HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ankur@mips.com (Ankur Saha)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:00:07 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: mpigs.mips.com

In article <ART.92Aug26144828@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>   In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:
>
>This is another one of those democratic lies I mentioned in another post.
>At no time did anyone criticize Hillary for having a career.  She was
>criticized for her political views e.g. kids suing their parents,
>marriage=slavery etc.  Since she is politically active her views are
>indeed fair game, with all that implies.
>

For some article she wrote in 1973, when

o Bush was pro-choice
o Reagan was right-wing
o Nixon was president
o Gramm was a democrat
o Elvis was alive

In brief, give me a break!

>The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
>for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
>the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?  Sorry, they
>opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.
>

Which year's convention was that?  Do you think Don Regan was lying?
Is it normal for first ladies to use astrologers? How does that compare
with Hillary's situation?

>I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh and he just said that Hillary
>is being considered for Attorney General, possibly even Secretary of
>State.  If that proves to be the case, then a very, very careful analysis
>of her legal and political positions is in order.
>

Yeah, a fair and balanced source of information.

>Don't forget Hillary said, "If you get one, you get two of us."  With
>that statement she painted a big fat bullseye on herself.   If you can't
>stand the heat...
>
-- 
Ankur Saha	Phone:	408-524-8095	FAX:  408-524-8401
UUCP:	{ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!ankur	(or ankur@mips.com)
USPS:	MIPS Technology Inc., 930 Arques Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3650
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:29:03 GMT

In article <92245.164439DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>(Marc Mueller) writes:
>>
>>>If we want a health care system like Canada's, we would need to:
>>
>>>       Install a national 10% health care sales tax
>
>Why?
>
>>
>>>       Cut doctor's salaries in half.
>
>Hmm.  In 1982, the average U.S. physician earned 99,500, the average
>Canadian physician earned $91,000.  Adjust for purchasing parity and you'll
>find that physicians in the U.S. don't earn twice as much as in Canada.
>Yes, U.S. physicians wwould earn less, but they, like physicians in other
>NHI schemes, would have lower "hassle factors".  Just think, no longer
>would they have to know how to fill out 3,000 different insurance forms.
>
	
	Excuse me- Are those Canadian or U.S. dollars? There is a
difference.

				J. Wagner


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42344 ca.politics:7111 ba.politics:4818
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Morality of Minimal Requirements on Health Insurance Payments (was: National Health Care)
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:21:19 GMT
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Aug25.232017.6291@brownfield.glv.com> brownfield!jbrow (Jim Brownfield) writes:

   In article <1992Aug25.172444.27444@news.columbia.edu>  
   gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
   > <jbrow@glv.com> writes:
   > >By this, I take it that *every* Canadian gave their consent to this
   > >system.  If not, then I suggest to you that calling it anything but
   > >theft is just to make the ones that wanted the system feel better.  Of
   > >course, if every Canadian gave their consent, then why did you need
   > >the government to enforce it?
   > 
   > We've had over 7 elections in the past 20 years, and no party has seen
   > fit to campaign against public health insurance ... in fact, everybody
   > considers doing so political suicide (a handful of extremist *former*
   > Tory MP's stand to bear mute witness to this fact) ... also, our voter
   > turnouts are in the high-80%/mid-90% voluntarily, so elections can be
   > taken as very reasonable plebescites rather than a sordid collection
   > of special interest and extremist groups who bother to go and vote.
   > One of the reasons for the success of Mulroney's Conservatives has
   > been to grab a moderate social market position when the post-Trudeau
   > Liberals (as in Churchill and Paddy Ashdown, if you are familiar with
   > any British references -- not Jerry Brown) nudged slightly left and
   > flirted with grabbing moderate leftists who traditionally supported
   > the New Democratic Party.  The federal Liberals have been fighting to
   > regain their old social-liberal/fiscal-conservative space from the
   > federal Tories since.

   Whether its 51% to 49% or 90% to 10%, its still theft.  When you
   have a system where people can opt out on the payment side as well
   as the service side, you will have a moral system.

Is a national health insurance plan less moral than general taxation?
forced military service? gun controls? seatbelt regulation?
minimal auto insurance requirements?

I'm not arguing with you; I am just trying to understand your
viewpoint.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42406 alt.politics.elections:11779 alt.politics.clinton:3278 alt.politics.bush:3220
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Cuomo's track record (WAS: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic)
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:52:20 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Aug26.175415.21820@philabs.philips.com> jpc@philabs.philips.com (John P. Curcio) writes:

	[Long bitch about Cuomo raising auto-related taxes]

	I'm not surprised. Car owners are a long way away from paying
from the roads they drive on out of vehicle registration fees and fuel
taxes. One estimate is that American roads are at least 38%
subsidized, and probably more, depending on what one counts.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: The REAL Reagan Record
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Aug27125618@world.std.com>
	<farenebt.714948494@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
	<1992Aug28.201727.27586@kadsma.kodak.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:26:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.201727.27586@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

   In article <farenebt.714948494@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
   >art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >
   >>   Huh? National Review? Now there's a good example of objective reporting. 
   >>   Their editors seem to yearn for a military government. Is Buckley still
   >>   connected with that rag?
   >
   >>Have you ever read NR?  Would you be so kind as to enlighten with
   >>facts proving their lack of objectivity?  How about some proof of your
   >>preposterous claim that the editors yearn for a military government.  Oh,
   >>now I see you cover your dishonest attack with the claim that the editors
   >>"seem" to yearn.  Clever.
   >
   >Well, they are a right-wing magazine and flaunt it every issue. Just read the
   >This Week section of the mag. There's nothing wrong with them being a conserv.
   >magazine but they are not an objective source of journalism (much like the
   >liberal New Republic). 
   >

   The New Republic? The magazine that:

You mean The National Review.

   * Supported the Contras in Nicaragua

Good idea.

   * Supported the Gulf War, because there *was* a Gulf War

Actually, there was quite a spirited debate in NR at the time.  Some were
for, some against.  But, you are right, when push came to shove they got
on board.

   * Has run article after article proposing that 'workfare' replace 'welfare'

Superb idea.

   * Has run numerous articles proposing cuts in the FICA tax

Another good one.

   * Has run cover stories opposing 'multiculturalism' in education

The best of the lot.

   About the only conservative totem NOT supported by TNR is the capital-gains
   tax cut, which they have steadfastly opposed, NOT because it 'benefits only
   the rich', but because they oppose ANY preferential treatment of income in
   the tax code. They believe that all income should be taxed alike, regardless
   of the source.

I don't know where you get your info, but as a matter of editorial policy
NR supports capital gains cuts.

   (They also liked the Heritage Foundation's health-care plan)

Whatever that is.

What you have just demonstrated is that NR takes conservative editorial
positions.  This is about as surprising as green grass and blue sky.
Editorial positions do not however prove that one is misrepresenting
facts.  It would be nice, for your argument, if you could document such
misrepresentations.  You won't be able to of course.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41376 alt.flame:12256
From: trashman@crud.mn.org (Barry Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Homosexuals are like the rest of us, right?
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:26:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: TSAKC-TC

In article <Aug.12.07.31.03.1992.24980@romulus.rutgers.edu>
        kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

]I would submit ....

Then bend over.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: *BIG* Labor (AFL-CIO) endorses Clinton.  What a surprise (NOT!).
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Summary: Right to work 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: Labor, unions, Clinton
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:10:18 GMT

In article <67611@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt7122b@prism.gatech.EDU (R. Man writes...
> 
>The suspense is over.  Lane Kirkland and his AFL-CIO have endorsed Bill
>Clinton.  I wonder what goodies he's promised them?  You'll be paying for
>them soon if Slick Willie is elected!
>-- 
>MANDOCK,R.
>Internet: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu

Think again. Arkansas is a "right to work" state. Dixie-crats have
never been friendly to unions. The AFL-CIO is just picking the lesser
of two evils (like everyone else).


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42070 alt.politics.elections:11630 alt.politics.bush:3010 alt.politics.clinton:3085
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:31:50 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

A NY Times - CBS Poll of 903 registered voters shows that Bush has lost
his post-convention bounce remarkably fast, even for someone with Bush's
ability to screw things up.

The current standings in their poll are:

Clinton: 51%
Bush:    36%

This is widely different from a post-convention poll which showed
Clinton leading by 45% to 42%. That one was a poll of 1186 voters.
53% disapprove of Bush's handling of his job, 38% approve. This 
figure is virtually the same as before the convention.

Clinton's +ve rating is 36%, his -ve rating is 28%. His -ves
have gone up 4% as compared to the pre-convention figures.
However, it's a lot better than the 34% unfavorable rating 
registered immediately after the convention.

Margin of error: +-3%

**************************************************************************

The race for '92 is over!!! GOP '96 aspirants, start your engines.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Summary: Giving Credit where credit is due 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:23:57 GMT

In article <la81loINNi@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael writes...
>In article <1992Sep1.152133.25112@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>|> 
>|> Simple check:  When was the last report of a kid having a nightmare due to
>|> the possibility that he, his parents, his community,... might be incinerated
>|> while he slept?
>|> 
>|> Value comparison:  Which is more important to you?
>|> 1. Having a good job tomorrow?
>|> 2. Having a tomorrow?
> 
>I assume you are saying that Bush gets credit for all the good things

I'm really tired of hearing how Bush, or even Reagan, is responsible for
the downfall of Communism in Russia.
	The fact is that America had very little to do with it, and 
Reagan/Bush had only a fraction of that. Why doesn't anybody give any credit
to the Afghani people who suffered increadibly (and are still suffering)
in their fight against Russia (and I mean FIGHT, not just building bombs).
What about Solidarnosc in Poland? What about the people of Western Europe,
who had to look at barbed wire and gun turrets for 40 years?
	But most importantly, what about the incompetance of the 
Russian government which is mostly responsible for the downfall.
	If you want to give ANY credit to American presidents, then give
it to Kennedy (Cuban missle crises), and Truman (Berlin crises).
	Let's get real people. Reagan and Bush just happened to be
on the watch when the collapse came.

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:39:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.173105.6401@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>If you vote for a major party candidate that you like less than a
>>third party candidate, just because you are afraid that the other
>>major party candidate will then win YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!
>>
>
>Hogwash. Is this supposed to be self-evident? If someone is liberal,
>say, and there is a difference between the two major candidates in this
>regard, but he or she votes for an ideologically-pure third candidate,
>then the end result may be that the country becomes LESS liberal.

The possibility exists, but if enough people vote their conscience
then the third party candidate just might be able to win and you
would have what you want.  On the other hand, if you vote for
something else you are providing feedback to the system that says
"give me more of this" so there is little possibility that the
situation will ever change.  Yes, there is some risk involved in
voting for what you really want, but "nothing ventured, nothing
gained" applies just as much in politics as anywhere else.  If
people aren't willing to take a stand and vote only for what they
want, they should not be surprised that nothing changes.

>If the idea is to vote for the candidate closest to one's own views, why
>not write in your best buddy's name? Or your own name? Obviously, the
>factor of "chance of winning" has to be weighed when supporting a
>candidate.

Unless your buddy is a registered write-in candidate (assuming your
state even allows such -- some don't), writing him in will count
just like not voting at all which will not provide any feedback to
the system.  If a third party candidate is closer to your views than
the major party candidates are, voting for that person at least
tells the majors that they need to look at why they're losing votes
to that candidate.  If a third party candidate can get even just
enough votes to be the balance of power in a contest, both of the
major parties will steal what they consider the best parts of that
person's program to better insure a victory the next time around.
This is basically how the Socialist party has gotten virtually all
of it's 1928 platform adopted into law without electing anyone to a
major office.

>Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43388 alt.activism:15856 misc.headlines:6161 sci.econ:7326
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part III: Getting back on track.
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:58:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug25.223200.3743@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	"Congress should take a crash course in economics from Carlos Salinas. 
>He talks--among other things--about how his administration's supply-side
>policies have gotten Mexico growing again." _Forbes_, August 17th, 1992.  Page
>64.
>
>		An Interview with President Carlos Salinas
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
Note the office Salinas holds.  President.  That's right, President.

> [Good stuff from the PRESIDENT of Mexico deleted]
>
>	President Salinas: The main lesson is that you cannot spend beyond
>your means, that the strengthening of internal savings is essential to sustain
>the process of growth; that those who live on debt must pay its consequences
>sooner rather than later.
>
>	[We'll pause for a minute while Capitol Hill reads that several times.
> :)--Brett]

It would be nice if Bush (and future president Clinton) read that several 
times as well.

>	With the process of privatization [in Mexico], we've raised almost $33
>billion.  Instead of spending that money, we used it to reduce the [domestic]
>national debt.  The national debt in the US is 58% of GDP; in Japan, 63%; in
>Italy, 105%.  But the national debt in Mexico is today only 13% of GDP.  The
>savings from reduced debt service can now be channeled into social programs and
>still enable us to keep a tight fiscal policy.
>
>	[Once again we'll pause while Capitol Hill gets a clue :)--Brett]

Again, lets include the present and future president in on the clue
hunting brigade.

>
> [rest of PRESIDENT Salinas's interview deleted]
>

Paul.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42888 alt.politics.bush:3533 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4928
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: more predictions
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:01:47 GMT
Organization: Amiga makes it possible
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

In article <1992Aug28.150841.13262@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> 	A strong president can keep congress in line, look at Ronald Reagans
> first term. Bush just doesn't have any direction, so congress does whatever
> the hell they want.
>

During Reagan's first term, the Senate was a republican majority.

> --
>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
> The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that
> encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice
> witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42202 ca.politics:7098 ba.politics:4807
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:21:30 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug25.104706@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
> In article <11846@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
# |# Question: If these statements do in fact represent the beliefs of the
# |# people, both hetero- and homosexual alike, how can anyone who opposes
# |# child molestation find a way to support NAMBLA - when they refuse to
# |# moderate their position to at least exclude prepubescent children? 
# |# 
# 
# I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of NAMBLA :-)
# 
# I do, however, think that they have the right to exist.
# 
# Period.

No one has ever argued otherwise -- just that the gay community
doesn't have to show their support of NAMBLA.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43573 alt.politics.elections:12339 alt.politics.clinton:3942 alt.politics.marrou:1017 alt.politics.bush:3978
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:58:53 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <8840@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM sez:
>In <1992Aug26.175807.1727@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>
>>cap losses are written off against gains.
>
>Capital losses are capped at $3000 dollars per year.  But you are allowed
>to roll the excess losses into future years.

If you're trying to say that Don's wrong, well, you're wrong.  Losses
are entirely deductible to the extent that they offset gains.
*Excess* losses are capped at 3K/annum, with rollover permitted.

-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 20:11:47 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep3.035811.3488@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Aug15.165544.30083@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >
> >That was the purpose of my question.  As long as people aren't going to
> >attempt to turn their personal moral beliefs into law, I'm not
> >interested in pointing out inconsistencies in their personal beliefs.
>
> All changes in law stem from moral beliefs,

Ignoring whether or not that is valid, I was addressing the converse of
that - not all moral beliefs get turned into laws.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41869 talk.politics.theory:3856 soc.culture.usa:6867 alt.conspiracy:10283 alt.revisionism:663