HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:49:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.170431.17854@webo.dg.com> lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:
>In article <MATT.92Oct5103321@physics16.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>|> In article <1067@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>|> 
>|> > Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
>|> > Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.  
>|> 
>|> Funny.  In this country, it is legal for me to marry a woman but
>|> illegal for me to marry a man.  This doesn't look very much like
>|> "equal protection of the law."
>|> 
>|> Or is it your opinion that the marriage laws of all fifty states are
>|> in fact unconstitutional?
>|> --
>
>There is no right that heterosexuals have with regard to marriage that
>homosexuals do not have.  Homosexuals *choose* not to marry, because
>they are not attracted to people of the opposite gender.  Heterosexuals
>living with people of the same gender do not have "marriage" rights
>either, because a marriage is currently defined in our society as a
>special bond and legal contract between 1 man and 1 woman.  There is
>no statement of sexual orientation anywhere, though it is certainly
>implied.  But the law does not state the homosexuals cannot marry.

You're gonna get hell for that one, I loved it!  This really is a fine
point and it is exactly about what truly is the definition of marriage.
I wish that my old (male) roommate and I had the opportunity to be
married so that we could get the *entitlements* (key word) associated
with marriage such as preferential tax codes.  Then, when one of us
wanted to _really_ get married then we could divorce and move on with
our lives outside this nifty setup.  If homosexuals get this right then
don't be surprised to see what I described happen.

I personally do not know for sure if this is a good or a bad idea.
I do think that people are too flippant when it comes to trashing a
concept that has stood the test of time in favor of something new.
If it is tried I do not doubt that, should it fail, the proponents 
will not take the blame for it's failure any more than proponents of
the Great Society are taking credit for the failure of their well
excersized policies.


Mike Best
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won NOT! (But he did...)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:08:27 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

>>>Who could we "trust" to fill this roll from the three ?
>>>
>>>Simple:
>>>Sen. Albert Gore 
>>
>>Um, I disagree entirely.
>
>One would like a, uh, more substansive answer.

     Well, uh, I think we spent too much, um, time watching
Adm. Stockdale during the, you know, debate last night.  And, 
um, I think it may have influenced our, uh, ability to, um
what's that word, *elaborate*, yes, *elaborate*.  Period.

     PERIOD!!!

    (Let me add that I have a great deal of respect for the
Admiral, I just wish he would have been less nervous and more
prepared.  He definitely is a man worth listening to.)

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10307 alt.politics.bush:9075 alt.politics.elections:16668
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:55:59 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

: I believe that this trip, to the capital of the enemy, during a war,
: while part of a group protesting the war, needs to be fully explained.

Clinton went to Hanoi?

I thought he went to Moscow as an tourist.

Of course, I'd like to have Bush's domestic inaction over the past
four years fully explained.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Global Marshall Plan
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:38:19 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct15.151937.11076@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
> However,  nowhere in the book did he say that we should be the only
> country to pay for the plan as Quayle suggested.               ~~~~

     Maybe it's just me, but I do not remember Quayle suggesting
anything of that sort.  (Of course, neither does the book.)

> Furthermore, Quayle's use of the inflation adjusted figure of 
> the original Marshall plan's cost as the cost for this plan in the 
> debate is totally illogical. 

     It is not illogical because Gore writes about it on the infamous
pg. 304:

     Charles Maier points out that the annual U.S. expenditures for
     the Marshall Plan between 1948 and 1951 were close to 2 percent
     of our GNP.  A similar percentage today would be almost
     $100 billion a year (compared to our total nonmilitary foreign
     aid budget of about $15 billion a year).

> It is a sign of just how desparate they have become.

     In part, yes it is.  But, let me ask you: how much will this
Global Marshall Plan cost the U.S.?  Gore doesn't seem to want to
answer.  (I'm really tempted to say that Gore should "come clean"
and "level with the American people" on how much this pet project
of his would cost, but I think that "approach" has been overworked
just a tad -- I'm sure you'd agree.)

     C. Perttunen  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8905 tx.politics:5905
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:27:48 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct5.211520.25423@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806) writes:
>I can't believe I'm hearing this from John Haugh, the save and invest
>Puritan who believes in personal responsibility and less intrusive
>government and all these other wonderful things.  I never thought I'd
>hear John, of all people, extolling the virtues of Carter's
>inflationary monetary policy.

Uh, this suggestion was only considered to be acceptable in contrast to
completely repudiating the Federal debt.

>>But to answer the questions about what would happen if we devalued
>>our debt, the answer is "nothing".  We used to do it all the time.
>
>You're serious aren't you?  You really think we can just magically
>inflate our way out of the debt and noone is hurt?  All this time
>and we never knew!  There really IS a free lunch!  Hurray!

Yes.  We =really= did used to do this all the time.  As for "nothing"
happening, the context of "nothing" is being invaded by our neighbors
to the south, the fall of Capitalism, etc.  And no, there is no such
thing as a free lunch (TNSTAAFL).  Look at what happened during the
Carter era ...

Your points about the perils of extended periods of inflation are all
very correct.  Now, figure out a mechanism by which we can devalue the
debt without

	1). Turning on the printing presses until the debt is paid
	    off.
	2). Turning up the inflation rate until the debt is worth
	    significantly less.

And have the effect take place in 10 years or less.  At 4% real growth
(a very high level), it would take 18 years to half the national debt
WRT GDP, and we need the national debt cut by about 90%.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Happy 17th Anniversary!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:50:38 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct12.181246.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>      Wasn't it a touching moment during the debate when Gov. Clinton 
> (also known as "The Love Gov") "extemporaneously" acknowledged his 
> and Ms. Rodham's 17th wedding anniversary -- even considering that 
> up to 12 of those years were shared with Ms. Flowers?  (As a
> disclaimer, I would like to add that I am not questioning
> Gov. Clinton's patriotism with this post.)
> 
	Well, he did thank the current Bimbo corps:

	"and all the people who have touched me during this campaign..."

:D

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Organization: Junior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:32:04 -0400 
From: "Donpaul C. Stephens" <deathbird+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Perot & the Airport foo
	<1bf4f0INN1m4@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>

In reply to the post by skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B.
Reynolds):
/*********
True HRP did compete for the Gov. jobs BUT there were several that are
being investigated where he was NOT the low bid on the contract and 
it was awarded to Perot anyway. This contract was the one for the 
FFA Air trafic control system contract. He is part of the pac system
he's running against, to say he's a outsider, well thats a total lie.
*********/

the rumor had it that he donated land for an airport. He kept
surrounding land and wanted in w/ a 'reasonable bid' to get a part in
the money being made to put it up.  Is that so bad?

I'd be happy for him donating the land. Sure he made a profit. Perot is
far from stupid. If he could help people *and* make a profit, then why
not?  He could have *sold* the land instead of giving it away....
-donpaul
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rogers@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (mister rogers)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Bill
Organization: i represent myself
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:33:15 GMT

In article <BvrH3A.8s8@oryx.com>, xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:
> 
> I have been subscribing to Cable for about 10 years and,
> like most people, don't like the idea of having prices increased.
> 
> Now that the gov'ment has come to my rescue, I can look forward
> to cheep Cable, right?
> 
> I'm willing to bet anyone who wants to that my rates will increase
> for the same service now that the gov'ment has their fingers in it.
> 
> Any takers?
> 
> Lets hear it for more government regulations!!
                       ^
                  Democratic (<--not sarcasm, Bill favors the bill)

hooray hooray hooray. (<--sarcasm)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10751 talk.politics.misc:52139 alt.politics.bush:9370
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:32:47 GMT

In article <Bw2spB.61L@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
}     Increasing the SS/payroll tax rate (six times!) during the Reagan/Bush 
}     years did not deter middle-class workers from taking a job,

How do you know?  The increassed SS/payroll tax was also a cost imposed
onto business.  That means less money available as payroll for someone who
could have otherwise been employed.

}     for
}     they still had to pay for shelter, food, clothing, etc.  If anything,
}     those tax increases, combined with overall decline in hourly wages,
}     forced more people, women in particular, to enter the job market
}     to maintain their standard of living.

Uh-huh.  And I'll bet they are real grateful for the fact that they get
to work a lot more just to maintain a standard of living they otherwise
would have had, if only government hadn't taken their wealth from them
in the first place.  Sheesh.

}     The rich can postpone purchases of luxury items, and they can defer
}     and/or shelter their income while waiting for more favorable tax rates, 
}     but there is one thing they could not live without - their wealth.
}     By taxing wealth instead of income, we can make the rich pay their
}     fair share.

United Way says fair share is 1% of gross income.  Some churches claim 10%.
What, specifically to you think is fair?

}     Right now, we have the marginal income tax rate peaking 
}     up at ~46% for families making ~$55,000 a year, while the rich pay only 
}     ~31%.

Where did you get that?  The 46% is probably true when you add federal, state,
and local income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, gasoline
taxes, etc.  But when you add all them up, how do you get only 31% for the
"rich" (whoever they are)?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pa56680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (P. Ialamanna)
Subject: Clinton's BS economic plan
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:58:45 GMT

I'm getting really irritated at these Clinton supporters who claim that
his tax increase won't affect the middle class. If I understand it corectly,
Clinton wants to raise tax on the top 2% of wage earners and not to the
middle class. Okay fine, but what gets me is that middle class people beleive
that this won't affect them. HOW CAN IT NOT AFFECT THE MIDDLE CLASS? Let's
face it, the top 2% of wage earners are usually providing some goods or service
to the general public(i.e. middle class). If their taxes are increased(cutting
into their profits) what do you think will happen?
The price of those goods and services will go up. Who ends up paying for it?
Not the top 2% but the middle class, again. Who benefits? The government who
will get the increased tax revenue paid for on paper by the upper class but
in reality is subsidized by the middle class in the form of higher costs
of living. Don't fall for it folks. Let the money stay in your pocket;
Let you be the one to decide what governmental expenditures (or personal
expenses) be paid for with YOUR money.

We need less government spending, not more!

If you support Clinton's economic policy, be aware of the big picture.

-- 
*********************************************************************************   - P. Ialamanna -    " I think you hear me knocking, and I think I'm coming *
			  in, and I'm bringing my big, bad opinions with me"  * 
 I represent the Univ. of Illinois. (Along with 50,000 others)===DISCLAIMER== * 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9696 alt.politics.bush:8622
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:18:05 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:

: (God bless you) <-- The easiest way to offend a liberal, mention God. (Gasp!)

Now, now.  I know a lot of liberal Christians.  Even though I am technically
a "moderate" in the left-right scheme of things, you probably consider me
a liberal, right?  (continue to the next page when you are ready)



Now, what if I told you that I am a subdeacon in the Episcopal Church, and
I am already beginning my trek down the long road towards ordination?  It's
true.  In fact, I go to a church that is just chock full of people far 
more liberal than I am.  In fact, I am probably one of the most conservative
people here -- I will consider voting for any candidate, regardless of
hir party affiliation.  However, some people here consider Republicans
to be the AntiChrist incarnate.

I realize that your statement was an attempt at humor.  But be careful;
sometimes your "funny" statements can show just how clueless you are.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:16:09 GMT

From article <Bw2CyM.Lv3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl):
> dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
[...]
> 
> : 	increase Congress' salaries 50% <- A LINE ITEM VETO would allow
> : 					the president to veto this line
> : 					as opposed to the whole document
> : 					and yes, it is a GOOD thing
> 
> Of course, there is now a Constitutional amendment (the 27th) that
> prohibits Congress from voting itself a pay raise so quickly.

I remember a small excerp from the Wall Street Journal stating that Congrees'
salaries are now officially an entitlement ie they get automatic increases, 
no vote necessary.

SEH
From: STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Stan Horwitz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Amazing!
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:22:40 GMT
Organization: Temple University - Computer Services

You know what's most amazing about this race for Predent? Its the fact that
so many American citizens don't have the good sense to come in out of the
rain or to abandone a sinking ship. Only fools would stay in a burning house.
Do you see where I'm going with this message?

The condition of our nation with respect to overall quality of life is in many
ways, horrible and shameful. The fact that health care reform takes such a low
priority with Bush and his ilk illustrates the fact that most of his friends
can afford good health care and he cares nothing for those who cannot afford
health care. Our economy is in a dither thanks to Reagan spending so much and
Bush following suite. Bush continues to blame the entire situation on Congress.
This is foolish. Has he forgotten what his hero Truman once said? Sure, our
congress isn't perfect, its far from it, but apparantly Bush failed to see
that his job is to be a leader. His job is to lead our citizens, our businesses
and our congress in the proper direction to foster his agenda. Bush says he
will have a new congress soon. How does he know this? Last election, the Reps
took a beating in Congress if memory serves so why would this electrion be any
different. Bush must be psychic. Too bad he can't use his psychic powers in a
practical way. Oh well, my lunch hour's up and Bush supports will probably
continue to bury their heads in the ground and ignore the suffering squalid
conditions all around us. By the way, don't assume I support Clinton or Perot.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:28:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.060544.17721@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>>He also support the Balanced Budget Amendment, which we need
>>(but Clinton opposes).  He also has *not* proposed a plethora of
>>expensive new programs that will make matters worse.
>
>The Balanced Budget amendment won't work.  All you have to do is look at
>how it 'works' in states to see the problem.

Like in Arkansas and 42 other states, right? It works just fine.
Well enough for Clinton to claim fiscal responsibility for passing
consitutionally required balanced budgets.
Not his skill, just the necessity of the state constitution.

> Among other things, you
>have the problem with enforcement.  What happens when Congress and the
>President get together and pass a ketchup budget, like they did a few
>times in Reagan's early years?  (It was called a ketchup budget because
>the only way it would have been balanced was if they discovered a way of
>turning ketchup into gold.)  Does the Supreme Court step in and rewrite
>it?  You judicial restraintists would have a fit over that one.

No.  Only naysayers are having fits. This argument is a non-starter,
because the same argument could be made about the Gramm-Rudman Act.
The answer is with enforcement legislation. You know, just like we
have with the 14th Amendment. Automatic sequesters, etc. can be used.

Almost two-thirds of the House voted for it. 80% of Americans are
for it. It's time it became law.

>The *only* good thing about the balanced budget amendment proposals was
>that they would have required an actual official declaration of war in
>order to run a deficit for war purposes.

This is false. They require a super-majority. Check out the Stenholm
or Simon Amendment proposals.

Pat
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10018 alt.politics.perot:2031 alt.politics.bush:8846 alt.politics.marrou:1583 alt.politics.elections:16408
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:50:47 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
> >
> >His cure for the economy - things are not that bad and let me
> >give Jim Baker the job.  How about himnself?  BUt then again he 
> >didnt know there was a recession on until months into it.

there are a lot of things i don't agree with the Bush man on, but
one of them is not the economy. if you take time to actually
look up the numbers, the economy really -isn't- doing that bad.

the -only- economic indicator that is currently down is consumer
confidence. and who forms that, eh? you think that maybe, just
maybe, months of the media screaming about how we're all going down 
in a ball of flaming assets might have something to do with it?

look folks, we're in a world-wide recession. as far as comparative
ratings go the USofA is right up there at the top. we may not
be in great shape, but we're doing better than most people have
been lead to believe.

              BIG NEWS: THE ECONOMY FLUCTUATES

and the ride seems a lot worse if people are screaming their guts
out all the way down even the most minor of slopes. trying to
wildly stabilize things in the short term will only make the long
term more painful. the government can only do so much. it's a
convenient scapegoat, but it's no solution.

jason "doesn't anyone know 'weather the storm' means anymore?" steiner

--
 "Why was I cursed with a woman like you? You're my misery! A knife in my 
  heart! Come on, we can discuss this later. Let's just get married."
	                   - Adam, from the best episode of Northern Exposure
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections