HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Latest poll: one person polled, landslide for candidate X!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:44:40 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct12.201946.23243@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.120827.4572@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	About these "polls" with less than 2000 people....
>>
>>	500 people = +- 10% error
>>	1000 people = +- 5-6% error
>>	2000 people = +- 3% error
>>
>>	Statistics in action.
>>
> 	Not to put too fine a point on it, but what's your source for the
> notion that error variance is a funtion of sample size alone?  There is some

	Our statistics class in high school.  Granted, that was way back during
the 1980 elections :).
	Basically, >= 2000 yieled the 97% condfidence level.  It went down as
you lowered the number of people.  Of course, there are other factors, but for
straight & simple error margins (which is probably what the networks are using)
sample size is the best measurement.
	As my stats prof said (one the college ones :), if you don't like the
results of your study, increase/decrease the sample size.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.correct
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 13:43:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.161243.18291@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.204633.11069@wixer.cactus.org> lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
>>
>>"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
>>                                                             ME!
>>
>>lazarus@wixer.cactus.org, Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, 
>>Austin, TX  78727-4409,  512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
>
>I see.  Does that mean that I (a heterosexual) can call you queer?  
>Or is it like that black thing where blacks can call other blacks 
>nigger, but whites cannot?
>
You can call me whatever you want.  If I allow a _word_ to hurt me,
I'm in trouble.  Indeed, if I take a word like queer and give it a
positive meaning to me, it looses much of its power to those who would
use it to attack me.  Is someone going to call me queer if they know
it's not going to hurt me?  It also means that people with a sense of
humor will laugh.

>Ted
>
>I'm here, I'm homo-nauseous, get used to it.
>
>Why are homosexuals so heterophobic?
>
Do you mean why to gays and lesbians fear loud-mouthed bigots?  I guess
because many of us see how far bigotry got in Nazi Germany.  Using many
of the same tactics as are being used against us now.    
>-- 
>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."
I _still_ don't get the humor of this one.  And I like jokes. 
>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:01:43 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <ldr3v4INNfu0@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Bruce Varney) writes:
>> 
>> 	The rich do pay their fair share. The top 10% of income earners
>> (thats $80000+/yr) pay 53% of the taxes. What more do you want? When you
>> raise taxes on the rich, you stiffle the economy. When the tax rate was 70%,
>> it got to a point where it was no longer worth the effort to make more money,
>> because you only got to keep 30 cents on the dollar. But when the top
>> bracket was dropped to 28%, the "rich" worked harder, made more, paid more 
>> (total) in taxes, and created jobs and economic prosperity.
>> 
>Is there any data to suggest that the rich didn't work to accumulate wealth
>when the tax rates were higher?  I have not seen any.  In fact, if one
>wanted to make a philosophical statement, one could say they worked even
>harder because it took more work to make the next $10 million.
>

I don't have a study that I can refer to but I would like to make two
points.  First, it does not seem at all unreasonable to me that when
the marginal tax rate hits 70% that someone may decide to spend time
doing other things than economic activity.  In addition, the higher
tax rates are, the more people can afford to spend finding tax shelters
to shelter the income they do have.  Reducing the rate increases
the costs of finding and maintaining a shelter relative to the benefits
received.  Second, I believe the results of the 80's give a reasonable
empirical basis for Bruce's claim.  Marginal tax rates were cut
significantly and the income earned by those effected by those cuts
rose.  We're talking pre-tax earnings.  When rates were cut pretax
earnings rose substantially.  I believe this represents the increased
economic activity and reduced sheltering of income done by those in
higher brackets.


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
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:22:26 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:25:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.232645.4817@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
>debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of
change
>saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.
>
>	So much for that "did not" denial :).

Big deal... George Bush used to be pro-choice making Quayle's waffling
charge hypocritical.

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




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Clinton and Perot
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:16:05 GMT

	Anyone noticed that neither Clinton nor Perot have the slightest
experience as an active participant at the federal level?  And yet
they both claim that they can tame the beast of politics. Hmm.
It seems to me that Clinton and Perot could be replaced by Daffy Duck
and Peppy le Peu if the latter were taught the right things to say.
Heck, any of you usenerds could run in their places. Well, maybe not
Perot's, because of the heavy cost he's incurring, but.....


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:17:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.193644.25966@medtron.medtronic.com> rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes:
>demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>:In <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu>, buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:

>: > I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
>: > Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
>: > cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
>: > progressive result.

>Ron,
>Do you realize what you're saying!  Basically, you don't care if the passing
>of this bill helps or hurts the country, just as long as it hurts Bush's
>credilbility!  I don't know if this bill will raise or lower cable prices,

That's impossible.  Bush has no credibility.

>but I do know that the reason that it was pushed through the Congress so
>quickly was to hopefully embarass Bush.  This IMHO is not the correct reason

This isn't true.  This bill was NOT pushed through Congress quickly at
all.  They've been working on it for a year.  Republicans, as well as
Democrats, pushed the bill because they think consumers will like it.

If it were pushed through solely to embarrass Bush, then it wouldn't
have been overridden, because Republicans wouldn't have gone along.

>to pass legislation!!!  I'm so sick and tired of bills being voted on based
>on re-election impacts rather than the good of the country.  I believe that
>the Congress should be totally cleared out, put limits on the length of
						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>their terms, and get rid of all PAC contributions.  Maybe then something
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>constructive would get done.

Ah, so you're anti-democratic and anti-first amendment.  That's good to
know.  (Their terms already are limited in length -- 2 years in the
House, 6 years in the Senate.  If they want to go back, the people have
to vote them in.)
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:27:33 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:30:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.231919.4815@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
>it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can
point
>to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that
was
>only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did
not" vote
>for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.

Although true, it was noted by the media that Gore's affirmative vote was
only after the CBI was part of a much larger piece of legislation. If he
believed
that the total package was too important to vote against for the sake of
CBI,
then this arguement is without merit.

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




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10016 alt.politics.bush:8843 talk.politics.misc:51313 alt.sex:32809 sci.skeptic:17863
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:53:58 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <11OCT199212142038@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>You are almost exactly right.  The total number of AIDS cases in North Dakota
>reported to the CDC is 25.  It has the lowest AIDS rate of any state in the
>U.S.  There were only 5 new cases from July 1990 to June 1991 and only 1
>new case from July 1991 to June 1992 (0.2 cases per 100,000 population).

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it's somewhere in the 200-300 range.
The figure of 25 isn't currently correct.

But the bigger question is why?  Probably because North Dakota has one of
the lowest rates of drug abuse and homosexuality.  The last figures I saw
stated 87% of AIDS victims still fell into the drug abuse/homosexual
catagory.  And that hateful "family values" thing still is in effect
in North Dakota.  I'm a native New Mexican, and I'm here because of the
quality of life.

We don't "tell" our kids not to have sex, we try and instill values in
them that cause them not to run around like minks.  We teach honesty
and judgment.  We have one of the highest graduation rates in the country,
and intelligent kids know right from wrong.

And as far as the failure rate of condoms goes, I stand by my original
figures of 15-30%.  Maybe all the talk about lower rates is just trying
to justify placing your life in a piece of rubber.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8950 talk.politics.misc:50129
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:18:40 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.072505.1166@u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	Cable rates will go up.  The broadcast networks will be able to charge
>>cable companies for redistribution, basic cable rates will skyrocket.
> 
> Why would broadcasters charge for redistribution?

	Money.  They've been trying to get the FCC to make cable companies pay
for redistribution for years.  This bill will result in that coming true. 
Cable customers will soon being paying more for basic cable because of it.  The
network argument is that anyone "rebroadcasting" their signal should pay them.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Lyford Beverage) writes:
|> Matt Austern) writes:
|> |> Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> > Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
|> |> > Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.  
|> |> 
|> |> Funny.  In this country, it is legal for me to marry a woman but
|> |> illegal for me to marry a man.  This doesn't look very much like
|> |> "equal protection of the law."
|> |> 
|> |> Or is it your opinion that the marriage laws of all fifty states are
|> |> in fact unconstitutional?
|> |> --
|> 
|> This is not a value judgement, just a comment.
|> 
|> There is no right that heterosexuals have with regard to marriage that
|> homosexuals do not have.  Homosexuals *choose* not to marry, because
|> they are not attracted to people of the opposite gender.  Heterosexuals
|> living with people of the same gender do not have "marriage" rights
|> either, because a marriage is currently defined in our society as a
|> special bond and legal contract between 1 man and 1 woman.  There is
|> no statement of sexual orientation anywhere, though it is certainly
|> implied.  But the law does not state the homosexuals cannot marry.

I think you have just described marriage as a set of laws which
are inconsistent with the 14th ammendment.  If society defined a "lease"
as "a special bond and legal contract between 1 landloard and 1 man"
you would raise hell.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9321 alt.politics.bush:8350
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Cable TV and the Economy
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:36:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin) said..
>
>I don't know how everyone else feels, but I find it quite appalling that
>our illustrious congresscritters find it absolutely necessary to debate about,
>vote on, and make a big fuss over a cable tv regulation bill when they 
>could be doing something about the economy.  

In terms of politics, the cable bill was next in the list of bills to be
voted on. 

Now realistically, "doing something about the economy" this close to the
election?  Please.  Bush would veto anything that came out of Capitol Hill.

>Clinton claims to be the one to help the economy.  He hasn't shown it yet.  
>He's only proved to me that he intends to have government grow bigger than 
>it should be.

What hasn't he shown?  I'm very curious if you have any factual basis
for that statement, or if it's just a commentary of how well Bush's
"character" issue has diverted attention from the issues and proposals.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10023 alt.politics.bush:8851 talk.politics.misc:51320 alt.sex:32815 sci.skeptic:17864
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 12 Oct 1992 23:22 MST  
 <11OCT199212142038@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> <21173@plains.NoDak.edu>
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <21173@plains.NoDak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes...
>In article <11OCT199212142038@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>You are almost exactly right.  The total number of AIDS cases in North Dakota
>>reported to the CDC is 25.  It has the lowest AIDS rate of any state in the
>>U.S.  There were only 5 new cases from July 1990 to June 1991 and only 1
>>new case from July 1991 to June 1992 (0.2 cases per 100,000 population).
> 
>I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it's somewhere in the 200-300 range.
>The figure of 25 isn't currently correct.

Perhaps you are thinking of HIV infections reported, rather than AIDS cases.
I obtained the above numbers from the June 1992 issue of _HIV/AIDS
Surveillance_, published quarterly by the Centers for Disease Control.
I just rechecked this issue to make sure I had the right numbers.  What's
your source?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:43:03 GMT
Subject: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:51:45 GMT

From article <1992Oct13.170602.16404@Princeton.EDU>, by niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent):
> In article <1992Oct13.012718.17235@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>>While to the people calling, Perot was honest and funny, Clinton
> 
> Funny, yes.  Honest?  Hah!  He lied about crack babies.  First he
> claimed he was going to do things, and then he admits he doesn't
> actually have any plans yet -- he's going to form committees to think up
> plans after he gets elected.   

How did Perot lie about crack babies?   His comments about crack
babies were in response to a question about legalizing drugs and Perot
pointed out that they were a graphic example of why that was not a
solution to the drug problem.  Were was the lie?

Perot never said that he does not have any plans yet, there are steps
to address the drug and crime problems outlined in his book.  It may
come as a shock to you but even the most ambitious plans proposed by
candidates still require a lot of work to hammer into a final form
after the election. 

Beyond that, Perot has not carved any of his programs in stone. He has
said from the very start that he wants to be able to adjust plans and
fine tune them as we learn more about the problems.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9854 alt.politics.bush:8723
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:31:25 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.024849.28435@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

>Bush gave an honest response to the question: "We're doing everything we
>can!"  We spent $4.9 BILLION on AIDS research last year.  What else is
>there but a plea to the people to modify their behavior?

Yes.  He threw money at it!  What more do you want?  If a problem can't
be solve with money, then it can't be solved.  

That's Bush's answer for everything.  Got a problem?  He'll give you 
a token tax cut.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10298 alt.politics.bush:9070 talk.politics.misc:51606 alt.sex:32897 alt.politics.homosexuality:6435