HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Its starting, Part II.
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:08:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov20.164729.22122@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, jmalloy@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joseph Malloy) writes:
> In article <1992Nov18.004007.49@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>> 
>>> The Democratic Platform says:
>>>     We will relieve the tax burden on middle class Americans by 
>>>     forcing the rich to pay their fair share.
>>
>>"forcing", eh? why does this conjur up images of a highwayman with
>>a mask and a pistol? ahh, but why should i worry, i'm a poor, underpaid
> 
> It 'reminds' you of that because you wish to think of it that way.  You
> readily overlook the many tax breaks the wealthy have enjoyed un the
> Regan/Bush duo 
> and are happy with the situation in which the rich get richer and the poor
> get poorer.  In other words, you're a Republican, sorry to insult you! 

I've heard so much about these fabled "tax breaks for the wealthy" that ReAgan 
supposedly gave 'em... well, then, howzabout listing them?  And do be sure to 
include the events of '86 TRA.  Such a list, coming from the experts here, 
would be helpful to the discussion.


------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..." 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:20:42 GMT

The average Republican once again astounds the world with intellignt,
thoughful political discourse.

Give the poor guy something: At least he was succinct!

--
cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu

"One likes to believe in the freedom of baseball" - Geddy Lee
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:39:10 GMT

tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:

>Q. #1  What is one of the most expensive illnesses?   AIDS!
>Q. #2  What lifestyle is one (if not the highest) highest risk category for AIDS?  Gays

Sorry, but your argument fails with the second question. By far, the
heterosexual community are now more at risk than gays are. AIDs is
spreading in the heterosexual community now much faster than it is
through the gay community. It is just as likely that a heterosexual
sailor gets AIDS from a one night stand as it is for a homosexual
sailor to get it.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumni)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17630 alt.rush-limbaugh:10224
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Not Even Inaugurated, Breaking Promises Already
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:58:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

Really, your subject line says it all.  He hasn't even been inaugurated.
Give the guy some space.  I'm sure he'll break enough promises later to
keep everyone happy.  At the rate we're going, by December we'll be
ready to throw the bum(s) out!   ;-)  [Hmm... ]

I think we've all gotten so hopped-up on politics that we can't put it
down, even when there's not much going on to scrutinize.  And all the
thousands of reporters and newsoids haven't clicked out of "campaign mode"
yet; they're still filing and filing and filing, even if the only story
going is the future first cat.

If you're having adrenaline withdrawal, may I suggest basketball, which
is just getting under way?

---
David Christensen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:54:53 GMT

borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

>We don't have an overpopulation problem yet.  We could have one someday, in

	We sure do!

>fact we will if things don't get under control, but we're not at a crisis
>point yet.  Just go out to Wyoming or Montana, and you'll see that there's
>still plenty of room.  People are crowded together because they choose to

	Tired old argument. It takes 10 acres of farmland to sustain
	each person. So you'd eat those areas up fast, if there was
	a population boom. Also, isn't having a little open space
	part of our environment? Pretty short sided, if you ask me.

>economic necessity, that is, the jobs are there.)  I acknowledge the need to
>control population growth, but I will fiercely oppose population control by
>force, until it becomes absolutely, absolutely necessary. 


	Just like global warming, huh? Wait 'till it happens, then try to
	do something about it (when it's too late). Real dumb!

	I take it, then, no matter who makes the kids, or how many, we
	have to allow it to happen unchecked and all pay for it,
	'till we start starving???

	Unbelievable! :-(

			George
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:22:59 GMT


In article <92Nov19.142852est.52@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.182915.16886@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>>
>>By the way, just how far off the coast of Florida _is_ China?
>>:-)
>
>Gee, I don't know, Chris Columbus thinks that Florida is China.  

India.  Chris thought the New World was India.  Hence Indians.  Chris
didn't quite make it up as far as Florida, though, given that the West
Indies is India, China would lie somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle.
I suppose that's why he never found it!





A cartoon found in last week's New Yorker:
Picture: Middle-aged man talking to another middle-aged man in a bar.
Caption: "I just heard that Superman is going to die.  He's the same
	  age I am!"
From: zawr02@hou.amoco.com (Andrew W. Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Line Item Restrictions (was Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell)
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:43:38 GMT
Reply-To: zawr02@hou.amoco.com
Organization: Amoco

In article 4013@randvax.rand.org, jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:
>
>In my view, the 50% rule *does* allow partisan pork-slashing under the
>current distribution of votes.  With 2/3, some Republicans have to
>be brought on board to override a veto -- precisely the problem the Dems
>were having with Bush's vetoes -- and the distribution in Congress is no
>more favorable for the Dems than before.  With 50%, the Dems themselves
>can push through their pork if they want to.
>
While I see the potential benefit, the line item veto makes me a bit nervous.  The
veto and its overide are constitutional measures designed to provide balance of
power between the executive and legislative branches.  The line item veto would
seem to slant this power to the executive.  For this reason, I like the 50% override
compromise.  That would seem to shift the balance back to neutral.  I would also
advocate inacting the line item veto temporarily at first, for say two to four years.
If it works as intended, then it could be enacted permanently.

I think the line item veto could still reduce pork with the 50% override. Most pork
barrel projects are added as amendments to appropriation bills (please check my
assumption on this). Legislators give tacit approval at this point by not voting against
the amendments. To overturn the veto, the legislators must openly vote for the pork
barrel project. Hopefully, the public limelight at this stage of the process will discourage
business as usual.
---
Andrew Robinson
-------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are solely my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,sci.skeptic
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Cybernetic Samurai)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:19:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.193750.19551@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> I'm against any form of censorship, and perhaps I jumped the gun in saying
|> that the guy that posted the "kill Clinton" message should be arrested.
|> 
|> I have no problem with intelligent comments, even when I disagree with them.
|> What irks me is people using the first amendment as a sheild against the
|> consequences of their own obnoxious actions.  They offend everyone, then
|> try to weasel out of it by saying "oh-I was only kidding".
|> 
|> We don't have the right to censor anyone on the net, but at least we should
|> be able to express our disgust with users who post trash like that.

Well, what you say here is true.  He should not and likely will not be
arrested.  However his statements are probable cause enough for the
secret service to investigate him.

-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17648 alt.politics.democrats.d:657 alt.politics.elections:24258 talk.politics.misc:61344
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Cybernetic Samurai)
Subject: Re: My, what pompous netters (Was: FUCK CLINTON ....)
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:09:03 GMT

In article <bill.722287414@castor>, bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
|> >	Report him? Nahh, lets try something a little more down to earth.
|> >How about trying to have his cookies tossed off this net.
|> 
|> My, aren't we a bunch of hysterical censorship freaks, and
|> goodie, goodie two-shoes?  If all the people who wrote stupid
|> postings were tossed off the net, it'd be a pretty sparse net.
|> If all the people who wrote "string the bastard up by the balls"
|> in regards to various political celebreties were locked up,
|> we'd have pretty full prisons.
|> 

The thing is threatining to kill the President or PE is ILLEGAL.
WWhaat you want to do is just kinky. :)

Some threats aare allegorical(i think that is the right word), such as
string the baastaard up by the balls, but some are blaatant, and
inexcuseable.

Whaat gets me is why, when something like this happens, does the thread
linger on and on aand on.
-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17424 tx.politics:7482
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:58:19 GMT
 <1992Oct20.175202.24354@NeoSoft.com> <1992Oct22.135641.6760@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
 <AgrTr*nb1@caleb.UUCP> <1992Oct29.135115.13295@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Oct29.135115.13295@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

> In <AgrTr*nb1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Oct22.135641.6760@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
> 
> >> Then why is it that all these countries that have this kind of health
> >> care do better than we do on lifespan and infant mortality, and pay
> >> 25% less for health care than we do (relative to GNP)?
> 
> >Why do people from all over the world fly here to get medical treatment?  (Hint:
> >it is because we have the best medical care available in the world.)
> 
> Caveat:  AT THE HIGH-TECH MARGIN.  You will note that they don't fly
> here for most medical care.  And the numbers aren't nearly as high as
> this perenial remark would leave one believing.
> 
> If our health care is so great, Jim, why do people in other countries
> live longer than we do?  Why are we FOURTEENTH in infant mortality?

Fred, why don't you list those fourteen countries?  Could it be that you would
be embarrassed by the names?  Could it be that those countries have small
populations?  Could it be that those countries don't have very large numbers
of illegal aliens from a very poor country to the south?  I'd say that given
our circumstances, our health care record is very good.  Fred also conveniently
forgot to mention the fact that there are literally HUNDREDS of countries out
there.

Why do people like Fred always love to pretend that America is really bad?
In another post he brags about his time spent defending America.  I haven't
seen him defending it.  How have you defended America Fred?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Not Even Inaugurated, Breaking Promises Already
X-Xxdate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 08:39:47 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:43:11 GMT

In article <bill.722222324@castor> William M. Eldridge,
bill@cognet.ucla.edu writes:
>Campaign messages are simple platitudes designed to make simple
>people feel good about complex issues.  Ideally they reflect
>an iota of the truth, but I don't take Kevin Costner so seriously,
>and politics are a very similar form of entertainment.
>
>Indicators to look for:  fewer people on the streets, better
>educated kids, retraining in defense and other industries,
>renewed strength in various technical and industrial fields,
>a stable foreign policy promoting stability in the world,
>economic growth, tolerable taxation, improvement in the arts
>(yep, a culture's art is a reflection of its health), an
>improved infrastructure, more attractive cities, preservation
>and cooperation with nature, more jobs, more diversity and
>tolerance of ideas, etc.
>
>If you were just voting your pocket-book, you deserved to be
>fooled.  If you're really interested in your country, you
>should make up a list as above of the many important aspects
>of a culture, and judge the next four years on the relative
>success of the various areas, of course weighing them according
>to their importance.

I couldn't agree more with Bill. This mess took years to develop.
Anyone who thinks it will be painless or fixed quickly ought to
be sold a bridge. Clinton should not be judged on content of his
proposals, but the general philosophy of them---infrastructure
investment to help the economy thrive followed by deficit
reduction using the increased tax base. This country achieved
its economic prowess using such a philosophy, taught it to
other countries, and then forgot it ourselves. We are being
nailed with our own weapon.

With the unforeseen events
of the world, the inevitable compromises with Congress, and the
dynamics of macroeconomics, it is unrealistic to believe that
his programs will be implemented with no changes. I, like
Bill, have no fear of my taxes being increased as long as the
money is used for progressive programs which do some
long term good (health care reform, job training, subsidized
day care, workfare, aggressive scientific and engineering R&D,
alternative energy policy, education reform, family intervention,
urban revitalization, deficit reduction ....). These types of
programs will do more than
pay for themselves. They will avert massive social upheaval and
catastrophic failures which our children will be forced to deal with.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:53:52 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>In article <sulkanen.721925422@xanth> Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65,
>sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov writes:
>>I disagree, I feel that that there is much more tolerance, or at least
>>indifference, to anti free-speech actions perpetrated by radical
>liberals.
>>Indeed, much of this behavior has been given intellectual legitimacy by
>>the academic left on college campuses. That is a large portion of the 
>>goal of the PC movement - to control the subjects, rules, and manners
>>of intellectual inquiry.

>What measure have you used to make this conclusion? In actuality, the
>radical left and the radical right are BOTH guilty of anti-free speech
>activities. Examples from both sides have been posted frequently in this
>group. Unless you have some definitive measure, I can't see how you can
>support this contention. The problem is that radical idealogues, no
>matter their persuasion, are more likely to take radical actions.
>That is one of the many reasons I supported a moderate---Bill Clinton.

>Norman

My evidence comes from several sources: (i) articles from the
National Review and American Spectator over the past several years, (ii)
the books "Poisoned Ivy" by Benjamin Hart, "The Closing of the American
Mind" by Allan Bloom, "Illiberal Education" by Dinesh D'Souza, a recent
essay by Arthur Schlesinger on the fragmentation of American culture, and
discussions by William Bennett on this subject that appeared in two books 
he has recently published, (iii) firsthand, albeit anecdotal, experience. 
I attended an Ivy League school during the eighties. I saw firsthand the
*organized* effort by academicians in history, literature, and government
to change the rules and manners of intellectual inquiry. It was a very
different style than simple brutish heckling. It used the academic and 
bureaucratic power of the universities to *force* its members to accept
certain "axioms" of ideas before debate could even begin. For many of the
left wing on campus, education is not free inquiry, it is indoctrination 
to catalyze political action. I saw PC before the term became part of the
wordstock. 

On a related topic, I was quite disturbed at the lack of variety of
thought by the speakers at the Democratic Convention. For example, I
just can't believe that all Democrats are pro-choice by default. At 
least the Republicans had the guts to present speakers with very 
different points of view.

Now on the subject "moderate" Bill Clinton, I feel that he will be 
only as moderate as his rule-making political appointments to the 
bureaucracy. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I do wish him well,
though. 

Martin Sulkanen
From: sfreedkin@igc.apc.org (Steve Freedkin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ECONOMY: BUSH 'COOKED THE BOOKS'
Date: 16 Nov 92 05:38:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1588800050:cdp:1588800060:000:238
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!sfreedkin    Nov 15 21:38:00 1992


I was quoting directly the article in the Christian Science Monitor.
You are comparing apples and oranges -- reduced military spending OVERALL
at the end of 1991 with a surge in military spending in the second and
third quarters of 1992.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:03:10 GMT

mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael J Anthony Maggio) writes:

>mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:


>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!

I believe that is between Bill and Hillary.

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: tb0c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Timothy J. Burritt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Inauguration January '93
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:10:43 GMT
Organization: Office of the Dean - CIT, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I writing for information regarding the inauguration in January.  A
group of us from Pittsburgh are planning to attend.  Is there any
information you can give me regarding invitations/tickets etc.  I am
taking care of the hotel reservations---any ideas.  

We are really excited about attending---a speedy reply is appreciated.

Thank you.

Tim Burritt
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17311 alt.politics.democrats.d:596 alt.politics.elections:23988 talk.politics.misc:60501
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cong. Pay Raises Was Re: Ignorance
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:54:51 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

ric@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (Ric Miller  ACNS) writes:

>>In the long run, are the salaries of members of Congress growing
>>faster than the average worker's wages, or are they actually losing
>>ground?
>>
>>j. walsh
>  
>  The working people in this country seem to be more concerned about
>  making sure our legislators make less than the lowest paid major
>  league baseball player than actually balancing the budget.  

The working people are more interested in finding a free parking
space, cheap beer, and someone to sleep with than almost anything
else in the world.  Don't let it rattle you.  Democracy is wonderful,
but it does have to account for the people who comprise it (I take
the bus so I don't have to park, I drink Meister Brau at $3.99 a
12 pack, and my wife is wonderful...now, about those congressional
perqs...).



-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Not Even Inaugurated, Breaking Promises Already
X-Xxdate: Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:50:31 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:54:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.100338.289@hsh.com> , paul@hsh.com writes:
>Huh?  ExCUSE me?  This IS the same group that has enjoyed themselves
immensely
>by listing "Bush's Broken Promises" and similar threads ("he promised XX
>million new jobs... RIGHT!").  Oh, brother.  Not even inaugurated, and
the
>apologists are swarming.  Just remember the old saying about what's
sauce for
>the goose... 

EXCUSE me paul,

The fact is that he has not broken any promises yet because he
is not president yet. I am not apologizing because there is nothing to
apologize for. On the contrary, you Bushites are laying
blame before the first action is taken.
Bush screwed up, plain and simple. If Clinton
screws up I will be the first to take him to task. However, I expect
he will make some mistakes. Anybody who expects perfection from
their elected officials is naive. Furthermore, I will wait till he
actually makes a mistake to criticize him and I will only get
really mad if he doesn't work hard and TRY to do the right thing.

I don't fault Bush for what he did
on domestic issues. I fault him for doing little and not taking the
problems seriously until election time. It is his "do nothing and
maybe it will go away" philosophy toward domestic issues that
I found disgusting.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc