HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another reason to vote for Bush
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:40:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>

In article <1992Aug21.214108.28288@ncsu.edu>, 
dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) said:

> > Rights in the United States are based on the Constitution of the
> > United States.  This was not a democratically arrived at document,
> > but the product of rather an elite group of the landed gentry.
> > [dean.kaflowitz]
>
> That's funny, I always thought the preamble to the Constitution said
> "We, the people...", not "We, the elite group of landed gentry....".

Y'know, just because an elite group of landed gentry _calls_ itself
"the people," that don't make it so...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: LINE ITEM VETO (was Reducing Spending)
Date: 12 Aug 1992 17:27:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 5178@math.rutgers.edu, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
> 
> Several states have line item vetoes for their governors.  
> 
> --Scott

Yup, look at all the good it's done for California!  

:^D for the humor impaired...


Bob




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Bush's abortion stance
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:21:49 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  <1992Aug14.214259.11532@ncsu.edu>  dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.201552.28786@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
> As it turns out, Mr. Echeverri did not
> concoct a lie about Bush's abortion stance, but UPI issued a
> misleading story containing that false implication. (I did
> apologize to Mr. Echeverri in a previous post).
>
> > Regardless of Bush's stance and the *validity* of this
> > implication, it's clear that Ron did not edit it in an attempt to change
> > what it was saying -
>
> That's clear, but it still leaves open the fact that UPI wrote
> a false and misleading story about President Bush's stance on
> abortion, and you and Mr. Echeverri don't seem to want to
> recognize that.

I recognize that he started out pro-choice, that he switched to pro-life
in order to join Ray-gun, that (according to you) he supports abortion
rights in the case of rape, that (according to an article just posted by
Ms. Rothman) he considers the Republican abortion plank (which contains
*no* exception for rape) justified, and that it's quite possible that,
if re-elected, he'll switch back to pro-choice.  I hope we never find out
what he would do if re-elected.  Frankly, I don't *care* what his
stance-du-jour is; I only replied to this thread because you unjustly
accused Mr. Echeverri of dishonesty.  Now that you've apologized, I'm
dropping out.  If you have a problem with the UPI story, feel free to
take it up with them.  (But note that in order to claim that they wrote
a misleading story about Bush's stance, you'd have to prove that he
actually *has* a stance.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39891 ca.politics:6813 ba.politics:4537
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:52:08 GMT
	<SLAGLE.92Aug6153924@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<1992Aug7.163009.25174@news.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu's message of 7 Aug 92 16:30:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.163009.25174@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:

> If your local newspapers and television have been excluding the actual
> composition of the first UN force in Sarajevo (hell, where do those
> UN'ers come from? (-;) out of laziness (IMHO, the only concrete media
> bias that one can put a finger on ... sloth), then your article is
> forgiven ...

Where did I suggest that there were no Canadians involved
in the UN forces?  What I was objecting to was the finger
pointing and the tone that suggested that it was a "Yank"
responsibility to take care of all the worlds problems.
What I objected to was the sneer that the "Yanks" could
solve the problem if they wanted to, but that they were
too self-absorbed or concerned with internal politics to
do so.  What I objected to was the implication that it is
the "Yanks" that are delinquent in their responsibilities
for not doing what nobody else, including the poster's own
precious country, seems to be willing to do either.

I don't need or want your forgiveness, or your arrogance.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Call for transcripts Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:44:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.203859.22758@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>In article <4465@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>                                   If anyone has any recent response by
>>Jennifer Fitzgerald, please let us all know before the media get to her.
>>:) Ms. Fitzgerald, however, unlike Gennifer Flowers, did not bring these
>>charges up herself to the press. 
>
>_Spy_ pointed out that Gennifer had a $20,000 job as an entertainer or
>something before she sold out to the tabloid, while Jennifer is a
>highly-paid and powerful Washington bureaucrat, unlikely to sell out even
>if the story is true. There's a lesson for would-be presidents.
>
>Remember the scene from _All the President's Men_ where Donald Segretti
>(Nixon's Mary Matalin) is talking to Bernstein? When Bernstein charged
>that Segretti cooked up a rumor about Hubert Humphrey using call girls,
>Segretti said that if anything, the story helped HHH's image. Different
>times, I guess.
>
>It's only a movie. Where are the barf bags though? There are 80-some days
>of this mudstorm left.

Bush has fallen on his own sword (so to speak) he and the republican
party have gone on the family values crusade and now its coming
home to roost. Even if Clinton did have an affair it would be much
less serious than is Bush did simply because Bush is running on the
family values platform, which makes him a hypocrit as well as an
adulterer.



-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40829 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2742 alt.rush-limbaugh:3769 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4683 alt.politics.bush:2260 alt.politics.clinton:2327 alt.politics.elections:11060
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Newest Quayle Quote!
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:43:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

From the Washington _Post_ today:
At a gala, "where Bush praised his running mate as a man who has 'given
better than he's got,' Quayle jokingly promised the President, 'I will
not represent you at a spelling bee.
	"Quayle said that he spells LIBERAL:

	C-L-I-N-T-O-N <<adding after a pause>> -E."

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:28:39 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>A memo from Jack Kemp, Vin Weber, Newt Gingrich, Connie Mack, 
>Trent Lott, Bob Kasten, and Malcolm Wallop.

>     For people making just over $15,000 a year in 1992, the 
>     effective marginal tax rate is 47%, compared to only
>     23% in the mid-60s.  [The 47% figure reflects a 15% income
>     tax rate, a 15% payroll tax, and the jolt of the phase out 
>     of the earned income tax credit.]  The 1990 budget deal
>     increased the top federal marginal rate to 34% from 28%
>     for a family of four, a 21% increase.

add in 8% of state tax rates, local income taxes?, other
taxes (e.g., CA disability), and an 8% sales tax of whats
left (which equals >16% of gross) and that person is pretty
much worked to death:(
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Public vs. private transportation
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:22:30 GMT
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug20155009@gauss.nmsu.edu> <1992Aug21.010113.3137@s1.gov>
Distribution: na
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug21.010113.3137@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug20155009@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   ><In article <1992Aug20.063950.18437@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
<   ><	   Fast enough trains can successfully compete with air travel.
<   > <  Consider the example of the French TGV, which travels at 180 mph in
<   > <  some routes, <

<   >	Name them. 

<	   The Southeast line and the Atlantic line.

<   >	I've ridden TGV twice and the train never
<   >	exceeded 100 mph. I don't believe that train could
<   >	come close to 180 miles per hour.

<	   The TGV has to travel more slowly when it is not running on
<   dedicated track.

	I rode from Lausanne to Dijon twice, Dijon to Paris once.
	Is that the "southeast" line referred to above?

	If so, you are misinformed as TGV never exceeded
	100 miles/hour.

<	   How were you counting the speed (average or maximum), and
<   where were you traveling to?

	I read the display in the cabin and performed the obvious
	conversion from km/h to miles/hour.

	Top speed was about 95 miles/hour.

	So sorry to introduce reality into a t.p.m. discussion....
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39562 ca.politics:6769 ba.politics:4498
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:23:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>
>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates 
>opportunity for ALL to advance!  
>
>
>-- 
>        --Ernie.Corley@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM  

What a nice theory for the rich! They can have their cake and still be
comforted by the knowledge that they're helping the poor at the same time!

Of course, the link between capital-gains tax cuts for the rich, and
real job-producing investment, has yet to be conclusively demonstrated,
however logical it appears as a theory.

However justifiable a capital-gains tax cut may be, it can't be done
on the grounds that it will help the poor.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.guns
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights was (Clinton's S.S.)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 04:28:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na

In article <1992Aug15.021319.17767@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <m36m2cf.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>> ...
>>Can anyone tell us which party affiliation Mr. Major Owens has?
>> ...
>
>  He is the representative of the 12th district of NY (in Brooklyn), 
>is a Democrat serving his 5th term and won with 95% of the vote in
>the last election.  He serves on both the Education and Labor
>Committee and the Goverment Operations committee.

Thanks, Henry for providing the information.

I don't find it a surprise that a Democrat would be in favor of
eliminating the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. They always seem
to be the source of legislative proposals that further Socialism and
elimination of individual liberties. They are always in favor of more
government, bigger government, and government that is designed to 
protect us from ourselves. 

The thing that is most disturbing to me is that they are slowly eroding our
ability to overthrow the bastards when we all wake up someday and decide the
system is corrupt, broken and unsalvageable. It is then, my friends, that we
will wish we had personal liberties again: liberties to have weapons that
are capable of being used in an insurrection, communications equipment
for coordination of the activities of the rebels etc. 

Had King George had the democrats (and the liberal republicans) over here
in the colonial days, we would have never been successful in our revolution.
Think about it folks, your grandchildren may be in peril in the same way the
Tiannanmen Square students were.....


-- 
Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax

"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: disarm the
public, create a national police force, and enlist the aid of  
the media propaganda machine to make all believe that the country
must take drastic measures to correct the so called sins of the
prior regime. Those that follow will be as culpable as the 
brownshirts and Hitler Youth.

Very Dangerous Times Indeed!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:47:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.161720.18302@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!mmm.serc.3m.com!pwcs!chrisl
>From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
>Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
>Message-ID: <1992Aug17.161720.18302@pwcs.stpaul.gov>
>Sender: news@pwcs.stpaul.gov (USENET news administration)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: krang
>Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
>References: <1992Aug16.214114.8647@wetware.com> <1992Aug16.233652.13536@ncsu.edu>
>Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:17:20 GMT
>Lines: 13
>dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>> The best reason to vote for Bush is to avoid placing a Democratic
>> president and a democratically-controlled Congress in charge of
>> spending.  
>
>Goody!  Let's only spend money on what the Republicans want to spend
>money on!  Heck, that only quintupled the deficit during the Reagan
>years!

     *Everybody* got to spend money on what the wanted during the 
"Reagan Years."  That's why the debt is so high.  Republicans *and*
Democrats are to blame, because their budget fights generally ended up
with everybody getting to spend the money they wanted just to get
the thing over with.


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

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39285 talk.abortion:31455 alt.politics.bush:1337 alt.flame:12031
From: keegan@sungod.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:05:24 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

the hall/chaney creature, posting as
chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
-> Thank you very much. I'll make sure my vote goes to
-> George Herbert Walker Bush.

i urge you, dennisstephen, to repeat this statement in
as many newsgroups as possible. i think your net.rep
will influence people. really.

-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40253 alt.politics.clinton:2107 alt.politics.bush:1892
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:03:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <1992Aug15.033505.7800@muddcs.claremont.edu>, sbonds@jarthur.claremont.edu (007) writes:

[stuff deleted]

> It probably has more to do with how fewer people carry semi-automatic rifles
> around with them.  And those that do, will rarely need to use them.  (Would
> YOU threaten someone carrying an M-16 over his shoulder?  I sure wouldn't!
> "Hey man!  Gimee yer wallet!"  <Bang> )

   Threaten him/her? No! I'd kill 'em first, then take the wallet.
I.e.: <bang>  "Hey man! Thanx fer yer wallet! A-and I doan think
you'll be needin' th' M-16 either!"

> For a group who espouse personal liberties so much of the time, the democratic
> party never has seen fit to extend this to gun ownership.  Americans love to
> hunt.  Americans love to target shoot.  We invented sharpshooting, and we're
> never going to give it up.

I'm not asking you to give up your gun; just a little license &
registration...

>   -- 007
> (a democrat with a gun)
					- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:58:05 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <36956@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman) writes:
]In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
]>Actually, the poor would benefit quite a bit from a capital gains tax
]>cut.....  much more so than the rich.  Investment fuels the
]>economic engine that creates jobs, creates prosperity, and creates 
]>opportunity for ALL to advance!  
]
]I've always had trouble with this. What else are investors going to do with
]their money?

Well, first of all, they have more money to invest if you don't take it
away from them. If you give it to the government, it rarely invests it
in ways that create jobs or prosperity.

Second, they will tend to spend more of it on consumer goods rather
than investing it in prosperity producing areas.

Furthermore, if capital gains are taxed, it will increase the incentive
to invest in low risk (hence, low growth) areas that have a corresponding
lower capital increase. Since most high technology areas are high risk,
it will reduce high tech investment. Another way of saying this is that
the capital gains tax (especially the way we have it now where losses
are not as deductible as gains are taxable) increases the risk of
investments.

Finally, it will increase investment it tax sheltered areas, which are
those areas that the goverment (ie, lobbyists and pressure groups)
feel should be invested in. This interference in the market is also
likely to reduce prosperity.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39248 ca.politics:6704
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence of How Homosexuals Are "Oppressed" In America
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:57:10 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <11713@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <11710@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>> In article <11683@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <11682@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
># But let's back up to your previous phrase: "typical homosexual lying fashion". 

[...examples of racism deleted...]

># Isn't "typical homosexual lying fashion" a generalization, a slur,  
># just as bad, just as ugly, and just as stupid, as the ones I have given?
># 
># --
># dave
># manley@optilink.com
>
>One difference: I have found "homosexual = liar" to be true far more 
>often than not.  I have repeatedly made it clear that not all 
>homosexuals are child molesters, and some are quite hostile to 
>child molestation, and yet many of the homosexuals on the net keep
                            ^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>claiming that I said that all homosexuals are child molesters.  I
>keep correcting them, and they keep saying it.  

What you have found is that those 'homosexuals on the net' WHO CARE
ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY AND HAVE BEEN ENOUGH BOTHERED TO RESPOND TO YOU
are (in your (humble) opinion) liars. 

I greped/seded/sorted the From: lines in soc.motss.  I found 143 different
posters to that group.  The number of people that I know by their own
admission to be homosexuals who have repeatedly responded to your
postings number at most a dozen or two.  The most prominent being
Brian Kane, Jeff Dauber, Roger B.A. Klorese, and Tim Pierce.

143 vs. ~12-24 vs. 4.

You must admit this is probably a smaller number than would be
indicated by either your 'typical homosexual' or 'homosexuals on the net'
phrasing.

Your "typical homosexual lying fashion" phrase is obviously an
ugly slur.  You have no means of supporting the generality it
implies.  

If you made a similiar statement about blacks based on the same
evidence I would say you are a racist.  Since you instead
made the statement about homosexuals what should I deduce
about your thought processes?

--
dave
manley@optilink.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton