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: eecs.nwu
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:59:38 GMT
Expires: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:00:00 GMT

The pseudo-state of Dektash in the Turkish occupied northern Cyprus
(it has been recognized only by Turkey, of course) openly cursed and
condemned our president-elect Bill Clinton with a noteable headline in the
pseudo-state controlled newspaper Vartan: "FUCK OFF CLINTON" !!!!
WHY? Well, because he simply said the the Turkish occupation is downright
ILLEGAL. Well, that's not news, boys. Anyone with elementary school reading
skills can find out this by reading the United Nations resolutions on
the Turkish occupation of Cyprus since 1974.

Thank God that at least now we have a president who can READ!

Maximos.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bondc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Clay M. Bond)
Subject: Re: Kosher Kitchen in the White House
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:53:13 GMT

In article <rabjab.205.720918383@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:

>I heard a report that Clinton promised a group of New York Jews that
>he would establish a Kosher Kitchen in the White House.  

To poison all the homophobic Jews.

Oh, don't worry -- you'll be on the first invitation list.

-- 
"There is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon
 the freedom of my mind."
			   -- Virginia Woolf
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
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:43:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.212746.5694@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>> Pardon my ignorance, but could someone please explain how a consumption-based
>> tax works? How is the "level of consumption" determined?

>A tax based on consumption is regressive: for instance, the sales tax.

This isn't the case at all: A tax based on consumption _without_ deductions
for the cost of living is regressive. The proposals being discused here,
as I understand them, all include deductions and tax only consumption
_beyond_ living expenses.

>Here's how a pure consumption tax would be regressive.  Say you have a
>single person, no dependents, making $50,000 a year, needs less than
>half of it to survive, banks the rest, consumes relatively little,
>pays little tax.  Then say you have another person who makes $50,000 a
>year, supports a spouse, six children, two aging parents, spouse's
>aging parents, and other miscellaneous relatives, spends all of it,
>banks nothing, and pays more tax than the playboy above.

In the second case (assuming deductions similar to the current ones)
the family would have an extra $33,000 dollars in deductions ($3000
per dependent.) That person would have a taxable income of under 
$20,000.

>All taxes, for obvious political reasons, should be levied on those
>best able to pay them.

Certainly no one should be taxed beyond their means, but this isn't
a blank check to steal as much as possible. For obvious _moral_
reasons, everyone should be treated equally by the government. For
obvious _economic_ reasons, people should not be punished (in the
form of unfairly high taxes) for being productive.

                                       Frank Crary
                                       CU Boulder
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16999 alt.politics.democrats.d:498 alt.politics.elections:23632 ba.politics:7062 co.politics:1881 ne.politics:2938 nj.politics:690 or.politics:602 ny.politics:212 talk.politics.misc:59862
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
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: Inheritance taxes
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:44:07 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov6.012419.13792@tvnews.tv.tek.com> stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:

>Politicians champion inheritance taxes as a way to sock it to the rich.
>In reality, it is the not-so-rich -- the middle class -- which pays the
>bulk of estate and inheritance taxes.  (The United States has estate
>taxes, which tax the estate of the deceased.  The United States does not
>have inheritance taxes, which tax the heirs, instead.)

What definition are you using? The US Estate Tax does not kick in until
AT LEAST $600K. With any type of decent estate planning this threshold
can be raised significantly. Are millionaires middle class to you?

andy

PS Inheritance taxes go back to at least feudal times--in fact, the
right to inherit was not automatic.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk)
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:30:44 GMT

vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:

>Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
>OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.

>For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
>down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
>I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
>assholes.

>If you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WE DON'T NEED YOU NOW, OK????

>Jeez...

>-Garrett

Gee, a very intelligent argument.  Shows us how tolerant some of the non-
conservative dorks are!  

Give unity and cooperation a chance!


-- 
------

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent --Salvor Hardin
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16688 alt.politics.bush:13664
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Arms-for-Hostages
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:37:22 EST

Isn't it amazing, the body count of the Reagan/Bush era after the Iran-Contra
affair. Here's a few:

Casey - brain tumor just after the news broke
Tower - plane crash ???
Atwater - Natural causes
Fitzgerald - ???

I know there is more to this list, but I can't recall at the moment. Does
anyone have any others along with causes of death?



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper)
Subject: This Mandate Thing
Summary: a
Keywords: clinton
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:29:06 GMT

OK, we've all been reading the endless thread on the debate on whether or
not Clinton has a "mandate" or not from the election. Webster's second
defintion of mandate is "an instruction given by an electorate to a
representative". This doesn't help us much, as the only mandate of this
sense that Clinton got was simply to BE PRESIDENT. I think when people use
mandate, they mean that Bill has a "mandate" to institute all his plans. I
disagree with that no matter what the margin of victory was. Just because
someone is president does not mean that democracy ends for four years. Even
among the people who did vote for him there is disagreement on some of his
ideas. Bill should still listen to the people, ALL the people, and make sure
they approve of his plans instead of assuming we approve because he won the
election. In his campaign he mentioned he would still tour the country and
have forums as president. I sure hope he does, or institute an electronic
town hall, so that democracy can work better. But just because he won the
election does not mean he has support for all his ideas. Even if he had 90%
of the vote I wouldn't believe that.

-Brian Harper
Write your representatives-tell them what YOU want!


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16751 talk.politics.misc:59438 talk.politics.drugs:7427
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Subject: Inauguaral Committee??
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:18:55 GMT

OK, now that the shooting match is over, does anyone know anything
about Gov. Clinton's Inaugural Committee?  (This may include the
proper spelling of the word! ;-)  My wife and I are interested in
working on it.  Many Thanks.
 



-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15850 tx.politics:7009
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:43:41 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <21800@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>President John F. Kennedy supported private initiative and self-sufficiency.
>Bill Clinton wants public programs and dependence on government handouts.

I thought Slick Willie wanted to put a time limit on welfare.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PEROT IN '96!

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org  <SLOW!>
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
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 10:18:39 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov12.081725.12946@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
|> In article <1992Nov11.005956.23879@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov10.210356.11971@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
|> >>>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
|> >>>	income have 3 kids????
|> >>Could be because they want them!  
|> >Fine: Why should they be made immune from the consequences of this
|> >choice? If they want to have more kids than they can afford, that's
|> >fine. But they should live with the result: Poverty. We are under
|> >no obligation to save them from their own bad judgement.
|> >
|> >The discussion is why such a family should be given a tax credit, to
|> >protect them from the results of their choice. I see no reason 
|> >why they should be.
|> 
|>   Okay, then why should companies be given tax deductions or credits
|>   for:
|> 
|>     1) investing in R&D
|>     2) taking clients to 3-martini lunches
|>     3) salaries
|>     4) depreciation
|> 

They shouldn't, because corporations shouldn't be paying taxes in
the first place.  Corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes.
A corporate tax is a bad tax because it isn't easy to determine
who is actually paying the tax.  It could be customers, in the form
of higher prices, it could be workers, because of fewer job
opportunities, it could be investors, in the form of lower dividends,
or some combination.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs