HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
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
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:33:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <JTURNER.92Nov6183144@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.154034.17906@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>
>> A point you do not acknowledge is that the value of your money due
>> to inflation goes down over time and there is NO current way to
>> offset that without paying taxes on the "dividends" you get if yoiu
>> invest your money.  The capital gains tax would be more acceptable
>> if it allowed for an adjustment of your initial dollar investment
>> based on inflation.  Example: I buy a house for cash $200,000.
>> Ten years from now I sell it for $300,000.  Why should I pay 
>> capital gains on $100,000 IF the inflation rate has essentially
>> offset that added $100,000 value of the home? 
>
>	But if someone else took the same money and put it in
>a mattress for ten years the government wouldn't pay them the
>difference in value at the end of that time.  Thems the breaks.
>Everyone loses money to inflation whether or not they invest.
>					--Jeff Turner

What a pathetic statement.  Bottom line in your mind then is you
have no problem with people being taxed while simply wanting to
"stay even".  As for those that just put money in a mattress, well
that's their own choice, stupid though it may be.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17080 alt.politics.democrats.d:529 alt.politics.elections:23713 ba.politics:7097 co.politics:1960 ne.politics:2964 nj.politics:713 or.politics:624 ny.politics:234 talk.politics.misc:60007
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
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
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:48:31 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Xxdate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 16:45:08 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <1992Nov13.223157.26460@claven.ucar.edu> Greg Woods,
woods@claven.ucar.edu writes:
>If we care about our fellow man (and I agree that as a rule, we do), then
>why do you feel that it is necessary to use force to obtain this care?
>Do you believe that people wouldn't voluntarily help each other in their
>hour of need? If you do, how do you reconcile that with caring about
>one's fellow man?

Actually, mankind has an abysmal historical record
with regards to caring
for others. Just take a look at the unspeakable attrocities
being performed by the Serbians.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16163 alt.politics.bush:13390 talk.politics.misc:58566
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: WHY WE SHOULD VOTE FOR CLINTON
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:13:42 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1d4e9aINN2je@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>In other words, the counterintuitive Laffer curve is false, at least at
>the starting points of the 1980s.

I couldn't let this pass.

To put it bluntly, anyone who doesn't find the Laffer curve intuitive
is either ignorant of what it is or totally brain dead.

The Laffer curve says that as tax rates are increased from 0% to 100%
tax revenue will go from 0 to a peak and then back down to 0.  

If that isn't obvious I would like to know what is.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democratc.d,alt.politics.election,ba.poliitcs,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: gnome@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Gary)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Is Clinton/Gore on NET??
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:06:07 GMT
Distribution: na

I've been hearing how Gore, at least, is supposed
to be semi-technologically interested.

Is his office or anyone associated with Clinton/Gore
emailable?

Just wondering.

Gary

gnome@atc.olivetti.com
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Poor winners
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:30:11 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov4.162009.5410@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In <1992Nov4.024644.4864@athena.cs.uga.edu> stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton)
>>In article <griffinb.720704607@unix1.tcd.ie> griffinb@unix1.tcd.ie (brendan james griffin) writes:
>>>In <1992Nov2.093951.1196@beaver.cs.washington.edu> aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:
>>>>Well, the latest polls are showing Clinton running away with
>>>>the vote.  He's gained 7 points on Bush since Saturday in the
>>>>CNN *likely* voter polls, and Perot is a flat as a board.
>>>>My prediction:
>>>>Clinton: 450 electoral votes
>>>>Bush:    88  electoral votes.
>>>>Perot:    0  electoral votes.
>>>>Tee hee.
>>>FUCK YOU!
>>>Brendan.
>>>
>>Sore loser, are we?
>
>	Almost as bad as being a sore winner, Cat.

Who in the above exchange resorted to obscenity?  (I confess, obscenity does
come to the tip of my tongue when thinking of George Bush, but my desire to
excoriate doesn't "trickle down" to his supporters.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: STUPID VOTER AND STUPID PERSON 
Keywords: STUPID
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:11:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.214657.29667@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> handd@tramp.Colorado.EDU (handd) writes:
>WHAT A STUPID CHOICE FOR 1993~1996!!!!!
>
>1993=> DOUBLE UNEMPLOYMENT + DOUBLE INFLATION + DOUBLE DEFICIT =>1996
>    

This would have been more clever if "double" were factored out, as thus:

DOUBLE(UNEMPOLYMENT + INFLATION + DEFICIT)

= 2(UNEMPOLYMENT + INFLATION + DEFICIT)

Or perhaps more appropriately, 2(<insert keyword>) = handd@tramp

And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:24:45 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>I was always under the assumption that a Democratic administration would
>be hostile towards any technological development.  Like the space program
>in general.  Were the delays in the shuttle program in the late '70s
>caused by Carter or was this just a coincidenc??

I dimly remember technical problems with the main shuttle
engines (one or two exploded under test) and with the tiles.
Remember it was Kennedy who sent us to the moon.  Maybe Clinton, 
late in a possible second term, will make popular the notion
of going to Mars (assuming he succeeds with his social programs).

------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16595 talk.politics.misc:59197 talk.politics.drugs:7411
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:41:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <FOX.92Nov7015449@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

|>In article <1992Nov6.184406.28686@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:

|>   First of all, I don't think all that many people would start using
|>   legalized drugs.  After all, how cheap would crack cocaine have to be
|>   for you to use it?  As another example, if you don't smoke now, would
|>   you start if cigarettes were free?  I suspect that most people who
|>   don't use crack now wouldn't use it even if it were cheap and legal.
|>   I know I wouldn't.

|>Well, maybe if I was sixteen, and there were lots of ads everywhere
|>saying how sexy and popular I would be if I did it, and if crack
|>companies sponsered lots of cool sporting events, and all my
|>friends were doing it, and there were crack vending machines in
|>every bar, and...

You mean sort of like the current situation with cigarretes and alcohol.

The vast majority of kids do not smoke and only drink occassionally,
if at all.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  5 Nov 92 14:48:20 GMT

cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:

>In article <sulkanen.720886922@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>> 
>> 1. US News & World Reports notes in "Washington Whispers" that the Hillarator
>> will be an integral part of the nomination & appointment process. So much for
>> the campaign's "Donna Reed" transmorgification.

>Good.  I've been looking forward to Hillary Clinton as First Lady for
>several months.  Bar and Nancy always had their say; at least Hillary
>has a first-rate mind.

It is specious logic to infer this from an Ivy-league law degree.

>> 2. USNWR suggests that the Clintonistas and Congress will quickly work to
>> lift the gag rule on abortion counseling and lift the ban on fetal-tissue
>> research. 

>Too late -- the courts just lifted it.  And why not?  The Reagan
>Counter-Revolution is under way.  OF COURSE it's going to be lifted.
>Next you'll tell us that you suspect Clinton will appoint a pro-choice
>Supreme Court Justice.

Oh, he's already announced the litmus test!

>             They also note that the new White House will need to accomodate
>> Congressional liberals; e.g. John Dingel (D-MI), who states that Clinton's
>> federally run health care plan needs to "go further".

>Care to elaborate on this "need?"  What does Clinton need from the
>Congress?  He saved the Democratic Party.  He's calling the shots.

Yeah, did you see George Mitchell on C-SPAN last night...he made it clear that
(i) the Congressional Dems would present their own agenda, thank you very much
and that (ii) they will resuscitate their vetoed bills to start the term off
on the right (er..left) foot.

Martin
From: mea@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: SUGGESTION:  E-Clinton!
Date: 7 Nov 92 09:40:36 -0500

In article <1992Nov5.215814.265@rivers>, ph9991_manfr@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu writes:
>               
> 
> 
> Congratulations all round to anyone in the Clinton campaign who might
> be reading this, and condolences to anyone who was with the other campaigns
> or who voted for another candidate.
> 
> 
> And Now For Something Completely Different.....
> 
> E-clinton!
> 
> If anyone who was on the Clinton campaign is reading this, please take
> notice of my following suggestion:
> It has been one of the Governor's strnegths that he has tried to remain in
> touch with the nation and ordinary people.
> Another strength of the campaign was its recognition of UseNet and the
> campaign's periodic postings of press releases to us....
> 
> Therefore, I suggest that the Clinton Administration maintain an email
> address and a monitor of the traffic on this newsgroup....and dare I say it...
> perhaps have the President himself or at least the Vice-President or some
> cabinet members respond directly to a random selection of postings on
> the group?   Not too many, maybe only 10 a day or 10 every two days, but
> SOMETHING.  
> 
> Al Gore should support this, I would think.  It could save on gas from all
> the bus trips!  :)
> 
> 
> What do you lot think?
> 
> 
> Steven.K.Manfred@uwrf.edu
> 
> 
> 
I HEARTILY SECOND THE MOTION!!!!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16734 alt.politics.democrats.d:425 alt.politics.elections:23377 ba.politics:6966 co.politics:1759 ne.politics:2859 nj.politics:641 or.politics:552 ny.politics:164 talk.politics.misc:59409
From: yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski)
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
Subject: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:03:56 GMT
Organization: Paramax Systems, Ivyland, PA

In article <BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
>rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>>To who?  You?  Picture this: Take a single earner family with three pre-school
>>children (doesn't pay for wife to work), making around 30K/yr.  Keeping a 
>
>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>	income have 3 kids????
>

Could be because they want them!  How can you be so naive to relate these
two issues.  There could be many reasons someone only makes $30K a year
with three kids.  Many people live below the poverty line in this
country and are not educated.  Many people are divorced in this country
raising children on their own.  Or, GOD forbid you lose your job in this
WONDERFUL economy.  Even if you get the maximum benefit ($308/week I
think) that only adds up to about $16K a year.  Don't make assumptions
and preach population control when the discussion is taxes.  Or maybe
you could put your extra money to education of the poor and
underprivileged about birth control.  Now, that would be socialism and
we can't have that.  Or it would be against your religious moral fiber.
You are going to meet people of every possible living situation in this
world (or on this net) unless you keep yourself closed up in your glass
house.  Please don't make assumptions unless you think about them first.

Steve


>	People have to be held responsible for their actions - until they
>	are held accountable for generating mouths to feed, I can't
>	see subsidizing it!
>
>	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.
>
>		George (adopted mine) La Belle


Stephen Yavorski			internet - yavo@ivy.unisys.com
NEXRAD Integration			phone    - (215) 443 - 7500
Paramax Systems Corporation
Ivyland, Pennsylvania
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Dr. Seuss for President
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:34:29 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

Yesterday, two days AFTER the election, I saw a guy on the roadside
waving the sign *DR. SEUSS FOR PRESIDENT*!.  Might have been a freaked
out UC San Diego student, but I didn't stop to ask.

-----------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16720 alt.politics.democrats.d:423 alt.politics.elections:23362 ba.politics:6959 co.politics:1755 ne.politics:2857 nj.politics:639 or.politics:550 ny.politics:162 talk.politics.misc:59378
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
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
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:58:57 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Nov10.060546.7374@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>Actually, there IS a state without a sales tax. New Hampshire. (unless
>of course it has passed one since I was an undergrad at Dartmouth.)
>The fact that NH hasn't a sales tax, coupled with the high taxes "enjoyed"
>just across the Connecticut River in Vermont was playing havoc with
>businesses in places like White River Junction, VT, and other
>border towns.
>

New Hampshire not only has no sales tax, but also NO INCOME TAX.
New Hampshire happens to have the lowest per capita tax burden 
(including their fairly high property taxes that is) in the country.
Yet, New Hampshire has enough money to run schools that frequently
keep it #1 in SAT scores and free of the more significant financial problems
of much of New England--  read that as Massachusetts (Taxachusetts).
It is my view that the consistency of property tax income and the 
non-reliance on what would be fluctuating income and sales taxes is
what keeps NH so stable even in the midst of the SN&L crisis and 
massive reorganization of large companies in NH like Lockheed
and Digital.

Rocky Giovinazzo
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Slick Willy...1st Flip
Date: 6 Nov 1992 19:39:49 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <BxB4Iu.3Hs@wilber.rich.nt.com> zing@wilber.rich.nt.com (Leon Z. Lee) writes:
 >CBS News justn reported this morning that after months of opposing the
 >North American Free Trade agreement reached among Pres. Bush - Canada -
 >Mexico...Pres-elect Clinton just announced that he will accept the trade
 >agreement without any reservation or amendments.
 >
 >This is flip No. 1.   Stay tuned for additional flips...signing out.

There ya'll go again........

G. Bush took Clintons advise and formed a group to see that all
environmental and labor laws are met in both countries. The board
will sit in place of the Clinton recomended amendments to NAFTA.

Try reading a news paper or watch a little CNN some day....


It's a bird, It's a plane, NO NO, it's 

THE CLINTON/GORE SPIN PATROL !!!!
-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE volunteer
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:48:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.230150.12580@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>I wonder why Frank Crary sees more benefit in the national debt than
>in taxes.  Both borrowing and taxing are sources of funds for the same
>benefits.

Because one is voluntarily entered into by both parties (people willingly
and by choice lend the government money) while the other is money
obtained by threat of deadly force. Ultimately, the money to pay
the debt has to come from somewhere, but this is a responsibility 
assumed voluntarily by the voters/tax payers. Additional taxes imposed
on a minority (the rich) by the majority are not voluntary.

>> It's a little bit frightening to see defecit spending and the payment
>> of interest so freely disconnected: They are the same issue; you can't
>> do the former without doing the later. It's suggestive of the way 
>> the federal debt became so large: People weren't connecting the
>> consequences (paying interest) to their actions (defecit spending.)

>It's a little bit disorienting to see borrowing and taxation so freely
>disconnected.  If you enjoy government borrowing, sooner or later you
>have to be taxed to pay it back.

I don't _enjoy_ it at all. It is a stupid and destructive policy. However,
it isn't robbery (imposing taxes on a minority.) That's the
distinction between a bad idea and immoral.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder
From: larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:36:32 GMT
Organization: Data General, Westboro, Mass.



In article <Nov.8.13.01.31.1992.11303@cadenza.rutgers.edu> masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:



    Steve> [ Bush torpedoes GATT and starts a trade war with Europe ]

>I state flatly that this is a political maneuver directed by the
>Republican Party to stall the early days of the Clinton
>Administration.  Nice move.

It is very FLAT.  The democrats are verbally backing this stand
against unfair trading practices that the US has been trying to change
for years.  Moynihan (not even a drop of republican blood here) was
just on CNN yesterday and said basically he out and out supports it,
saying the French had been abusing us for years.  He said, the woman
(name slips me) that suggested the tariffs was doing an excellent job
and he felt she should be retained in her current job.  He said, "Good
for her, she chose white wine..."  Meaning she targeted the French
specifically.

Next you are going to say that Bush is trying to sabotage Clinton's
efforts with better than expected growth numbers and lower
unemployment prior to his taking office.  Please.  Save the bandwidth.
--
    @@               Larry Rogers               *
   @@@               Larry_Rogers@dg.com        *   Big Brother
   @@@ &&&           larry@boris.webo.dg.com    *   is Watching
    @@ &&            Data General  508-870-8441 * 

The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.

"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
   Dire Straits
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: cost per vote
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:21:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.172621.21039@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
|> some statistics from the election.
|>    (I am very unsure of the campaign spending figures; if
|>     anyone has anything more accurate, please let me know)
|> 
|> 			  Clinton	  Bush		  Perot
|> total votes		 43,728,000	 38,167,000	19,237,000
|> total expenditures	110,000,000	110,000,000	72,000,000
|> cost per vote		   $2.50	   $2.88	  $3.60
|> 
|> The only conclusions I can glean from this are totally
|> facetious: Clinton is the best businessman, and Perot is
|> the worst, because Clinton acheived the lowest cost/vote!
|> 
|> 			- Lee Campbell  <elwin@media.mit.edu>

That's a pretty poor conclusion.  Perot was an underdog with no party
support.  No one knew who he was.  I think he did pretty well.

Though you may be right.  Next time I'm trying to buy votes, I'll get
some advice from Bill.  Nah.  I could spend nothing and vote for myself.
Then I'd have an even better vote/cost ratio.  Yea!!!
-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com