HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:57:23 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <sulkanen.720974900@xanth> sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>
>>In article <sulkanen.720886922@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>>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.
>

Who's inferring? I've listened to Hillary and have been impressed
by what she had to say, and the way she said it.


>>> 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!
>

Oh, I suppose Reagan and Bush didn't apply opposition to Roe v. Wade
as a litmus test? As usual, when I do it, it's policy, when you do
it, it's politics. Ha!

>
>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.
>

I saw Mitchell. I didn't hear what you heard.


>Martin


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Trade war (was: January Surprise)
Keywords: Archduke Ferdinand Redux
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:58:16 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Dave Sill writes:
>Larry Rogers writes:
>>
>>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] 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.
>
>Okay, would somebody please explain why retaliatory measures are such a great
>idea?  Aren't they just *asking* for a tit-for-tat escalation?  If European
>countries are unfairly subsidizing certain imports, wouldn't it make more
>sense to apply a compensatory tariff on those specific imports at the level of
>the government subsidy?  E.g., if canola seed is worth $1/lb (I made that up)
>and the French government subsidizes it for $0.20/lb, reducing the selling
>price to $0.80/lb, why don't we just put a $0.20/lb tariff on it?  It could
>probably even be set up to track the government subsidy, so if the subsidy
>drops the tariff would too, automatically.
>

A tit-for-tat approach may delay the Masstricht Treaty and drive a
wedge into a European trade bloc monolith. Which would be good for
us...bad for them. It could backfire. One of the things which is 
helping us is a recent German backdown in the interest rates they
have been offering on German debt. They could up that and help drive up
the cost of American debt: their debt load is smaller so ostensibly 
they could afford to hit us where it hurts: the cost of financing
our 4 trillion dollar shopping spree. I haven't the foggiest notion
of what goes on in the minds of "leaders" but I do know that 
French farmers can shut down France if their subsidies are tampered
with. Somebody somewhere's got to blink or this winter could get
cold in Sarajevo and elsewhere. My guess: the other Europeans will
leave France holding the bag. End of Masstricht.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> My bad.     
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: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 10:09:10 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov06.031958.61102@watson.ibm.com>, yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
|> In article <Bx96p8.AKL@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
|> >
|> >jwh writes:
|> >
|> >>Social Security should be phased out and individuals should be allowed
|> >>to invest their retirement funds in investments which they, not the
|> >>government, own.
|>                    
|> I agree with this in the case where the person can put aside a
|> certain amount of money (to be determined later) that cannot be
|> used until retirement.  However, there are a large percentage of
|> Americans that do not have the common sense to do this and these
|> are the ones that need the Social Security System.  
|> 

We could accomplish the same thing by simply requiring people to
invest their FICA percentage in their own retirement funds.  There
may be an argument for requiring people to save for retirement, there
is no argument as far as I'm concerned for requiring people to
invest their money in a *government* plan.  We should let people
opt out of SS if they invest the money in a valid retirement plan.
These people will likely see a much better return on their 'investment'
and we reduce the future burden on the SS system.  We also will
create a much larger savings pool.  A larger savings pool means
lower interest rates and more economic growth.

|> 
|> I am still amazed by the number of people that consider their tax refund 
|> as a "good" thing and somewhat of a "gift from the government".
|> (I hardly considering giving the government an interest-free loan a 
|> "good" thing.) 
|> 

It amazes me too.  Personally I think one of the best things that
could be done for this country would be to eliminate withholding
completely.  When people are faced with the prospect of paying
several thousand dollars at tax time, they may think twice about
asking government to spend more money.  Right now taxes are much
less painful, simply because most people never see the money to
begin with.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: cost per vote
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:26:21 GMT

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>
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:57:39 GMT
 <1992Nov9.202406.18220@fid.morgan.com> <1992Nov10.014211.28302@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov10.014211.28302@Princeton.EDU>,
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes: 
>>Lets also not forget who controls the public debt - Congress.
> 
> Really?  The President has to sign every budget passed by Congress.  
> And both Ronald Reagan and George Bush did.

As you seem to have a firm grasp on the facts, tell us: When was the last 
BUDGET passed by a president?  Careful, it's a trick question.  (Hint: 
continuing resolutions are not budgets.)

>>>Boy I'm sure we could do without that.  Give the guy a chance to
>>>sit his fanny in the big chair in the white house before
>>>freaking out with your paranoid delusions.  
> 
>>Its not paranoia - watch it happen! Why did the Democratic
>>leadership and big wigs keep a low profile this election?
> 
> Because there is no such thing?  Bill Clinton is now the Democratic
> leadership.  The only other person who could reasonably be called part
> of the Democratic leadership is Ron Brown, and he was *not* low profile.

Boy, are YOU misguided.  Ever hear of Tom Foley and George Mitchell?  No?

[...]

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: bondc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Clay M. Bond)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:50:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.033316.29196@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

>I'm paraphrasing, but I believe this comes from Genesis.

Where, exactly?

> |  Read the Democratic party platform, then       
> |  the 1933 Nazi Germany platform.  Now note 
> |  the similarities.

Ah, but it was the Republicans, not the Democrats who ran the
traditional family values platform.  Drink plenty of liquids,
take plenty of aspirin, get plenty of rest and don't call in the
morning.

And instead of throwing around meaningless labels that only the
mindless use, try getting a clue.



-- 
"There is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon
 the freedom of my mind."
			   -- Virginia Woolf
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16741 talk.politics.misc:59422
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton
Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:00:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) says:
>
>Sorry for the semantics pickiness, but Stephanopoulous doesn't
>even think that the deficit is an issue to us, so I think it's
>best that we send a clear message. Both the deficit and the debt
>are major problems, in my mind.
>

      Ah, a man who still believes in a government for the people.

     Here, let me take a stab at the probable "damage control" 
     statement:

       Recently, remarks have been attributed to George S. that
    have been interpreted by several as meaning that President
    Clinton does not consider deficit reduction a priority. 
    Bill Clinton has made his position clear, and will work 
    to reduce the deficit throughout his presidency.  However,
    due to the grave economic conditions, it's more important 
    to get this economy moving again.  As the economy recovers,
    steps towards deficit reduction will be gradually implemented.

     
     
     And I'l study politics just as soon as I become president.

>-- Mike
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>My opinions - not my employer's
>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ar12@quads.uchicago.edu (Andre Robotewskyj)
Subject: MAIL LIST FOR INFO ON RECESSION, DEBT, AND JAPAN!!!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: ar12@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:45:01 GMT

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR ARTICLES ABOUT US FOREIGN TRADE PROBLEM, FOREIGN
AGENTS AND THE NATIONAL DEBT....NOW TAKING NAMES.
 
This is a note to inform all of you about a distribution list we run 
which distributes about once a month, articles about the U.S. trade, 
political and debt situation. This newsgroup may not be around much 
longer, so we're doing our best to set up a distribution list now 
before we all lose contact with each other. If ever you wish to be
removed from the list, I would delete you immediately.
 
Recently you may have seen some articles on this group
(one about Japanese trade policy (JAPANYES), and other was a list
of 'foriegn agents' who are high level government people who sell 
you out to foreign companies for bribes and 'fees'. 
 
These articles are usually not available via other media which is why
we run this list.
 
These files were first sent down our receiver list before they were posted 
generally. (These files (the Japan ones) are currently at anonymous FTP 
site monu6.cc.monash.edu.au   in    pub/nihongo    
(read the INDEX file in that directory for details)).
 
In the future, we won't be posting these as often, but rather sending
them down the distribution list. If you would like to be on the
distribution list for these articles (one every month or so), please
send me a note and I will add you. 
 
 
Andre,
 
ar12@quads.uchicago.edu
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:48:00 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>>>                                --Blair
>>>                                  "What do you mean, let
>>>                                   gays *into* the military?"

>>Actually, the plan is to let them lead the first assault...

>...as well as mine clearing and decoy work...

...and definitely targets for "fragging".

>>----------------------------
>>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: PRESIDENTIAL DOOKIEHEADS
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:13:06 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov9.150724.460@lrc.edu> dorham_r@lrc.edu writes:
>
>To All cLiNtOn/gOrE supporters:
>	You've won and we ( the intelligent American people) have lost.
>Now please grant me one wish since victory is yours...
>Make a list of all the reasons that you voted for clinton, based upon 
>all the things that he said that he was going to do, then make a check
>mark by it each time clinton actually completes a campaign promise.
>
>Sooner or later you will realize that you've been suckered in by
>SLICK WILLIE/GORE.
>Thanks so much for being so stupid...
>
>Democrat = idiot = stupid = pigface = pondscum = cvcc graduate
>
>I KNOW THAT YOU'LL VOTE REPUBLICAN NEXT TIME !!!!!!!

Actually Mr/Ms dorham_r@lrc.edu, your attitude is one of the reasons *I* as
a republican voted for the Clinton/Gore ticket. The prime reason I
voted *against* Bush/Quayle was *not* the promises that anyone made,
but the attitude and rhetoric displayed by many members of the 
republican party upto and including Quayle and Bush. I found the
childish name calling and personal attacks by the Bush campaign to
be immature and demeaning...very similar to the blather you are
spouting...I found the divisiveness and bigotry displayed at the RNC
to be *very* disturbing...

vote republican next time? Not a chance if the current attitudes
of the republican party continue...

John

PS: afraid to put your name with your post???


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15902 talk.politics.misc:58304
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:47:34 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Nov5.172109.13328@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>In article <sulkanen.720974900@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>> >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.

She's also supposed to be one of the top 100 lawyers in this country.
Does that count?

>
>I have no opinion on the Ivy League; I'm comparing her legal opinions
>with Barbara's autobiography of a dog and Nancy Reagan's horoscopes.

Worse and worse: in the interviews with Barb that I heard, she talks
almost as if Millie had written the book.  Whether this is just
suspension of disbelief on the part of the author, or some curious
form of animal-identification, I don't know.

	


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]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:58:49 GMT

In article <sulkanen.720886922@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
>
>...the Hillarator...
>
>...Clintonistas...

Come back when you're mature enough to refrain from petty, childish name
calling.  Until you treat your opponent(s) with respect, they won't have any
for you.

P.S.--Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.  :-)

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber)
Subject: Re: CLINTON HAS LOST THE ELECTION
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:37:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov03.230141.10886@convex.com>, tobias@convex.com (Allen Tobias) writes:
|> Bill Clinton is a lost individual with no vision for America!
|> 
|> The people know it and will not elect him!!!

Unfortunately, the people elected him, which means more people don't know it
than do.

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@stardock.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16967 talk.politics.misc:59808 talk.politics.drugs:7453
From: fehlers@cs.utexas.edu (Todd Ehlers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Date: 12 Nov 1992 14:57:12 -0600
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: earth.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Nov8.203821.16878@netcom.com> cliftonr@netcom.com (Pope Clifton) writes:
>  Not to introduce any undesired _reality_ here, but a few months
>back, a writer on t.p.d. told of his insurance company asking for
>a drug test before they granted his insurance policy (I believe it was
>a long-term disability policy, for which his health was a reasonable
>concern.)  When he explained to the agent that he smoked marijuana,
>the insurance agent looked relieved and said, in effect, "Oh, that will
>be no problem at all if it shows up on the test.  We get that a lot in
>the Bay Area."

A friend of mine got caught in east Texas with about 2g of pot.  He got 6 months
probation and had to go to AA meetings.  He was also supposed to be drug tested
but do to beaurocratic delays and some extra delays of his own he was able to avoid
this.  Anyway about a month after his probation ended his insurance company called
him and asked him about all his doctor visits at the school and stuff, finally getting
to the REAL reason they called.  They asked him about his arrest for marijuana possesion,
and then asked him if he used coke, pot, etc.  He said he had used pot a few times
(admittadley an understatement).  About two days later he received a call from his
father, who had the health insurance policy on him; he had been dropped.

I guess Texas is not as progressive as the Bay Area, but we all knew that.

-- 
-tod ehlers
 fehlers@cs.utexas.edu

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: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:10:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.203939.25141@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
>$ Guess we know how you feel about successful individuals, i.e. they don't
>$ deserve the fruits of their success...tax'em to the hilt.
>$ [...]

>I've heard this argument many times but never seen any evidence of it.
>When people's tax rates go up as a result of increased income, people
>don't decide that it's not worth the trouble and then seek lower-paying
>jobs.  When I see people not bothering because the tax rates are too
>high, then I'll believe this argument.

The argument has nothing to do with people not bothering. Consider the
storeowners who were burned out during the riots in Los Angelos: Since
most have decided to rebuild (e.g. they haven't given up), do you 
think this means they don't care about the damages, or that the looting
was fair? Similarly, if someone makes alot of money, and they government
takes half, is this fair or do they deserve it, simply because they 
don't give up?

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15978 talk.politics.misc:58368
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: To all of the alt.politics.* people
X-Xxdate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 11:21:17 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:24:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.230445.17678@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>This is not a retreat from my beliefs, but a gesture of good faith to all
>interneters.
>
>So, let's keep the friendly talk oing.  I'll post more (poliite) stuff
later
>on.

Good show Simon....I'm proud of you.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Slick Willy...1st Flip
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:38:48 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

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
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:19:04 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>>                                --Blair
>>                                  "What do you mean, let
>>                                   gays *into* the military?"

>Actually, the plan is to let them lead the first assault...

...as well as mine clearing and decoy work...

>----------------------------
>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu