HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mk56+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael J. Keating)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: When we lose the media...
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:56:40 GMT
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

When we lose the media, we are in some major trouble!  I have been
reading the statements concerning the CNN anchor admitting to a
pro-Clinton bias in the media.  Do any of you realize how bad that is? 
That means that every fact we hear about the election is tainted, which
in turn means that any argument we make based on those facts is also
tainted; biased.  WE NEED AN OBJECTIVE MEDIA!  Without it, we may as
well believe every fact we hear directly from the candidates' mouths,
which is in effect what we will be doing!  I have not yet made an
irrevocable decision about the candidate I will vote for, but I know
this; I would not take anything I hear from either candidate without a
grain of salt.  Every statement is designed to paint a rosy picture,
minimizing the faults of the speaker and deliberately dodging the issues
in some cases.  Without an objective media, one that has not sold out to
either election camp, we have no way of making well-informed, educated
decisions.  I hope, that with only 57 days remaining until the election,
that some journalists out there can hold out -- dor all our sakes.
From: sperry@sdd.hp.com (Rob Sperry (Temp))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Helping business
Date: 13 Sep 1992 03:10:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg23.sdd.hp.com

In article <CHRISF.92Sep12103252@thor.albany.edu>, chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:
|> Ok, another question to be directed towards the Republicans:
|> 
|> Bush keeps telling us what's going to be good for business.  The Family Leave
|> Bill would be bad because it would cost business money.  Health Care for all
|> employees would cost too much - it's bad for business.  Raising the minimum
|> wage to keep up with inflation is no good - it's bad for business.
|> 
|> When exactly do we get down to the fact that most industrial countries treat
|> their employees much better than we treat ours?  Gemany, France, Japan, 
|> Sweden... the list goes on.  All we seem to do is consider the short term
|> costs, and as a result, have workers whose standard of living is declining.


   Hum and exactly how are all those contries doing?  Sweden 75% intrest rates
  Germany and Japan are both in economic retractions.  I havn't heard anything
  about France latly.  But I get the impression things are worse in Europe
  than they are here in the US.  So which on of those foriegn economys would
  you like to trade for ours?

Rob Sperry
-/\-
-\/-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Clinton a Fraternity Man??
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:06:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.215220.9139@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@sapphire.egr.msu
.edu (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
>
>It is common knowledge that all but two of the United States' Presidents
>have been fraternity men.<

     Common knowledge among whom? Do you have a list? I've read widely about
John Adams, and I have never seen any fraternities mentioned. In fact,
fraternities weren't common until the mid-1800's.

>What about Clinton?

     I don't know, but I doubt he had time for one. Takes a lot of work to be a
policy wonk. :-)
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    *The* Ohio State University
    I was a Cal Bears fan when they couldn't even beat a high school team!
       I think I can live with a loss to Purdue.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5163 tx.politics:5176
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:45:36 GMT
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
: >I suggested that this number was completely impossible. Since the
: >maximum tax rate is 31%, it implies that the poor pay less than
: >one-fourth of a cent on the dollar in income tax.. Obviously whatever
: >number Haugh has in mind, it is not measured by "per dollar earned". It
: >must be some sort of aggregate.
: 
: Actually, it a ratio between taxes paid by the top 1% and the bottom
: 50%.  And the ratio is (drum-roll) $240.20 in taxes paid by the highest
: 1% for every dollar paid in taxes by the lowest 50%.

This is just another example of "magic with statistics," where you use
any set of numbers and use them to make a point.

Well, I hate to tell you this, but  of course the top 1% is going
to pay a lot more in taxes than the lowest 50%!  The top 1% of the U.S.
population makes a helluva lot more money than the lowest 50%.  Your
statistic is not very meaningful.

A much more interesting statistic would be the ratio of the figures
obtained by the following calculation:

	[total household taxes paid]/[total household income - poverty 
					level income]

and compare the top 1% with the 50% of the U.S. population immediately
"above" the poverty line.

I don't have the figures necessary to do this sort of comparison,
but I think you will find that with this statistic, the ratio
of [very rich : normal folks] will be somewhere in the neighborhood
of [2:1] to [0.3:1].  My guess is that the figure will be something
like [0.75:1], since the [total household income - poverty level income]
figure is going to be relatively small, making the ratio fairly large, etc.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I didn't live in this
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 century."
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				-- Dan Quayle
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			

Marrou/Lord in '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:10:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep10.151825.13204@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> Well, given that this interference in the free market to eliminate
|> insurance would deprive a lot of us of the ability to get medical
|> care, it is just as if the federal government stepped in and said that
|> only the wealthy were entitled to medical care.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Insurance should not be outlawed by
the government.  Neither should it be protected or funded by the
government.  I'm arguing against socialized medicine and national
health insurance.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:15:11 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <20310@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
| 
| I have absolutely no problem with "Gay rights".  I do have a problem with
| having a lifestyle shoved down our throats (sorry).

Could you elaborate on this?

| Hetrosexuals, as a rule, don't wear their sexual preference as a badge of
| honor, and when homosexuals do, it creates a conflict.  I have worked
| with and like folks from both persuasions, but dislike it when either
| type make an issue of their personal lifestyle.

Do you react differently when a gay acquaintance kisses a member of
hir same gender than when a het acquaintance kisses a member of
hir opposite gender?

Are two men holding hands more flagrant than a man and a woman holding
hands?

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Sep11123039@world.std.com>
	<1992Sep11.183734.6657@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Sep12.014657.19620@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
	<1992Sep14.141525.16077@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:48:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.141525.16077@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

   In article <1992Sep12.014657.19620@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
   > 
   > In article <1992Sep11.183734.6657@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
   > 
   > |> We have had 12 disasterous years due to these sheep. Ronald Reagan presented
   > |> them with flags, bombs bursting in air, mom, apple pie, and baseball and they
   > |> bought it hook, line, and sinker. The sad thing is that they have been the
   > |> ones to suffer the worst due to his policies and they are still falling for
   > |> these substance-less smokescreens. And now, here they are falling for
   > |> a brand new set of smokescreens.... (family-values, draft records,....).

Dr. You write statements like that and then turn right around and howl
when we say you look down your nose at people less educated.  Those who
don't agree with you are sheep, indeed.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.thlingon
Subject: Re: Election '92
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:28:59 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep4.205813.15877@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.203926.1843@natinst.com> bobc@natinst.com (Bob Conyne) writes:
>>In article <RBQIWZ2@taronga.com> kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
>>>judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>>>- Does anyone know where this came from:
>>>- 
>>>- 		If I fool you once, shame on me!
>>>- 		If I fool you twice, shame on you!
>>>
>>>	It's a bastardization of an old Klingon saying: 
>>>	"Fool me once, shame on you;  Fool me twice, prepare to die." 
>>>
>>How can this be an "old" Klingon saying?  The Klingons won't exist for another
>>couple hundred years or so!
>
>	Yah? Yah? Well, how do you know Worf won't visit 1920's Earth
>in a future of ST:TNG, like Captain Kirk did in one of the TV
>shows? Huh?  And another thing-I liked the intro the way it used
>to be, 'man,' not 'one.'  Sheesh. Like an alien is not a 'one.'

Ooh, you forgot the season finale for ST:TNG!  They all travel back
in time to around 1870.  Worf didn't go, I think, but Picard went,
and he knows Klingon.



--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Family Values
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:40:28 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:

: Gee, now I'm convinced that this *really* happened.  Just how does a
: city have sex with a family?  Got any other good fairytales?

Two words: "Gang bang."  ;)

Seriously though:

In <Genesis.19:5> some person who died a loooooong time ago wrote:

: They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his
: house that night.  'Bring them out,' they shouted, 'so that we can have
: intercourse with them.'

In the notes, the editors of the New English Bible, Oxford Study Edition
comment:

: The entire population is here depicted as surrounding Lot's house.
: The intent is to illustrate the sexual excesses of the Canaanites,
: warning Israel not to participate in them.

The passage in Genesis continues with the town trying to break into
Lot's house to get at the people therein, followed by Lot's family's
flight to Zoar, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, because she looked
back.

A moderately interesting fairytale indeed.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"Scares the hell out of you,
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 doesn't it?"
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD				--Richard Nixon, about
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com			  	Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher                                   

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:50:29 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 4039@desire.wright.edu, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 	Would I trust a person who broke a lifetime committment to their spouse
> with a four year committment to me?  Nope.

1.  There is no absolute proof that he did this (Flowers is *not* a
    credible witness, she received $$ for her story which was full
    of holes).
2.  If he did do *something*, his wife has at least forgiven him.
3.  Would it have been better to get a divorce or to work out his marital
    problems?
4.  How a person acts in the personal life is not a guarantee of how they'll
    act in the public life.

> 
> 	Would I trust someone who had convictions, but seems to have been
> afraid to stand up for them?  Nope.

Are you talking about Bush or Clinton?  Must be Clinton since Bush has no
convictions :^D.

> 
> 	Would I trust someone who deliberately lied about Tsongas' record to
> win Florida?  Nope.

The same thing could be applied to Bush vs Sen Dole in the 88 campaign.  Remember
Dole and Bush arguing on the Senate floor in 1988??

> 
> 	(I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.)

The point *I* get is that both men are politicians, so you don't have to
go on.


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore I am!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep14.164803.27767@anasazi.com>
	<1992Sep15.030247.11935@technology.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:18:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.030247.11935@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:

[...]
   >
   >I couldn't care less about your example.  It has _absolutely_ nothing
   >to do with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas.  This is the point, you
   >are applying the behavior of others in your judgement against Thomas.
   >What you have said is that because you have knowledge that sexual
   >harrassment happens therefore Thomas is more than likely guilty.
   >
   >Can someone make an unsubstantiated statement to harm someone else
   >in this society?  This is what you are defending, not wether sexual
   >harassment happens - that's a no brainer.  Smear tactics are not 
   >worthy nor honorable, and what goes around comes around.
   >
   >Show me proof to back Hills accusation.  There certainly exists proof
   >that she was "inaccurate" regarding the facts such as when the incident
   >occurred versus when she met Thomas for the first time.
   >
   >Liberals have oft used the phrase "the appearance of inpropriety".
   >Well, I ask you, Anita said she wasn't doing this to advance herself
   >yet she has certainly profited by her accusation hasn't she?  Does this
   >look strange to you?
   Care to apply the same logic to Ms. Flowers? She's certainly profited
   by her accusation, too. Look, neither you nor I know what happened
   exactly, so calling Hills a liar is the same as me calling Thomas
   a liar. What I object to is the assumption that Hills made everything
   up, which seems to be what you are saying. 

Sure, Ms Flowers produced a tape recording of a phone conversation with
Slick.  If Anita Hill had produced such a tape Thomas would not now be
one of the Supremes, he probably wouldn't have even been able to stay on
the appellate court.

Did Ms Hill make up what she was saying?  The only documentary evidence
is that she reported sexual harassment to Hoerschner a full six months
before she ever met Clarence Thomas.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4342 tx.politics:4905 alt.politics.bush:4333
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Poverty
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:29:17 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <00715727470@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>The poverty level, as a percentage of population, declined steadily from
>the year 1964 to the year 1979. Then it started a sharp increase. The
>increase was especially large in the early 80's.

What did the population do (it got older)?  What did the people who were
in poverty do (they got older)?  How many of the new people in poverty are
retired (more and more every day)?  How many of the new people in poverty
are wealthy retired persons (more and more every day)?  In fact, at the
time Reagan was elected, roughly 20% of the population was in "poverty".
By the time he left office, it was down to 18%.  Your "sharp increase"
DOES NOT exist.

The poverty statistics are so misleading as to be worthless.  The simple
reality is that the measurement that is used has nothing to do with how
much "poverty" the person suffers from.  It only says how much income that
person had.  And if I'm 75 years old, own my own home, own my 2 cars, own
everything inside of the house, and have a retirement income of $1,000 a
month, my wife and I are "in poverty".  Even if I have $200,000 sitting in
the bank, earning 6% interest, and generating that $12,000 per year.  Even
if I jet off to Europe twice a year.

THIS is where the "new poor" are coming from - the aging of America.

>                                               However, I don't think that
>welfare spending, as a whole, particularly needs cutting -- if you add up
>AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid all together, you get about the price of
>two Stealth Bombers.

During the 80's we spent about $1T on defense.  During the same period we
spent roughly $2T on social programs.  If we are going to cut the budget,
the majority of money is going to come from social programs.  There isn't
enough money in the defense budget to make a significant difference.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: smithjd@wkuvx1.bitnet (JASON_DONNELL_SMITH)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Newsweek?
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:04:25 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

What is the Newsweek issue that is getting so much attention?  I am a
college student and am looking for as much information on both
candidates as I can find.  If anyone has any speeches or things of
that nature please e-mail them.
-- 
:=======================================================================:
:2702 Industrial Dr. 161H			Thank you,              :
:Bowling Green Ky 42101				Jason Smith             :
:						SMITHJD@WKUVX1.BITNET   :
:=======================================================================:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:06:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep11.234634.26800@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:

>You may think that organized labor is so small a group that it isn't
>worth regular coverage (although there are certainly regions of this
>country in which this isn't true): why then do all daily newspapers
>devote pages to the stock market when an even smaller fraction of the
>community owns stocks?

  Currently 52 million Americans own stock (source NYSE, in World
  Almanac/Book of facts).  And stocks are only a *PART* of what's in 
  the Business Section of any decent newspaper.   Commodities prices,
  news about buyouts, expansions, bankruptcies, changes in management,
  strikes, labor statistics, new products, etc, comprise other features
  there.  And mortgage rates, CD rates, and other interest rates,
  advice columns about money-management, retirement planning, job
  seeking, career building, laws affecting all the above, etc are
  also of interest. 

  There is something for just about everybody, and this kind of news
  is far more practical, useful, relevant, and significant to the 
  lives of most people than the car crashes, house fires, rapes,
  murders, political speeches, little wars, society page silliness, 
  etc that comprise the bulk of the rest of a typical major city daily.
  If I could only read one newspaper a day there is no question in
  my mind that it would be the Wall Street Journal.

  Now again, I'm not knocking the idea of covering "labor".  Just as 
  everybody has to manage their money and their careers, and plan for 
  their retirement, so too does everybody have to work for a living.
  I'm just questioning what a "Labor" section of a newespaper would
  consist of, and why everybody here seems to equate "labor" with 
  "organized" (or "trying to organize") labor.  I'm most certainly
  "labor" at HP, but nothing has been suggested that would apply
  to people like me.



---peter