HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Does anyone remember the tax increase of 1982
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:59:22 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <31AUG199204372310@misvax.mis.arizona.edu>
dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman) writes:
>I keep hearing rhetoric from the GOP about the taxers and spenders and
>after going through my tax records, I remember Reagan doing a tax
>hike in 1982 and it was huge.  I think it was larger than the amount
>being bandied about the GOP against Clinton.
>I'd say more but I have to stand in line at the unemployment office
>this week and it's too late and I am too bushed.

Well, there you go again, Denny.  Yes, your halftruth is correct.
As the Demagogues like to say in their cleverly worded ads, "Reagan
PRESIDED over the largest tax hike in history."  The rest of the
story is rather more insightful than your petty little lie.

Reagan was President when the Congress passed and Reagan signed this
tax bill.  However, it was only after much dispute between the executive
and legislative branches - after Reagan had refused to sign an earlier
bill, and it was only (get a pen, now) after Reagan had gotten assurances
from the Democratic leadership that for each dollar in extra taxes,
there would be 2 dollars in spending reductions.  Guess who reneged on
their promise?  That's right - the boys on the left of the aisle whom
you are so quick to defend.

You know, if you'd just read the paper and remember FACTS rather than
your own bullshit, you might just find a job.      Nah.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Entitlements and the deficit? (Was: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...)
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:36:23 GMT


  I just realized that I forgot to quote which issue of _Time_
and _The Economist_ my data are from on entitlements.  Primarily, I was
referring to the June 5, 1992 _Economist_ and the June 22, 1992 issue
of _Time_.

  They are pretty good articles.  Anyone interested may want to look
them up.


Pat



-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3120 soc.women:15813
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Keywords: hoser
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:06:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1992Aug25.013414.27680@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.000959.29147@adobe.com> 
>
>> One of the TV news programs did a segment on the need for fetal tissue
>> research.  A preacher in Florida, who is anti-abortion, had a child die
>> of a genetics disease.  Their 2nd pregnancy was determined to carry the
>> same genetic flaw and the preacher spent his resources to get fetal tissue
>> to correct the flaw in utero.  
>
>This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the 
>experimental stage.   
>
>> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger


OOOhhhh poor little Doug-E Hoser what's it like in the closed up tiny mind
of yours? The program that Janice was refering to was "60 Mintues" maybe you
heard of it? OOOhhh well just trust me it is a legitimate news program. The
Monday after this story aired I posted pretty much the same thing as Janice. 
I even included a disclaimer that said "If you doubt this post *please* write
to "60 Mintues" for a transcript." I put that there because *I* was surprised
and amazed had what I had just seen. What did you do D. Hoser? You promtly
called me a lair and claimed that the reason the disclaimer was there is 
because I knew I was lying. (A little hint here:When lying do *NOT* give 
sources that will prove you are lying!) You are either willingly ignorant
of the fact that fetal tissue research has gone beyond experimental or your
little mind won't grasp the inconsistencies that exist in the current 
adminstrations policies. Fact is that the before mentioned baby would have
a)died before birth
b)lived a short and miserable life
if it had not gotten the fetal tissue transplant which you say is technically
impossible. Another little fact:this was *NOT* an isolated event. There are
a handful of privately funded doctors who  do this procedure all the time, 
not to be anti-establishment but to save the lives of unborn babies. If the
government were to give its "blessing"(pun intended)then there would be 
thousands of doctors out there doing the same procedure. Pls. note none of 
this has anything to do w/ being pro-whatever just that the current policy 
could have adverse affects on you or your childern's health.

OOOOhhh never mind D. Hoser I didn't mean to imply you should take off your
hood or anything like that. You just be you O.K.? and hope you never need a
medical procedure that the government frowns upon.


Stan Knight
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Q:What's the difference between arguing with a fanatic and a wall?   |
|A:The wall will actually obsorb a little of what you say.            |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Hey D. Hoser, if you don't beleive the "A" *please* take a physic course!)
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:07:47 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes x4660)

In article <14373@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.143404.26891@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
|> >
|> >In a previous article, skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) says:
|> >
|>  >>Oh what a joy to watch the right wingers crying on Crossfire last evening
|>  >>about the liberal media electing Bill Clinton. Where were these people
|>  >>when the media was trashing Clinton in Jan. ???? The best comment of the 
|>  >>night was that the media only metioned the J. Flowers story three times
|>  >>on the news. 
|>  >
|>  >
|>  >Hey, the media is biased towards the left (this has been documented
|>  >in several studies).  And it sure as hell looks like that bias is
|>  >translating as a push to get Clinton elected.  
|> 
|> If you are talking about the study by the "Report on Media Equality"
|> it was written by the media advisor to Pat Bucannan. Thats the report 
|> every republican runs around quoting. He was the top jerk on Crossfire
|> screamimg media bias.

Apart from all the biased reports about media bias  (and something written
by an advisor to Pat Buchanan would by no extend of the imagination qualify
as an impartial report), in my honest and humble opinion, and based on my
own observations, the majority of reporters and other media people appear to
ever so subtly lean towards the Democratic Party and a more progressive
agenda.  Frequently, I say to myself, I wish they would cut this balance crap
and speak their own minds.

I believe the people involved in journalism are more aware of history and
current social and political events than your average Joe, and have dedicated
more time and effort to study and understand the issues facing this country
and the world today.  Thus, it follows that they will be more inclined to favor
candidates that have a better understanding of what this country needs and
present a workable serious program of government rather than a "blame-
everybody-for-not-having-family-values" and "take-credit-for-whatever-
went-well-and-blame-congress-for-whatever-went-wrong" approach.

I guess they are all by definition part of the "cultural elite".  Fortunately,
having some culture still gets a certain amount of respect.

    Rene J. Valdes              |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lputnam@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee P Putnam)
Subject: help needed regarding termination of Bush
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:23:14 GMT



I need three short (one sentence) reasons why Bush should be terminated.

I also need a list of three things that Clinton/Gore will do once elected. 

thanks,

 -l

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass
Subject: Novak, Charen, Limbaugh: What do they have in common?
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:45:26 GMT
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu



   Man, every time I listen to these dweebs I wonder how big those
redwood trees up their asses are.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Aren't KILL files great?!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:08:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.165141.8025@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug25.205939.16633@u.washington.edu> roger@wrq.com (Roger Fulton) writes:
>>I just started reading this newsgroup today, and the
>>first thing I did was:
>>
>>/^From\: crisp\@netcom\.com/hK:j
>>
>>Yahoo for KILL files!
>
>That's the way to encourage intelligent discourse!!  Remove all 
>dissenting opinions, and have a party full of all your buddies who
>say the same thing and feel real good about themselves.

Yeah, right, like Crispy One is the well spring of intelligent discourse.



--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ellie@ora.com (Ellie Cutler)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST
Organization: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.210656.29254@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Mary Jacobs <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>> It offers twenty billion dollars a year in hard federal dollars
>> every year for the next four years, to build an economy for the
>> twenty-first century, to invest in new roads and bridges, and
>> streets and rail systems...
>
>Has the Clinton campaign done any research to find out whether
>these massive construction projects are really necessary? 

Maybe North Carolina has no rusting bridges or pot-holed roads, but in
Boston, where I live, they're the norm.  And dangerously so.  No
research needed, just an open pair of eyes.  In my travels as a trucker,
I've seen more of the same just about everywhere in the Northeast. 

-- 
        Ellie Cutler

        ellie@ora.com               
        uunet!ora!ellie
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Joke, j-o-k-e:  more!
Date: 29 Aug 92 15:05:52 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University

In article <17munbINNeei@agate.berkeley.edu> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.190750.18703@news.columbia.edu> js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Andrew Smith) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>>
>>4. Show me a pro-lifer, I'll show you someone who supports the death penalty!
>
>Not true.  I am sure there are lots of people out there who are pro-life
>when it comes to the unborn, the criminal, the elderly and the sick.
>

But certainly not any with real influence.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3594 tx.politics:4668
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: xxx
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:04:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Jim, you may be correct about the House being the instigator of all the
spending bills and it's not the President's fault if that isn't done
properly.  I don't know.

If, however, you are correct, why does the President keeping insisting he
can give us No New Taxes, and whatever he's saying this year?  Isn't it a
lie if he makes promises in order to get elected that he has absolutely
no power to live up to?  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:57:18 GMT

skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:

>Oh what a joy to watch the right wingers crying on Crossfire last evening
>about the liberal media electing Bill Clinton. Where were these people
>when the media was trashing Clinton in Jan. ????

Pretty simple - the press was in love with Tom Harkin. The thought of a
more moderate slick-willy sickened them.

Of course, now that we only have Bush & Clinton, they'll settle for
Slick.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:24:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug27.104518.12452@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>Personally, I'm voting for Clinton not so much for Clinton (who is at
>least as pro-business as Bush) but for Al Gore's environmental proposals.

Yup, me too.  I don't trust Clinton's promises very much, but I have
a lot of respect for Gore.

Maybe we should be called the "Al Gore Clintonites", in analogy to
"Reagan Democrats" and "Clinton Republicans".

-- 
Ameet A. Raval
    "I can identify with workers that have had a difficult time." -- DQ
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:2923 alt.politics.bush:2803
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST
Organization: nope
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:17:35 GMT

In article <BtLpnI.KyM@ora.com> ellie@ora.com (Ellie Cutler) writes:
>Maybe North Carolina has no rusting bridges or pot-holed roads, but in
>Boston, where I live, they're the norm.  And dangerously so.

Since you Bostonians don't care enough to fix your bridges, why
should anyone else?  If Boston can't survive without subsidies, then
maybe it should go the way of the buggywhip makers.

>I've seen more of the same just about everywhere in the Northeast. 

The highway tax fund has enough money to maintain the interstates.

The Clinton plan is to increase the gas tax' contribution to the
GENERAL fund.  That money isn't going to bridges.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ballard@panther.adelphi.edu (Terry Ballard)
Subject: Republican religion
Organization: Adelphi University Swirbul Library
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:01:20 GMT


   Has anybody else noticed how uncomfortable the Republicans get
in explaining the First Amendment?  These staunch defenders of the
Constitution go into overdrive explaining that when the founding
fathers prescribed the separation of church and state they didn't
***really*** mean what it very plainly spells out - that government
is government and religion is religion.  That government should
just stay out of the God business.
   They had a good model for what they were trying to avoid.  In
England, the King was the head of the Church.  If you disagreed
with the government, then you were against God's will.  If your
religion was not up to snuff, then by definition, you were not as
good a citizen.  Do Bush and Quayle think of you as less desirable
Americans if your religion doesn't measure up?  Can you doubt it?
   Public prayer is a way for the ruling class to cram their
religion down everybody else's throats.  For a good commentary on
this issue, look into the book of Matthew, where Jesus warns to
look out for the hypocrite - the guy who prays in public.  Ya
listening, George?  I doubt it.

                                               Terry Ballard
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3315 alt.politics.bush:3270
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:41:14 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University


In article <1992Aug26.185439.10068@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:
>
>As governor of California, Reagan balanced the budget each time, too.  
>Like Clinton, he had no choice.  Both California, Arkansas, (and Texas, by 
>the way), mandate it in their laws.  Bush has never been governor of 
>Texas, but if he had been, Texas budget would have been balanced, too.   
>Therefore, Clinton's record in Arkansas, as far as budget-balancing is 
>concerned is meaningless.

Depends on how the budget is balanced.  Were huge tax hikes required
to close a budget gap?  The Aug 31 New Republic notes that Clinton
required three significant tax increases while balancing twelve
budgets.  These tax hikes were "specifically earmarked for teacher
salary increases and other improvements in education."  The article
compares this to Gov. Weld of Massachusetts, who balanced "his first
three budgests only witht he help of a $1.2 billion tax package that
Michael Dukakis passed in July 1990."  Gov. Wilson of California
"faces a towering $10.7 billion deficit, despite raising taxes by $7.4
billion last year and imposing draconian spending cuts across the
board."



--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:41:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.200756.4781@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>> This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the 
>> experimental stage.   

> What!  WHAT!!!  "Complete nonsense!!!"  [sputter... sputter]
> [...]
> 
> So yes, fetal tissue research is still in the experimental stage, but

Where are we disagreeing?  Fetal tissue research is still in the
experimental stage.  

> the experiments have had wonderful successes and it is most certainly
> *not* nonsense.  

I didn't deny that.  The original poster suggested that the  
Bush administration is not doing enough to help patients who could
benefit from fetal tissue research.  That's complete nonsense,
because the research is still in the experimental stage.  

> This research should be supported fully by the
> government, and will be, once Bill Clinton gets elected.

The Bush adminstration fully supports fetal tissue research. 

> Doug, why don't you go read the Rush Limbaugh groups.  You'll find
> lots of your kind there.

What makes you think I'm a conservative?  I'm just reporting the facts. 

>hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush and Baker
Keywords: State
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:40:52 GMT

In article <cornell.715130244@vivaldi> cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Then they don't get to
>>complain when Bush removes Baker for his political reasons.
>
>Why not?

Because otherwise Democrats are no different than their caricature of
Repubs.

The Clinton folks claim that Baker is irreplacable at state, therefore
it is wrong for Bush to remove him for political reasons.  Fine.  If
that's true, Clinton will be EQUALLY wrong to remove Baker from state
for Clinton's political reasons.

Once again, we have a choice.  Either Clinton doesn' mean what he says
or he's unable to understand the consequences of what he says.  Why
does Clinton keep setting up these situations?  It isn't like Clinton
had to say that Baker at state was irreplacable.

BTW - Baker isn't irreplacable.  The US role is to show up with a
checkbook and Baker isn't the only person who can carry the checkbook.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 30 Aug 1992 00:00:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.113748.14316@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:

>  In fact, now Clinton and the Democrats are attacking Bush for mentioning
>getting control of mandatory spending (just like Clinton did to Tsongas
>in Florida.)  This, above all, is why Clinton lost my support.

Actually, I liked Tsongas's economics much better than Clinton's. But of
the candudates we got, before you go vote for Bush, remember that

1. His call for caps on mandatory spending was delivered without
mentioning once *which* entitlements he would freeze, reduce, or whatever.
2. It was couched in language which insured most listeners didn't know
what he was talking about.
3. There was no evidence that he was going to propose any cuts/freeze
to Congress. We now see that when Congress does something unpalatable
(like raise taxes) as part of a compromise, Bush sandbags them later. So
suppose Congress gets up the guts to means-test Social Security (or
whatever). Then Bush hits 'em with "Those aren't the cuts I meant. Oh.,
I'm sorry. I regret it." Bush rides high and then invades Tonga.
Congress faces the music and gets cursed out good at home.
4. Bush has had four years to do this already and hasn't done it once.
Why believe him now?

andy
From: chaas@coe.drexel.edu (Chuck Haas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Democratic Pornogrpahy Platform?
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:05:55 GMT
Organization: Drexel University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2

Democratic Pornogrpahy Platform?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3457 tx.politics:4596
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 30 Aug 1992 05:20:14 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <G8EAr*rU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>Don't you people know anything about how our government operates?  Every bill
>is a compromise.  Each side trades this for that to get what they want.  The
>President traded the tax increase to the Democrats to get something else that
>he wanted.  He now realizes that that was a grave mistake.  However, the tax
>increase was a DEMOCRAT idea forced upon the President by holding his other
>programs hostage.

No sweat. Pretend it's 1990 all over again. Tell us what spending cuts
Bush (or you) are going to make instead of raising taxes. Be specific.

GHWB welshed on suporting the painful part of the compromise, but I
didn't notice his going back on the continued spending -- "other
programs" -- that went with it.

Which is the Free Lunch party again?

andy