HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 13 Nov 92 22:05:56 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Nov7.062015.20641@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

} The rich have more to lose than the poor, and thus law enforcement helps
} them more.

If this is true, then the government is not doing a very good job.  (Anybody
surprised about that?)  
Most rich people feel compelled to higher security services to protect
themselves.  They don't seem to feel that they are getting their money's
worth.

-- 
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
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:53:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <Bx5oLD.3yn@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff
'ifucanreedthisumustuzeunix' Aitken) wrote:

> Say what!?   "... victimless crimes like drug sale/use ..."  
> What exactly do you mean by this asinine statement?  Are you saying
> that people who sell/abuse drugs should be LEFT ALONE to further ruin
> themselves and those around them?  If you think selling drugs is such
> a harmless event, take a visit to your nearest large city police
> department, and ask them how many homicides in their precinct were a
> direct result of drug trafficking.  I think you'll come to realize
> that those who sell drugs are responsible for a lot of the " ... real
> crime ..." you mention.  Yes locking all these people up requires a
> lot of space and manpower, but it needs to be done.

Say what!?   "... victimless crimes like alcohol sale/use ..."  What
exactly do you mean by this asinine statement?  Are you saying that people
who sell/abuse alcohol should be LEFT ALONE to further ruin themselves and
those around them?  If you think selling alcohol is such a harmless event,
take a visit to your nearest large city police department, and ask them how
many homicides in their precinct were a direct result of alcohol.  I think
you'll come to realize that those who sell alcohol are responsible for a
lot of the " ... real crime ..." you mention.  Yes locking all these people
up requires a lot of space and manpower, but it needs to be done.
 
> "Gun control is hitting what you are aiming at."

Say what!?   "... victimless crimes like gun possession ..."  What exactly
do you mean by this asinine statement?  Are you saying that people who
sell/possess guns should be LEFT ALONE to further ruin themselves and those
around them?  If you think selling guns is such a harmless event, take a
visit to your nearest large city police department, and ask them how many
homicides in their precinct were a direct result of gun possession.  I
think you'll come to realize that those who sell guns are responsible for a
lot of the " ... real crime ..." you mention.  Yes locking all these people
up requires a lot of space and manpower, but it needs to be done.

[Note for the intelligence-impaired, especially Mr. Nosy:  the above
statements by me are *satire.*  I am opposed to alcohol prohibition and gun
control.]

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
From: IK10015@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton/Gore buttons, anybody have some?
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:12:03 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

Hi,
I'm looking for extra Clinton/Gore buttons to
add to my collection any body spare any extras ?
Send replies to E-mail and thanx.
Michael
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Clinton Revolution
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:55:58 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

Oh, I forgot one thing:

In article <1992Nov6.222305.5468@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov6.132647.16309@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
|> > In article <1992Nov5.120813.5428@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> > |> In article <1992Nov4.140305.28033@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
|> > |> >    I remember when the Reagan Revolution started. Reagan told us

[stuff deleted]

|> > |> 	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.

[stuff deleted]

|> Brett


In article <1992Nov5.132329.24830@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

> Stupendous Man writes:

  [stuff deleted]

> >	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.
> >
> ???
> Using figures you provided some time ago, the deficit as a % of GNP
> never fell below 3.1% of GNP during the Reagan years. The highest
> % was 6.2% of GNP. The highest % of GNP under that old, irresponsible
> Jimmy Carter was 2.8% of GNP. So, in that the percentage of
> the deficit to GNP peaked at 6.2  (4.1,6.2,5.0, 5.4, 5.3,3.4,
> 3.2,3.1) I guess, yes, you could say that the rate declined during
> the 80s. Sort of like the pain is less when you stop sticking
> 2 bamboo shoots under your fingernails and switch to only 1.


   Brett, I never saw your reply to this question. Do you dispute these
figures? they say that the deficit never declined as low as it was at
its worst under Carter.
				- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the military
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 03:41:25 GMT

In article <9211090614.AA04010@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Lori L Hartman <lhartman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>
>Homosexuals have been serving in the armed forces since the beginning of time.
>And in this country, our "world power" has not been "diminished," and the
>military has been able to "accomplish its missions" (I don't recall in our
>military's history any failed battles due to a homosexual grabbing someone's
>ass - however, I'm sure we have saved a few . . . )
>
>The "inner conflict" you project on this piece of legislation is nothing more 
>than heterosexual homophobia.  We have been in the military  all along -  
>visible or not - and we have fought in battles and given our lives in the name 
>of freedom - just like you.

Nice posting.  Without trying, I can come up with such "insignificant"
homosexual military figures as Alexander the Great and Richard the
Lionhearted.  I assume the lower levels of the ranks have similar
individuals of distinction.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16846 alt.politics.democrats.d:451 alt.politics.elections:23479 talk.politics.misc:59595
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:12:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov9.214454.10845@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:

|>quake/what-ever takes place, my home gets trashed, and I have to pay
|>a tax on top of that to rebuild?   
|>How about my wife or children get sick and we have to pay a tax
|>on top of the medical expenses?
|>etc....

|>See, wasn't that easy! I think I could grow to like this system. NOT!!!
|>( or did I over look something ? )

Under the current system you have already paid that tax.  The only difference
is now you pay the tax when you earn the money.  Under this kind of system
you pay the tax after you spend it.

I'm not sure whether I like consumption taxes or not yet, but this is surely
not an argument against them.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16172 talk.politics.misc:58577
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:52:33 GMT
	<22081@drutx.ATT.COM> <eagle.720761837@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>
	<3NOV199208185419@utkvx3.utk.edu>
	<eagle.720807302@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <eagle.720807302@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:

   Those people on death row should be executed.  Those people in prison
   should stay there for the entirety of their term--they've all already
   demonstrated that they are incapable of maintaining a normal life as a
   member of society.

I would be interested in hearing how you will finance this very
expensive sounding plan.  The number of people on Death Row is
insignificant in terms of the size of the prison population.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15852 alt.politics.perot:5171 talk.politics.misc:58236
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Insulting Perot supporters
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 19:05:31 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <1992Nov3.121016.2064@njitgw.njit.edu> aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:

>But according to some polls that leaves 4% for Perot who might be
>cajoled into actually looking beyond the folksy humor and the
>posturing to see that the man has not put forth a coherent program,
>has disseminated exaggerations and lies, and has a generally loose sense
>of reality.

>I know a lot of people want to express their disgust with the
>political system, but voting for Perot is a really nutty way to
>do it!		-a

Perot is an interesting anomaly, and I suspect he will take a serious shot
at the '96 election - which I think he can win hands down.

Many of his remarks are more than a little frightening, however, and I
wonder if the public has given them much thought.... shooting drug dealers,
for instance...

I have long held that the American (and Canadian, in all probability)
public, tiring of violence in the streets, will gradually accept degredation
of their rights in exchange for public peace and safety. In truth, we are
not immune to the siren call of fascism, and, although I don't think Perot
falls into that category, he's close enough on some issues to scare me.

Would the citizens of Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and other similar urban
nightmares accept troops in the streets in exchange for safety? Yes, I think
they would, particularly after another four years of increasing continental
debt and the corresponding increase in drug use and it's associated
violence.

Would they accept the death penalty for dealers, multiple sex offenders,
etc? Yes, I think they would.

Perot's approach to justice can only increase his appeal as things continue
to degenerate.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16156 talk.politics.misc:58559
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:31:30 GMT

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 
>>home, and food on the table is a balancing act in this scenario.  Even when
>>you get rid of such un-necessary bills such as a second car, cable TV, etc.  
>>*ANY* increase in taxes (above the normal cost of living wage increase) topples
>>the whole apple cart.  What we have to do is get control of GOV'T SPENDING !!!
>>Getting control of Joe Public's wallet has never, and will never, solve the
>>tax problems which we are facing.
>
>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>	income have 3 kids????

Wait a minute!  Note what was written!  They can afford them now.  *IF*
taxes are raised, they won't be able to.  The fault does NOT lie with the
person.

>	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!
You considder not raising taxes a subsidy?

>	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.
Let's not.  The most basic fundamental right I have is to reproduce in the
manner and quantity that I chose.  This includes every number from 0 to the
maxiumum physically possible.  Reproductive freedom MUST be guaranteed.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15858 alt.politics.perot:5172 talk.politics.misc:58247
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's latest "infomercial"
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 19:12:20 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <Bx5B6B.Kqp@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

>The professional politicians of the Clinton campaign are particularly
>adept at lying with statistics.

The reality is that politicians are expected to lie through their teeth,
particularly when it comes to financial reality. If they didn't, who would
vote for them?

It seems rather like we've said to these folks "You look after our needs,
and keep the riff raff (insert your own definition - it isn't remotely
important who you target as _your_ riff raff) off our backs, and we will
tolerate a degree of lying, cheating, and outright theft that will keep you
fat and sassy. (Just don't let us actually _catch_ you at it - if we catch
you, you aren't clever enough to run the nation.)"



-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Slick Willy...1st Flip
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:52:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.233849.5474@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>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.
>
>	I'm pretty happy about this.  Though all those protectionists out there
>must feel waffled. :)
>
>Brett

yea, just think if we had trade barriers between all 50 states!
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:52:31 EST

In article <1992Nov12.205938.25256@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>
> 
> * Dan Quayle at the Veteran's Day Memorial
> * Dick Cheney at the Veteran's Day Memorial
> * Jack Kemp at the Veteran's Day Memorial
> * George Bush in the White House
> 
> *********************************************************************
> the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
>                the spoken word is a jacket too tight

Watch it there, you might get pages upon pages of hate mail from
extremists if you make these accusations!

-Garrett


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: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: *+* NEWSFLASH *+* MUST READ !
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:36:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.055052.1764@gagme.chi.il.us> statz@gagme.chi.il.us (Louis
B. Del Boccio) writes:
>>     Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen
>
>      Tonight I have sad and disturbing news on Nov,3rd the United States
>      America "the new Russia" had an election and again the blind majority
>      was taken in by a slick talking used car salesman sissy boy pansy
>      looking con artist.It's hard to beleave that even when the facts about
>      how bad he ran Arkansas in the 12 years he had.Well it seems that the   
      majority wants a pres, 1.Leaves the country to start protest ralleys
>      against the U.S. for our part in Viet Nam not for moral reasons but
>     to escape the responsibility of going to fight for his country like
>      a coward.2 Cheating on his wife.3 doing drugs and then saying that he
>      didn't inhale.Did he mean the first time he smoked ?.This man is a
>      weasel.For those who voted for Cliton wake up and smell the coffie
>      thanks to you things are going to get even thougher.
>
>                                    Good luck America your going need it!
>
>
>
Oh! and to think, I actually responded to this post..... 

Louis, would you please get a grip. You are beginning to act like Bush prior to
his defeat. Have a bit of dignity. Pitch in or shad up.


*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************

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: pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:08:18 GMT

In article <1j==Zm=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <JTURNER.92Nov5105638@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov4.192104.8209@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:
>|> 
>|> > I
>|> >  agree with other posters that we should overhaul the tax system entirely
>|> >  and tax consumption, not income.
>|> 
>|> 	Great, a truly regressive tax scheme.  Why don't we just take
>|> Jonathan Swift's advice and eat the poor.  Thank goodness Clinton won
>|> on the strength of people who oppose just such me-ism.
>|> 
>
>I think I can safely call this a knee-jerk reaction.  It is entirely
>feasible to design a consumption based tax which excludes a certain
>level of consumption.  Poor people would pay no taxes.  Only those
>who could afford to reach the exemption threshold would pay taxes.
>Beyond that point, the more you spent, the more you paid.
>There was a brief description of such a plan in the WSJ a couple
>of weeks ago.  Such a plan properly rewards saving and investment
>and still prevents the regressive nature of a simple consumption
>tax that most people would be against.

Excellently said.  Currently, the IRS is able to follow our incomes
fairly (or unfairly :-) ) well.  Many people receive W-2 forms and
this represents the majority of their income.  I am not sure how the
feds could track our expenditures in the current setup.  How many people
would accurately fill out their tax forms declaring all *purchases*
during the year?  How many people keep this information?  There would
clearly have to be a large change in what records are kept.

Perhaps a poor attempt at a consumption tax was the proposal to tax
yachts and other "luxury" items.  Taxing in proportion to the cost
of the item makes only little sense.  In the case where parts can
be bought and then assembled, one quickly sees the difficulty of such
an approach.  Several possible tweaks to a sales tax scheme could be
tried such as taxing proportional to carbon content (save the trees and
decrease global warming), or proportional to energy content, or
proportional to recyclability.  This last tweak seems particularly
apt when one comes upon the Campbells Soup packaged with seven separate
layers of disposable plastic/metal/paper.

--
Dan Packman     NCAR                             INTERNET: pack@ncar.UCAR.EDU
(303) 497-1427  P.O. Box 3000
                Boulder, CO  80307-3000        NSI/DECNET: 9583::PACK
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: NO WAY!!!!!!
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:40:20 GMT

n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper) writes:
|> The
|> researchers and laborers who built these weapons will be out of jobs as well
|> as those who served in the military. These jobs must be replaced rahter than
|> eliminated. They must be put to work enhancing our infrastructure. If this
|> money is simply used to make-up for a tax-break for the middle class, these
|> jobs will not be replaced. I hope Clinton & co. understand this and act
|> wisely before taking the axe to the military.

I've been enjoying this irony for some time.  Whoever won the presidency
was faced with the task of whittling down one of the biggest command
economies in the world (i.e. that subset of the US economy whose direction
is dictated by the Pentagon), and turning the resources over to the private
sector.  And it's a Democrat who gets the job.
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16167 alt.politics.democrats.d:344 alt.politics.elections:22945 ba.politics:6844 co.politics:1631 ne.politics:2764 nj.politics:566 or.politics:467 ny.politics:93 talk.politics.misc:58570
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
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: 6 Nov 92 15:18:09 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov5.033133.15536@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.174211.26672@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>Remember too, that yes, Clinton has clearly won the election, BUT he
>>goes to the White House with almost 60% of the voters having NOT
>>voted for him.
>
>Actually, according to surveys, people don't vote for candidates. As
>a rule, they vote against the alternatives. Clinton is going to the
>White House with almost 60% of the people having voted against him.

Well, either way you want to look at it, forty plus percent in a three way
race is pretty good.  And it would have been well over fifty percent if
Perot hadn't come back.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15880 talk.politics.misc:58280