HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:25:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.221520.22051@convex.com> rgordon@convex.COM (Rob Gordon) writes:
>Why not? Let's totally take away people's freedom.  Let's see: we need
>smaller gov't so we have to pay less taxes, but we are going to have
>a gov't that "controls" how many children a family can have. I suppose
>this is ok as long as it is only the blacks and hispanics whose
>family sizes are governmentally contolled.

Oh great. Now let's make it look like the people who don't agree with your
way of thinking are racists. No one else mentioned race as an issue; YOU did.

No one is suggesting (that I have seen) that anyone be prevented from
having children. What is being objected to is that we are all forced
to subsidize this decision over which we had no control. I don't care
how many children someone decides to have, but I see no valid reason
why *I* should be forced to pay for them. I'm not opposed to charity,
I am opposed to government-forced charity, and forced charity that
encourages bad judgment to boot.

--Greg

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17058 alt.politics.democrats.d:517 alt.politics.elections:23695 ba.politics:7086 co.politics:1936 ne.politics:2955 nj.politics:705 or.politics:616 ny.politics:226 talk.politics.misc:59983
From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
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: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:41:05 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <zTC=h!=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.081725.12946@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>|> 
>|>   As a feeling, caring human being, I constantly wonder how all
>|>   of you "only the tough survive" people ever get up and look
>|>   at yourself in the mirror in the morning.  You should all be
>|>   ashamed of yourselves.  You remind me of Scrooge in Dicken's
>|>   Christmas Carol: "Well, maybe you should let them alone to 
>|>   starve.  It would reduce the surplus population."  
>|> 
>|>   What's really scary, is that many of these same people call
>|>   themselves true Christians.  Christ would be ashamed of you.
>|> 
>
>No, what is really scary is self-rightgeous individuals who wish
>to force their notion of compassion on other people.  I will
>certainly agree that generosity and compassion is an important
>part of being a Christian.  However, whether a person is being
>generous enough to qualify as a 'true' Chrisian is something
>to be determined between that person and God, it is not to
>be determined by you or some 'democratic' majority.  Imposing
>your notion of generosity on other people is no different than
>imposing your moral beliefs on other people.  I find both
>concepts to be anti-Christian.


It is the very nature of net discussions to wander from the letter of an
original posting, encompassing, rather, the perceived "spirit" of that
posting.  So while I will not state that Mr. Crary advocated such, I do
believe that jfr was not criticizing a lack of "generosity" so much as
a lack of compassion.  I do agree that applying some personal standard of
"appropriate generosity" in order to comfortably  consider anyone a
"Christian" is quite self-righteous.  I do, however, feel that Mr. Crary's
posting exhibits an unfortunately callous view of those poorly off, (and
I suspect that I am not the only person who feels thus) and I believe that
is what jfr's posting was condemning.  To be completely fair, though, it
should be noted that jrf was the first to introduce Christianity and
potential hypocricy into the equation; I do not recall Mr. Crary ever stating
that he was a Christian, or subscribed to Christian ideals (or that he
didn't, for that matter).

Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
 but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney
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
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:55:43 EST
From: <PXW10@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: CNN/USA Today Tracking Poll, 11/4/92

In article <1992Nov5.003936.7634@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>,
kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing) says:
>
>Let's be sure to thank Joe Knapp for his work all the way through.
>Thanks, Joe.
>
>Ken Willing   <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>

Many thanks to Knapp from me too.

Peter
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: PRESIDENTIAL DOOKIEHEADS
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:33:08 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Nov9.150724.460@lrc.edu> dorham_r@lrc.edu writes:
>To All cLiNtOn/gOrE supporters:
>	You've won and we ( the intelligent American peole) 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 !!!!!!!


    I'll stay away from the ad hominem attck you stoop to, and stick to
your argument. you should do the same.

     By your own logic, if you wrote down all the things bush said in
`88 and placed a check mark by them as he broke them, your arm would be
in a sling from writer's cramp:

no new taxes...............CHECK
No Net Wetland loss....... CHECK (he tried to re-define wetlands more broadly)
Kinder Gentler America.....CHECK (Saddam still in power, 250,000 Iraquis dead)
                                 (L.A. Riots were kind and gentle?)
                                 (Racial and class divisiveness)
no knowledge of Iran-contra..CHECK (Well, gee, maybe a little bit of
                                    knowledge...what about wienbergers memos?

I'll stop here as i don't have a sling for my arm handy  
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: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: SUGGESTION: E-Clinton!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:18:28 GMT

In article <geyhxp200iUyE5mJtM@andrew.cmu.edu> Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>ph9991 suggests:
>
> I suggest that the Clinton Administration maintain an email
>address and a monitor of the traffic on this newsgroup....and dare I say it...
>perhaps have the President himself or at least the Vice-President or some
>cabinet members respond directly to a random selection of postings on
>the group?   Not too many, maybe only 10 a day or 10 every two days, but
>SOMETHING.
>
>*****************
>Go ahead.  I'm sure Mr. Clinton will be reading his Email regularly. 
>After all He will be our new Mr. President.  He is here to serve his
>public.
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
>Wake up and smell it!  
>

Actually, Clinton intends to maintain communication with the public,
via more bustrips (if the Secret Service isn't too happy) and
townhall-type meetings.  This kinds of politics helps create a more
solid foundation supporting Administration initiatives and proposals
than simply announcing that so-and-so bill has just been signed into
law with much hoopla: people-based politics.  In any case, considering
that they had a campaign staffer devoted to CompuServe, Prodigy,
Internet, AOL, etc. for quite some time, I wouldn't be surprised that
at least some of the resources of the White House press/communications
office devoted to the computers.



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
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:04:55 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Joe Collins writes:

  [responding to the 3 trillion in debt amassed under Reagan/Bush]
>
>Wrong----it increased 3 trillion in the last 4 years, under
>George Bush. It increased at a far slower pace under Reagan.
>Lets also not forget who controls the public debt - Congress.
>
Wrong and right. Reagan's administration amassed 1.336 trillion
in debt in 8 years. The Bush people have amassed a little bit more
than that in 4. So, Dutch started us off in the wrong direction,
while George grabbed the ball and sped off.  Out Ronning the 
pack, as it were. For comparison, the madcap, to-hell-in-a-handcart
administration of Jimmy Carter took 4 years to run up 227 billion
dollars of debt.

Oh, and as for the relative tax burden under the Jimster: the
relative % of GNP of his 4 years ran: 18.5, 18.4, 18.9, and 19.3.
Before the 1990 tax hike took effect, taxes under the Bush administration
were running 19.1% of GNP. Taxes under the Bush administration
have been on the average HIGHER than under the Carter administration.

Oh, for the good old days of lower taxes under the Democrats! Oh,
for the good old days of (relative) fiscal responsibility. 12 years
of madness....madness, I tell you. Wild eyed Republicans, leeching
off the proletariat....madness...when will it end?

Jan 20, 1993.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: To all of the alt.politics.* people
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:17:28 GMT

In <1992Nov4.205108.14238@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

> I have been reading the post-election responses this morning
> and have become concerned:

No real need for the concern, it was clear before the election that
there were idiots and fanatics who would not be swayed by reason,
shut up and leave, or be civil to anyone.  It's unrealistic to
hope this will change until they discover the real Bill Clinton
for themselves.

But the rest of your article's pretty nice.

> To the Bush and Perot supporters:
> Your ideas and talents are needed more than ever.  Write your
> congressperson, start petitions, volunteer your time.
>We have some dire social and economic problems in this country which
>will require the support and input of as many
>of us as possible. You can continue to sulk
>and predict our demise or
>you can join in a bipartisan effort to get
>the job done. It is your choice.

There will be no bi-partisan effort to get the job done.  There is
no such thing as bi-partisan, which is part of the problem with our
political system.  There might be a non-partisan effort, and if that
happens it will be largely a result of Perot's influence on the
American political scene.

>To the Clinton supporters:
> Don't gloat.

Thanks.

>We need the Republicans to cooperate and contribute if real progress
>is to be made.

If you had said change instead of progress, I'd have disagreed with you.
The Democrats have now got the whole hill to themselves and unless we tell
them otherwise they're going to assume they don't need our opinions for
diddly-squat until the next election looms.

> To all the alt.politics.* contributers:
> Despite the occasional flame wars, I have found this forum enlightening
> and enjoyable.

Well, at least enjoyable.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: clever anagram (Was Re: clever acronym)
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:30:00 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Nov4.154632.17654@osf.org> rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org (Andrew Rogers) writes:
>From today's Boston Globe:
>
>	TUESDAY, NOVEMBER THIRD == MANY VOTED, BUSH RETIRED

Yes, a very clever *anagram*.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		--------------------+
| "Science, as actually practiced, is a complex dialogue between data and   |
| preconceptions."				- Steven Jay Gould	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15821 alt.politics.democrats.d:303 alt.politics.elections:22637 ba.politics:6742 co.politics:1589 ne.politics:2702 nj.politics:528 or.politics:425 ny.politics:55 talk.politics.misc:58193
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
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: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:13:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO

In article <Bx96p8.AKL@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>Start basing taxes on CONSUMPTION and not INCOME

Pardon my ignorance, but could someone please explain how a consumption-based
tax works? How is the "level of consumption" determined?

--Greg
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16717 alt.politics.democrats.d:422 alt.politics.elections:23360 ba.politics:6957 co.politics:1754 ne.politics:2856 nj.politics:638 or.politics:549 ny.politics:161 talk.politics.misc:59375
From: labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle)
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: 10 Nov 92 17:30:02 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation

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????

	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!

	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.

		George (adopted mine) La Belle
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Note to Perot supporters
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:37:41 GMT

"54% of the eligible voters voted ... In CA 75% of the registered voters ..."
	    ^^^^^^^^                                   ^^^^^^^^^^

Big difference, eligible means over 18 and a citizen, registered
means filled out voter reg. form.  This has been one of
the best turn outs ever of registered voters, but not of eligible
voters. There are still lots of folks who don't consider voting 
important.  Such a shame, too.
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re:  PROVE IT
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:25:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1dp9u9INNi5l@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov writes:

>>economy is not a Reagan-Bush failure, but is a Reagan-Bush-Democratic Congress
>>failure.  In the last 12 years we have not seen what would happen if we had
>>had pure 
>>Reagan-Bush economics.  The congress would not pass their, Reagan-Bush,
>>budgets 
>>without adding alot of their own stuff to it.  The problems that Reagan-Bush faced
> 
> Ummm...I guess Congress *removed* a whole lot more from Reagan-Bush budgets than
> they added...considering the budgets returned by congress were *consistently*
> smaller than the budgets plans suggested by Reagan-Bush...

Let's be fair.  
1) The President's budgets are a guideline, and are routinely ignored.  
   Can you tell us how many Reagan & Bush budgets were pronounced "dead 
   on arrival" by the Democratic leadership?  

2) The "official" budgets aren't worth the paper they are voice-voted on.  
   "Continuing resolutions" and "supplemental appropriations" and 
   "emergency disbursements" aren't counted as part of the *budget* -- 
   but they DO spend a lot more money than the "budget" allocates.  
   Otherwise, why does the deficit continue to grow?

------

 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."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16325 alt.politics.democrats.d:360 alt.politics.elections:23043 talk.politics.misc:58769
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:20:15 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <p4==KP-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In <1992Nov5.235204.24934@dbsun.uucp>, harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov5.024432.8138@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>|> > ... Exactly which federal programs benifit the rich more than the poor?

[...]

>|> * Law enforcement: again, the rich have more to protect.

>It does not cost increasing amounts to protect additional wealth.
>Have you ever heard of economies of scale?  Once a bank is built,
>for example, it costs no more to protect $1 than it does $1,000,000.

Aside from the fact that this *isn't* true -- it takes more police
officers to protect a bank than it does to protect my wallet -- it
misses the point.  The point isn't how much is spent on protecting the
rich vs. protecting the poor -- the point is how much each side benefits.

If the police stop enforcing theft laws tomorrow, who does it hurt more 
-- the person who doesn't own anything, or the person with a lot of 
possessions?

The rich have more to lose than the poor, and thus law enforcement helps
them more.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Clinton's Wonderful 'NEW' Plan
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:23:02 GMT
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


At last a post with a Subject line that doesn't start with   Re:

  USA Today has an aricle in todays paper about how the Democrats in
congress want to set about passing a capital gains tax cut to go
along with Bill Clinton's 'new' economic plan. 
  Wow this capital gains tax cut sure won the hearts and minds of the
Democrats in a hurry.

  Democrats(to the people of The U.S.A.): "Well people it's like this
George Bush was right all along... We do need a cut in the capital gains
tax... Oh yes we know we called it a stupid idea for years and yes we did
know all along we were lying but hey who cares if we sacrafice the nations
economy for our own political motives? Remember character is not an issue
here."
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         |"God does not play dice
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |  with the universe."
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu | -- Albert Einstein
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16845 alt.politics.democrats.d:450 alt.politics.elections:23478 ba.politics:7001 co.politics:1797 ne.politics:2891 nj.politics:664 or.politics:576 ny.politics:188 talk.politics.misc:59594
From: europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik)
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: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:11:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Nov11.165425.14512@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, by fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary):
> In article <1992Nov11.152245.2895@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
> 
>>>Fine: Why should they be made immune from the consequences of this
>>>choice? If they want to have more kids than they can afford, that's
>>>fine. But they should live with the result: Poverty. We are under
>>>no obligation to save them from their own bad judgement.
>>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>Maybe they could afford it before they had the kids.
> 
> Ok, I should have, I suppose, said "bad judgement or bad luck." I
> don't feel I (directly or theough the government) have an obligation
> of insure everyone against all forms of misfortune.
            ^^^^^^^^         ^^^
>                                                  Frank Crary
>                                                  CU Boulder
> 
Frank, good choice of words there. Can I thus infer that as a member
of a (large) modern civilization/society that you DO in fact feel
that you DO have an obligation to insure some people agianst some
forms of misfortune? 
Must we only talk in universalities here, ad infinitum, ad infinitesium,
ad nauseam....

You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but there's a
sucker born every minute.

(I have no idea what I'm talking about)

Ron Capik
(aka: the NJ Editorial Minstrel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc