HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: More intelligence
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:00:09 -0500
Summary: let's get on track
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Aug27.222556.19855@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.162128.6305@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>Wait a minute, now.
>>
>>Political theorists are wrong, but economic theorists we can trust?
>>
>>The brunt of the intelligence issue argument is this:
>>1)  Assuming some amount of moral goodness in men who have spent time in the
>>public arena (possibly excepting Nixon), moots out the "character issue".
>>
>>2)  Using some of the only data that we have available to measure the
>>candidate's intelligence, the GOP ticket comes up a little shorter than their
>>opponents'.
>>
>>Provide me some evidence that Bush and Quayle are smarter than Clinton and Gore
>>and (as an intelligent man) I will listen to it.
> 
> 	Yes, you are correct.  Karl Marx was a genius.  If I had
> a time machine I would let you go back to his time and support the formation
> of the USSR, which was ideologically created by the writings of Marx
> and Ingels.  Perhaps you could help in the overthrow of the Czarist state.
> Maybe the Bolsheviks would give you a nice state job at the top
> someplace.
> 	After all, Marx was a hell of a lot smarter than the Czar.  His policiesshould work, right?
> 	They certainly couldn't do any harm, eh?
> 
> 				J. Wagner
> 
>>
>>Otherwise, I am not looking for saints in office, but effective
>>decision-makers.
> 	Effective? Stalin was very effective. So was Hitler. That does
> not mean that the 'effect' was something I would vote for.


DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM FOLLOWING AN ARGUMENT?

1)  If evidence does not show a marked moral difference between the character
of the two candidates, the character issue is a sham.  (Actually, I think that
Bush has shown reasons why we cannot trust him, but that has been dealt with
before).

2)  If character is moot, we should value competence.

3)  George III of England was reportedly fairly moral as kings go, but his
madness was no aid to the kingdom.  Chamberlain's stupidity regarding Hitler
should probabnly out-rank that he was a very sweet man (while Churchill was a
drunken/cigar smoking/rude man...who had the brains to do what was needed).
History doesn't have a lot of examples of great leaders who were stupid.
> 
>
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Aren't KILL files great?!
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:14:53 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)


In article <1992Aug27.160440.24439@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:

|> And in most circumstances, a  violation of most usage rules.  Now that
|> aside, the reason that many of the Crisp and Crisp'ets are being put into
|> kill files is their lack or REAL substance to most of their arguments.  
|> 
|> Most often, when asked for hard sources, no reply is recieved or a flimsy
|> source at best is quoted by the Crisp'ets.  Just to give an example, 
|> I think it was Paul who posted an article over Canadia's Health system 
|> from Reader's Digest.  He seemed to ignore the multitude of articles which
|> can be found in various medical journals.

Exactly, I for one have asked Mr. Crisp a few times to please indicate the
source of his Hitler quote about disarming the people, and he still hasn't 
answered.  Should we assume he simply made it up?

You know, which one, Crisp, THIS one:

|> Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
|> (415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
|> 
|> "The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
|> public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

Any answers?

    Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       |
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Consitution
Summary: ammend ammend
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:41:31 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I would have added this to earlier Constitution comments, but my computer is
acting up.

Back when Perot was sort-of-running, Qyale warned how he would subvert the
Constitution.

Now, ammeding the Constitution is our right, but consider how many times GHWB
has wanted to change this document.
He wants a flag burning ammendment.
He wants an abortion ammendment.
He wants a term limit ammendment.
He wants a balanced budget ammendment (apparently,
 just submitting one won't work)
Does he want an ammendment to include G-O-D?  Or maybe one to require the
Pledge of Allegiance.  (By the way, in case you've forgotten, Dukaikis'
decision on the pledge was so that he would remain in compliance w/his state's
Supreme Court.)


Now he's mad that the SC didn't overturn Roe v Wade.  Their biggest reason is
that they operated on stare decisis, which is a fancy way of saying that
precedent has weight and shouldn't be over-turned easily.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: crisp's letter on clinton's gov't takeover
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:21:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.185323.22327@athena.mit.edu> jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger) writes:
>Why do you feel so threatened by people with criminal records not
>carrying guns?  Don't you have more faith in the system than that?
>They aren't exactly disarming everyone...  just putting a few
>limitations on because they're trying to control crime.
>
>	Trying to be reasonable,

It's rather difficult "to be reasonable" (as opposed to trying
to appear to be reasonable) when one doesn't know relevant information.

The gun control measures supported by Clinton have failed time and
time again, and not just in the US.  The objection isn't to the
supposed goal, but to the methods, which won't accomplish the goal,
and to the effects the proposed measures actually have.

The measures proposed can't affect criminal access because they don't
affect sources criminals use, let alone readily available alternative
sources.  It is reasonable to point out what the measures actually can
and do affect.  Any discrepancy between Clinton's claims/goals and the
measures proposed is Clinton's problem.  We get to decide whether he's
lying or stupid, but does it really matter?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
	<1992Aug26.020128.28016@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<athos-260892095252@athos.apple.com>
	<1992Aug27.181128.3547@advtech.uswest.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:12:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.181128.3547@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

   Why not get down on Reagan for his own tax plan of 1986?  The plan
   that left an unexplainable, totally unfair "bulge" in certain
   middle-income tax rates that is HIGHER than upper-income rates?

   I've never understood that.  

I can explain.  The confusing thing is that the each tax rate is
"marginal", applying only to that portion of your income in the range
the rate applys to, not to your total income.  The tax rates look
something like this: (made up figures)

$0 - $20,000		20%
$20,000 - $40,000	30%
$40,000 - $60,000	40%
$60,000 -		30%

If you make $90,000 you pay this 20% of the first $20,000, 30% of the
next $20,000, 40% of the next $20,000, and 30% of the remainder.  This
adds up to $4,000 + $6000 + $8000 + $9000 = 27,000, or exactly 30% of
the total.  The "bulge" is designed to bring the total tax rate of
everyone over $60,000 to exactly 30%, and it makes the total tax rate
for those from $20,000 to $60,000 slope gently from 20% to 30%.
Naturally, the tax rate below $20,000 is exactly 20%.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Date: 28 Aug 1992 17:42:45 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug27.214208.7923@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> [.. Bush Fact Sheet on FTR ..]
>>> The National Institutes of Health properly funds research involving
>>> transplantation into humans of fetal tissue derived from
>>> spontaneous abortions, ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, and cell
>>> cultures.  The President supports that research, which may
>>> contribute to medical breakthroughs against various diseases.

However, all of the researchers in the field state that the amount
of such tissue is totally inadequate, esp. since much of it is
unsuitable. When this is pointed out, Holtsinger observes

>My impression is that private researchers have an unfounded fear 
>of any government restrictions on research funding, even if the 
>restrictions would not limit their research.  There is a great 
>deal of fame and recognition to be gained in the area of fetal 
>tissue research -- the careers of many researchers are at stake.  
>It would suit them to place their careers ahead of other considerations.

This defense is an oxymoron. Let us suppose that use of fetal tissue is
immoral (I disagree, but that's the Bush position.) Then the final
sentence is true. However, it contradicts the first sentence, esp.
"unfounded".

Say, Holtsinger, when you take time out from writing a balanced budget,
please post the number of fetuses available under the Bush plan and
contrast it to research demands. We'll hear from you later, yes?

andy
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Consitution
Summary: ammend ammend
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:56:48 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Aug31.134131.6378@iscsvax.uni.edu>, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu              writes... 
>Now, ammeding the Constitution is our right, but consider how many times GHWB
>has wanted to change this document.
>He wants a flag burning ammendment.
>He wants an abortion ammendment.
>He wants a term limit ammendment.
>He wants a balanced budget ammendment (apparently,
> just submitting one won't work)

You forgot to mention that he doesn't believe that Congress has the 
power to declare war. (Or was the quote "Congress can declare whatever it
wants." I'll take us into war if I deem necessary.")

>Does he want an ammendment to include G-O-D?  Or maybe one to require the
>Pledge of Allegiance.  (By the way, in case you've forgotten, Dukaikis'
>decision on the pledge was so that he would remain in compliance w/his state's
>Supreme Court.)
> 
> 
>Now he's mad that the SC didn't overturn Roe v Wade.  Their biggest reason is
>that they operated on stare decisis, which is a fancy way of saying that
>precedent has weight and shouldn't be over-turned easily.
> 

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jkness@IASTATE.EDU (Joel K Ness)
Subject: RE: EDITORIAL: Sexual revolution
Reply-To: jkness@IASTATE.EDU (Joel K Ness)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 02:38:57 GMT

> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
>
>DISCLAIMER: It's not often that I type in editorials from the school
>newspaper, but this one has caught my attention. I only offer this article
>solely for the purposes of discussion.
>
>Taken without permission from the Duke CHRONICLE < student-run newspaper >
>from Wed Sep 02 92, p 11.
>
>"Sexual revolution oversteps boundaries into immorality"
>James Knudsen [second-year law student at Duke]
>
>The chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst recently
>approved the inclusion of pedophilia as a protected category within the
>"Sexual Orientation" section of its affirmative action statement.

First the homosexuals, now the pedophiles.  Where are the necrophiliacs??
When will they speek up and demand to be heard!!!  


...............meet my wife....baaa...baaaa

--
******************************************************************************
Joel K. Ness
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Dept.
2064 Black Engineering
Iowa State University                   "But captain, I can't change the 
Ames, Iowa  50010                        laws of physics"--Montgomery Scott
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:30:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.153857.7456@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!lambda.msfc.nasa.gov!destroyer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsc!rats
>From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
>Subject: Re: Defined: National Police Force
>Organization: AT&T
>Distribution: usa
>Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:38:57 GMT
>Message-ID: <1992Aug25.153857.7456@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>
>Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
>Lines: 16
>
>|Seriously, Lance, the Army ain't that stupid.  Tanks have pisspots inside,
>|as well as food.  It isn't very easy to fuck up the treads, and they have
>|a lot more than one little periscope.
>
>Hmm, I read one article a long time ago where tankers used the spent
>brass of their cannon as "pisspots" because they had no intention
>of exiting their vehicle for fear of being shot.
>
>|There are reasonable answers to tank warfare, but I don't think the NRA
>|is going to advocate fiber-optic guided missiles for the masses soon.
>
>But an urban combat environment belongs to the irregular forces... what's
>to prevent irregular forces from using all sorts of booby traps, as
>well as acetylene gas to attack the engines of the mechanised forces
>sent to attack them?

     I would dearly love to see someone try and drive a tank into Knoxville.
The area is so honey-combed with caves and limestone that the streets
occasionally collapse with just that weight of normal cars.

===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3001 alt.politics.bush:2904 talk.politics.misc:41938
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:38:38 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>Thus, I view this quite differently.  I see that at any one point in time
>37 million Americans are without health insurance and about another 25 to
>30 million are at-risk because they will lose their insurance for at least
>one month during the next 24 months.
>
>I see nothing to admire about a society that thinks it's admirable to subject
>its citizens to that kind of fear, uncertainty, and insecurity.  I see nothing
>to admire about a society which heavily subsidizes the insurance purchases of
>upper-middle and upper class Americans, while proposing a feeble voucher
>system for uninsured working Americans and an underfunded Medicaid plan
>for the poor.
>
>I was without insurance one time for 3 months during a job change.  It
>completely changes your life-style.  Stopped playing racquetball becuase I
>couldn't afford it if I got hurt, not to mention the possibility of pre-
>existing conditions not being covered.  Used two forms of contraception,
>because there's no way we could afford to pay for a birth.

I fail to understand why anyone would allow something as important
as medical insurance to be subject to the whims of others. I take
care of my own auto insurance and homeowner's insurance as I suspect
you do. I also take care of my own medical insurance. Thus I am not
subject to whims of employers changing coverage or "employee contribution"
or losing coverage completely for a time if I choose to work elsewhere.
Nor am I subject to the whims of some government agency changing elegibility
requirements and payment schedules. It only seems common sense.

My current employer "allows" me to waive coverage under his group
plan, big whoop. For that favor I get a lump sum of $330 each year.
With a $2500 deductable, that buys me a million dollars worth of
major medical coverage, no copayments required. Thus I'm insured
for any *unexpected* medical emergency, and I prudently budget
for routine care out of my pocket. If I had gone under my employer's 
group plan, I would have had a $250 deductable, a 50% copayment up
to $2000, and a 20% copayment for everything beyond that up to 
$250,000. In addition, I would be making an employee "contribution"
of $17 a month out of my paycheck. If I have a major medical emergency,
I'm ahead of the game. If I don't have a major emergency, and my annual
medical expense is no more than it has been for the last 20 years, only
once over $200, then I'm even further ahead of the game. Only in the
case of a medical expense between $250 and $2500 can I be out more
money under my personal coverage. And then it's only $1246 more worst
case. Plus I get to write 50% of that $330 off against my taxes each
year and I save $17 a month of after tax money. You can't insure a
Camaro for that. Surely my health is worth more than a car.

Gary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Poverty
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:01:43 GMT

Well the Democrats must be having a party.  The Census Bureau said that 30 million folk
are in "poverty".  The War on Poverty has been lost inspite of the fact that welfare spending
reached $226 billion (five times the amount spent in 1964 after inflation adjustment).

I am sure that all good Democrats will soon be shouting about what Reagan and Bush have done
and that we need more taxes and more welfare programs.  This in turn will put more people
in "poverty" requiring more programs.  What a party they must be having.


Some facts:

	40% of the "poor" own their own homes
	750,000 "poor" own homes worth more than $100,000
	75,000 "poor" own homes worth more than $300,000

	62% of the "poor" own a car
	14% of the "poor" own two or more cars
	
	~50% have AC
	33% of the "poor" own a microwave

	The average protein, minerals and vitamin intake for "poor" children is nearly
	the same as "middle-class" children.

	"Poor" children today are 10 pounds heaver and 1" taller on average than the
	average GI in WWII ( a war Bill Clinton would have run from too)

	The Census Bureau uses only cash income.  The same report shows that "low-income"
	house holds spend $1.79 for ever $1.00 of cash income.

	In 1990 government spent $226 billion dollars on welfare.  The Census Bureau only
	counted $32.5 billion as aid.  The difference amounts to $13,330 for every "poor"
	household.

	Family Values:

	The poverty rate for married couples is 5.6%.

	The poverty rate for married couples with one full time worker 2%.

	The poverty rate for female-headed families 32.2%.

	Illegitimate birth rate (for you Democrats this is when the man and woman are
		not married,  and when the man skips out on his obligation to the woman
		and child) amoung blacks in 1960 25% today over 66%.


Have a nice day.

fred

##############################################################################

He did inhale.  He lied about the draft.  He did sleep with Flowers. 
He did cheat on his wife.  He will raise taxes.  He will put people out of
work.  He is LIBERAL.

You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

Bush/Quale 92

Fred Seals

##############################################################################
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:17:31 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)

In article <athos-280892121802@athos.apple.com>, athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
|> In article <46931@shamash.cdc.com>, rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)
|> wrote:
|> > 
|> > In article <1992Aug27.181128.3547@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
|> > |> > = (Rick Eames) writes:
|> > |> 
|> > |> [...]
|> > |> >Last night on PBS, I watched Gore say that they were going to tax the rich
|> > |> >(punish them) for doing well in the Reagan years.  
|> > |> 
|> > |> You know Rick, I'd like to read more of your ideas, but after you
|> > |> stop these baloney statements.
|> > 
|> > I watched Gore as well and he most definitely did not say anything of the sort.
|> > What he did say was that he was convinced that Bush/Quayle had the interest
|> > of the wealthiest Americans as their first priority.  He said that, based on
|> > their policies and their actions, Bush and Quayle would rather help the 
|> > privileged few become richer and more powerful than support the poor 
|> > and the middle class in their struggle to survive in this failing economy.
|> 
|> Horseshit.  He said that they wanted to increase the tax rate on the top 2%
|> because they did so well in the 80's and it was time to pay their "fair
|> share."  I have it on tape if you'd like a copy.  That is PUNISHING those
|> who become rich now.  

Yes, I'd like a copy.  Or at least, if you are going to tell us what Gore said,
you should quote him in his own words.  I am sure he did not say anything
about punishing anybody for doing well.  What he said was that it sure was
not fair to reduce taxes on the rich, raise them on middle class families,
and put an enormous federal debt on the shoulders of the next generations
of Americans.  That sure needs fixing!

  Rene J. Valdes                rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:43:05 EDT
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: If Bill were in George's place

If Clinton were in George's precarious political place, a sitting president
fighting tooth and nail for a second term generally perceived as someone
who does not really care for anything happening within the USA and needing
to demonstrate compassion to save his political skin; then he probably would
have called the FLA Governor on the phone MONDAY and said, hey, request help
NOW!  Don't wait.  Why didn't George just call and ask the gov to make the
request.  I don't get it.  Someone had to be aware of how damning the pictures
out of S FLA could be for him, whatever the protocol.  You have to ask yourselv
es, what other opportunities are eluding GHWB grasp?     Melissa Brown
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton