HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: DEBT PER CAPITA (was Hillary Clinton....President ?)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:18:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <2B029523.207@deneva.sdd.trw.com> helding@pooh.sdd.trw.com (Steve Helding) writes:
>pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless) writes:

>On a related note, I've often wondered how much the increase in spending can
>attributed to the executive branch as opposed to Congress.  Anyone with hard
>facts and figures on this?  Personally, I believe a good deal of the national
>debt can be attributed to the tremendous tax cuts instituted during the
>Reagan administration along with the hugh defense outlays.  But then, doesn't
>Congress share in this responsibility?

Yes. I have posted many times the statistic that Federal Funds receipts
(this excludes Soc Sec, Medica*, and other trust funds) fell
precipitously frm the Reagan Tax Cut. Adjusting for inflation, Federal
Funds Receipts did not return to their 1981 level until 1986! 1984
incometax receipts were below 1982 in current (a fortiori constant)
dollars.

Meanwhile the Reagan defense binge sent spending way up, whence the
decifit. In other words, the defense increase (justified or not) was
paidfor with borrowed money.

The net Reaganistas like to confuse the issue by posting revenue figures
which include Social Security (taxes for which went UP) with Federal
Funds.

Sure Congress bears some responsibility: especially the REPUBLICAN
Senate (1980-1986, net Reaganistas claim falsely that it was only two
years) and the CONSERVATIVE (joke!) GOP-SouthernDemo coalition 
that controlld the House. Of course, even then Congress's budget often
had a smaller deficit than the budget plan submitted by the President.

However, most of the blame goes to the architects of the plan: President
Ronald Senile Reagan and his administration.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:56:03 GMT

In <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:

>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>Appealing to your subconcious.


     Well, there's a good way to get the secret service mointoring the
network.  So thoughful of you.  hope you get a visit from them.
From: n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES!
Keywords: TAXES!!!!!
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:11:25 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

STARR writes:

"Well, now that the election is over we can all stop fooling ourselves and
decide just how much we are going to raise taxes.

Um, WE won't decide anything. Our congress and Bill will. I didn't vote for
the man, therefore, I'm not part of that "we". THEY are going to raise
taxes. I'm going to hate them for it.

He later says:

"If president Clinton really wants to do the right thing he ought to say
bluntly and plainly to the American people:  "Either Government will do
less for you or you will pay more."  I believe Clinton should raise taxes
to cover the budget deficit.

AND FOR ALL OF YOU SO-CALLED C
"CONSERVATIVES" WHO WILL SAY "Oh no, it's the tax and spend democrats
again!"  THINK ABOUT IT:  YOU MUST PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE!"

No, it's not that simple. No matter how many words you put in capital
letters. Why do we spend more per capita on health care and get less in
return than many other countries. Our problem is the corrupt beaurocracy.
The money gets siphoned off by the middle-men (read:friends of congressmen),
and doen't reach those who need it. Wasteful spending is the problem, not
too many programs or not enough taxes. Bill has promised to curb this
spending, and cut staffs. I hope he does this before raising taxes on the
middle class. If any taxes should be raised, it should be on luxury items,
and gasoline (Perot had the right idea there).
But it's not as simple as raising revenue and spending it. Look at HOW it's
spent.

-Brian Harper
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Sex Discrimination in the Military
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:10:41 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Nov22.154559.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>, cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
|> Oh, fucking yes!  First of all, it's not DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!  It's
|> protection!  The military needs to work as a UNIT.  If just one person is
|> homophobic or does not like (or worse hates) homosexuals, that one person is
|> the waekest link in the unit...and the unit will DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|> Repeat DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The real problem here, which you have obviously failed
to understand, is that there is a terrible problem in 
the military with Sexual discrimination and harassment.
The military needs strong anti-discrimination and 
harassment laws.  I would propose dishonorable discharge
on the second offense.  A good example of this is the
general lack of respect for women exhibitted by the
pilots at the Tailhook convention, and the subsequent
coverup by the Navy!

|> 
|> Remember, a chain is a strong as its weakest link!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Then you remove the weak link.  It's that simple.  
You don't remove a competent person because someone
doesn't like them.  You straighten out the person
who is homophobic or kick them out.

|> Also, homophobia is NOT ignorance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just keep telling yourself that, shooter, and someday
you just may believe it.  Your post seems to tell me otherwise.

|> Everyone has the right to like and dislike what he or she wants to!!!!!!!!!!!!
|> You can't control people to the point of accepting everyone and everything...if


SOLDIERS, SAILORS, MARINES, and AIRMEN.  It is their job to be 
controlled by others.  It is their job to take orders from their
superiors and follow them to the letter.  And the last time I 
checked the constitution, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF
of these people and what he says goes.  So wake up and quit 
spouting like an idiot before you get laughed off the net!


-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton first digital President?
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:15:23 GMT
Organization: Betz & Associates

In <1992Nov15.041536.21267@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> tomw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Tom Worthington) writes:

>See news group "aus.acs" for details.

I can't, Tom.  This little blighted corner of the Net doesn't carry it.

How about a post here, or in t.p.m.?


-- 
Tom Betz -- 512 Warburton Avenue - Yonkers, NY 10701-1832 -- (914) 375-1510
 tbetz@panix.com | "It's a sick world...          | tbetz@upaya.panix.com
-----------------+             I'm a happy guy."  +--------------------------
"I wouldn't say it if I didn't know it wasn't true." -- Emmanuel Transmission
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17536 alt.president.clinton:593 talk.politics.misc:61077
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Summary: Simple Simon strikes again!
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:39:46 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Y'all *know* where we are, I hope.

In article <1992Nov19.210353.2336@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu <Mark Allan Hunt> writes:
>>
>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>>
>>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>>
>>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>>
>>Appealing to your subconcious.
>To all users, Republicans and Democrats alike, lets stamp out this crap.

Poor little Simple Simon -- it never occurred to him that more than a few of
us are neither Republican nor Democrat.  Let's just *ignore* this garbage.
(What's the matter, Mr. "It was just a JOKE!" -- can't find the "n" key?)

>Simon (Hoping the FBI and Secret Service reads the net!)

Why, so they can pay you a visit?

--
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Newspaper Vartan front page headline: "FUCK OFF CLINTON" !!
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:22:04 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

OK, who first used the word "Turkish" on this newsgroup, didn't they
know what would happen, and don't they wish they hadn't?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Summary: Talk about yer basic irony...
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:49:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.193750.19551@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I'm against any form of censorship, and perhaps I jumped the gun in saying
>that the guy that posted the "kill Clinton" message should be arrested.

More like certainly, but at least you finally figured it out on your own, so
that counts for something.

>I have no problem with intelligent comments, even when I disagree with them.
>What irks me is people using the first amendment as a sheild against the
>consequences of their own obnoxious actions.  They offend everyone, then
>try to weasel out of it by saying "oh-I was only kidding".

Now *this* is hilarious -- wasn't there someone like that in
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh not too long ago doing just that?  Some kid at UTSA, I
seem to remember...:-)

>We don't have the right to censor anyone on the net, but at least we should
>be able to express our disgust with users who post trash like that.

That's what we did, in case you didn't bother to notice.  So what's your
point?

--PLH (you have to hand it to Simple Simon, he's always a step behind the
times...)

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill (was Re: Thank God for Ron Brown)
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:40:44 GMT

sderby@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Stuart P. Derby) writes:

>  It'd be poetic justice, but I think it's unlikely. One of the
>trivia items floating around my dazed, besottted brain is that
>Anita Hill wrote an article in support of the Bork nomination
>to the court (wish I had a reference to support that), which
>was cited by some political columnists as yet another reason
>to believe her story. In other words, I sorta think she is/was
>a (gasp) Republican. Although she may have just drifted into
>it and has now seen the error of her ways :-)

> (Boy, I wish I had a reference, I just know I'm gonna
>get flamed....)
> 

One reference is "The Real Anita Hill", an article that appeared in 
the American Spectator last spring. Confirmation could be tricky:
the article also suggested that she's botched most jobs that she's
had. She's also pulling in dough on the chicken & peas circuit; $10K
or so a speech. Hard to give up that type of gold mine. But I must 
agree, it would be the most PC nomination that Bill could make.

Martin Sulkanen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17619 alt.rush-limbaugh:10212 or.politics:702
From: palepink@lily.arts.com (Suzii Abe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Keywords: homosexual, marriage
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:56:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: lily.aLuLuB3w165w

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> >There's too many people on this planet already.
> Who would you get rid of?  What groups of people don't we need?  

The hungry people.  This world has too many hungry people.
The homeless people.  This world has too many homeless people.
The people without hope.  This world has far too many.
The people living in fear.
The people unable to dream.

Oh, yeah, and:
Clueless straight white boys.

--Suzii.
palepink@lily.arts.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17235 alt.politics.democrats.d:564 alt.politics.elections:23892 ba.politics:7142 co.politics:2052 ne.politics:2993 nj.politics:730 or.politics:639 ny.politics:250 talk.politics.misc:60338
From: buckmr@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:00:20 GMT

Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>I had heard some information on one of the network news shows that call
>me to question the wisdom of Bill Clinton's decision to overturn the ban
>on homosexual's in the military.   It has been reported that 6 or 7 of
>the military's head honcho's have threatened to walk if Clinton goes
>through with this. I don't think people 86 their career's for nothing. 

Oh, puleeeeze! Bigotry is bigotry. In 1948 before Truman signed the Executive
Order desegregating the armed forces there were people who said they would
quit.

Last week clergy in England said they would quit if women were allowed to 
become priests in the Anglican Church. It's a scare tactic.

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE
The Gloria Allred Fan Club
11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:24:57 -0500 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Gays in the military

I had heard some information on one of the network news shows that call
me to question the wisdom of Bill Clinton's decision to overturn the ban
on homosexual's in the military.   It has been reported that 6 or 7 of
the military's head honcho's have threatened to walk if Clinton goes
through with this. I don't think people 86 their career's for nothing. 
They must really feel strongly about their arguments  ( One of the
military's gripes about the homosexual's in the service is that they
would not be respected by other soldiers) to take such drastic measures.
 It seems as though Clinton isn't even taking their gripes seriously at
all.  I don't know.  
It seems to me like he's jumping the gun on this one.
 
While I'm on the subject...  Why hasn't Bill mentioned the Female
Airforce Pilots who are angry because they aren't allowed in combat?  
These pilots have been instructing the men for years( so they can be
combat ready) . They have established respect among men, and have no
physical limitations. What's the deal with this?  It seems like this is
the issue that is ready to be addressed.
-kb  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17365 alt.politics.democrats.d:616 alt.politics.elections:24051 talk.politics.misc:60611
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:15:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1e98llINN23t@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:

|>In article <10523@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>>In article <1dur0nINNdq@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
|>>jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
|>>
|>>>Also, poor people deserve to be compensated for their contribution to
|>>>helping someone else accumulate money.
|>>
|>>If they are working, that's what wages are for.  If they are not working
|>>how have they helped anyone else accumulate money?
|>>

|>If they aren't working, there is an excess of labor.  Thus their very 
|>existence is helping suppress the wages of those who are working, making
|>it easier for owners to show profits and accumulate money. 

So you think people should be compensated for the fact that they exist.

If people do something they should be compensated.  Breathing doesn't count.

Seems to me that if there is too much labor, then there are only two things
that can be done about it.  

Find ways to increase the demand for labor, decreasing wages does this quite
well.  Or decrease the supply of labor.  Brutal, but it can be effective. ;^)

-- 
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
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES!
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:51:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.180151.18426@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sstarr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Starr) writes:
>
>Well, now that the election is over we can all stop fooling ourselves and
>decide just how much we are going to raise taxes.

Fine with me -- I'd rather have a graduated federal income tax and revenue
sharing than be nickel-and-dimed to death by state and local taxes and
services cuts.

I've been amazed that so many people swallowed the no taxes retoric.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17565 alt.rush-limbaugh:10111 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8914
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Summary: Simple Simon, still batting .000... 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:45:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.204836.13601@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <By6En6.5wH@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov22.193750.19551@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>I'm against any form of censorship, and perhaps I jumped the gun in saying
>>>that the guy that posted the "kill Clinton" message should be arrested.
>>
>>More like certainly, but at least you finally figured it out on your own, so
>>that counts for something.
>>
>>>I have no problem with intelligent comments, even when I disagree with them.
>>>What irks me is people using the first amendment as a sheild against the
>>>consequences of their own obnoxious actions.  They offend everyone, then
>>>try to weasel out of it by saying "oh-I was only kidding".
>>
>>Now *this* is hilarious -- wasn't there someone like that in
>>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh not too long ago doing just that?  Some kid at UTSA, I
>>seem to remember...:-)
>>
>>>We don't have the right to censor anyone on the net, but at least we should
>>>be able to express our disgust with users who post trash like that.
>>
>>That's what we did, in case you didn't bother to notice.  So what's your
>>point?
>>
>>--PLH (you have to hand it to Simple Simon, he's always a step behind the
>>times...)
>>
>I posted jokes about Clinton, not death threats.  And I made it clear that
>they were in fact jokes.  That was during the campaign. The day after the
>election I attempted to make peace overtures to the other users.

If they were so obviously jokes, why did you need to attempt to make "peace
overtures" to anyone else?  Sounds to me like the only one who thought it
was funny was you -- and your subsequent actions in trying to cover up your
deed are the *real* joke...

-PLH (patience, kid...you might figure it all out some day.)

-- 
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: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:35:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.174454.22195@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>I just jumped in on this one.  I am really getting upset with 
>people saying I am pushing my sexuality on them when they
>will not understand that many of our problems in this 
>country are due to very poor family structure and that 
>few heterosexuals are willing to take a look at just how
>their abuse of their children and neglect of their children
>is costing me money...lots of money....

Conisdering the above I have an interesting (IMHO) thought: Could it (or
even should it) be considered child abuse for anyone to have a child and
cannot afford the child's basic necessities?
-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: wdh@grouper.mkt.csd.harris.com (W. David Higgins)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:01:37 GMT

>mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
>
>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>>Appealing to your subconcious.

It appears to me some ignorant freshman has walked away the lab while
still logged in.  Either that, or "MARK ALLAN HUNT" is even more of a 
twit than your usual undergraduate.

I was under the impression "University" was where critical thought was
cultivated and nurtured.  Not anymore, it would seem.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:48:36 GMT

In article <By6En6.5wH@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.193750.19551@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>I'm against any form of censorship, and perhaps I jumped the gun in saying
>>that the guy that posted the "kill Clinton" message should be arrested.
>
>More like certainly, but at least you finally figured it out on your own, so
>that counts for something.
>
>>I have no problem with intelligent comments, even when I disagree with them.
>>What irks me is people using the first amendment as a sheild against the
>>consequences of their own obnoxious actions.  They offend everyone, then
>>try to weasel out of it by saying "oh-I was only kidding".
>
>Now *this* is hilarious -- wasn't there someone like that in
>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh not too long ago doing just that?  Some kid at UTSA, I
>seem to remember...:-)
>
>>We don't have the right to censor anyone on the net, but at least we should
>>be able to express our disgust with users who post trash like that.
>
>That's what we did, in case you didn't bother to notice.  So what's your
>point?
>
>--PLH (you have to hand it to Simple Simon, he's always a step behind the
>times...)
>
I posted jokes about Clinton, not death threats.  And I made it clear that
they were in fact jokes.  That was during the campaign. The day after the
election I attempted to make peace overtures to the other users.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.kibo:274 alt.religion.kibology:4807