HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:08:08 GMT

In article <9103@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <192ed6INNab9@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

>MW:If the sum result of all of the Clinton/Gore tax changes result in more
>MW:taxes being collected, then by my definition Clinton/Gore support higher
>MW:taxes.

>SS:By that token, Ronald Reagan supports higher taxes, since his tax cuts resulted
>SS:in (or so supply-siders say) more taxes being collected (the result of an
>SS:increased tax base??).

>I guess I should have been more precise with my terms.

>What are the proposed affects of the tax cuts.  Is it to reduce taxes,
>increase taxes, or to redistribute income.

>Reagan was a tax cutter, because his tax changes were designed to bring
>in less in taxes.  The fact that the economy then took off and the
>government was then able to collect more in taxes was not Reagan's
>fault ;^).  

Not unless you're calling Reagan a liar.  He claimed that was his plan.

(By your logic, Bush could hike tax rates up to 100%, see taxes collected go 
down to 0, and claim to be a tax cutter.)

What matters is what *rates* everyone is paying, not total amount collected.

If Clinton's plan truly is to cut taxes on some yet-to-be-defined middle
class and to raise taxes on those over $200k, then he is a tax cutter to
the middle class, and a tax raiser to those making over $200k.  It's
pretty stupid to try to pin one label on him, since his policies will be
affecting these people differently.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:53:21 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
: |> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:

: |> [Now, about Bill Clinton, I presume:]
: |> 
: |> >He lied about the draft.
: |> 
: |> I do not think so.  What was the lie?
: 
: The man was drafted.  He then went applied to the ROTC after he was inducted.
: 	These are facts.

Where is the lie?  Clinton has admitted all of this.  A similar claim
could be made about GHWB with all of his broken promises ("Read my lips...").
Both Bush and Clinton reek of the slime of politics.  Equally.
 
: |> 
: |> >He did sleep with Flowers. 
: |> >He did cheat on his wife.
: |> 
: |> If true, so what?  She supports him; it's no one else's business.
: 
: 	If he lied to his wife he will lie to you.

"Read my lips... no new taxes!"  -- George Bush, responsible for the greatest
					number of tax increases in U.S. history.

: |> >He will raise taxes.
: |> 
: |> I hope so!  I am not looking forward to the gov't going bankrupt.
: 
: It is ok if you want more taxes just send them in.  As for me I want to keep
: my hard earned buck.  I know better than the government how to use it.


Remember who you are defending, here.  George Bush, the person who wants
to pass a balanced budget amendment, one of the most unrealistic ideas of
our time, unless taxes are increased.  I'd love to see our spineless
President OK the cuts in various programs needed to balance the U.S.
budget without increasing taxes.  I just don't think it's going to happen.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"C'mon boys, don't bother me.
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 I'm debating Danny Quayle.
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 The boy's retarded."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Sen. Birch Bayh
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5010 alt.politics.clinton:5282 alt.politics.perot:1469 rec.humor:28579 talk.bizarre:30030 talk.politics.misc:45281 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5351
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:08:34 GMT
	<BD.92Sep11075850@fluent.UUCP> <TOMSTER.92Sep12204226@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble) writes:

>In article <BD.92Sep11075850@fluent.UUCP> bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:
>
>
>   For instance, if over the course of a year I wrote ten checks, each
>   for ten thousand dollars, and each of which bounced, it would appear that
>   I owed the bank $100,000.  But, if each time I wrote the checks I had
>   $9,999.99 in the bank, then I would actually owe the bank a dime, not
>   $100,000!
>
>   Hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.
>
>-- 
>      Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
>			    bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
>		I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
>				 DoD # 0698
>
>I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your math here.  Seems to me you would
>owe more on the order of $90,000.01.  Much more than a dime, you must admit.
>
>Given, I can assume you meant that you had $99,999.90 in the bank.  Why, then
>would those ten checks have bounced?  Bad banking system?
>
>I agree with many of your points, and most of your logic seems founded,
>but your choice of example leaves much to be desired.

Thomas, I've read my post over, and I don't see any problem with the
math, but I think I see why there's confusion.  What I meant was that
each time you wrote a check for $10,000 you had $9,999.99 in the bank
at the time the check was written.

Over the course of the year, you would have had to have a total of 
$99,999.90 in the account, but in my example you would never have more than
$9,999.99 in the account at one time.

I don't think the example was all that bad - it does take a bit of finagling
to make it work precisely (why wouldn't the critter transfer an even
ten thousand into the account before he write the check, for instance,
instead of transferring $9,999.99) but I think I got my point across
adequately - we don't have a clue at this point how much money any
of these people owed, because we don't know that balance of their accounts
at the times the checks "bounced".
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5200 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3780 talk.politics.misc:45563
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:43:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.102219.2581@anasazi.com> karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.213829.14701@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>
>>                                             In the meantime, we should make
>>sure that each and every child receives adequate sex education--just the
>>facts, no moralizing.
>>
>Sure!  And while we're at it, let's teach children about guns the same way -
>just the facts about how to use them, no moralizing about where to point them
>and when to pull the trigger.
>--
>The Democrat U.S. Congress - Evil Empire II (TM)

It's always a good sign when people resort to such asinine postings. Children
don't need to learn about guns: the world would be a better place without
them. Sex, on the other hand, is what keeps the planet populated, and whether
you like it or not, everyone does it, even children. It's responsible to teach
children the rights and wrongs of sex, just plain stupid to arm them.

Then again, a Fundie/GOP supporter would have a different agenda...

Chris W.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5044 alt.politics.clinton:5321 alt.politics.elections:13070
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 14:14:11 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:

  [mulac stupidity deleted...]

>
> Hey Richard, who pays for your funding?
>
> I just can't stand people who are on the dol(sp?) who complain about taxes.
> Being on the dol(sp?)  includes the president, people who work for NASA,
> a member of the military, a county garbage collector, a teacher, etc...
>
> I could never understand, how,  someone who is on the dol, complain about tax
> cut taxes 50%, can we cut everyones dol by 50%?
>
> Christopher J. Born
>
> born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com

You've pegged Mr. Mulac quite effectively.  He doesn't want Clinton because he
knows that Bush, like Reagan before him, is the best thing to help Big
Government.  These borrow-and-spend Republicans are really lending a hand to
welfare programs like the defense budget and the space program.  Just pump more
money into both, and don't really worry about trivial things as getting the
most for the buck or direction of the programs.



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: "Moral" issues
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Aug31.162330.18457@cco.caltech.edu>,<tfvymml@rpi.edu>
	<1992Sep1.183949.29060@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <8fwyjcf@rpi.edu>
	<pgk-040992165708@paulkampmac.pacersoft.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:32:26 GMT

In article <pgk-040992165708@paulkampmac.pacersoft.com> pgk@pacersoft.com (Paul Kamp) writes:
-> In article <8fwyjcf@rpi.edu>, blythes@cs.rpi.edu (Stephen Blythe) wrote:
-> 
-> > Like I said, laws should not be intended to "impose", the should be (to coin a
-> > police phrase) "to protect and serve..."
-> 
-> Protect and Serve who?  Early in American history the people who had rights
-> were white male property holders.  It was legal to have slaves though it
-> was immoral.  Women did not have the vote and were treated as chattel.  Is
-> there no dimension of morality to our laws?  Of course there is.
-> 
-> Imposing anti-discriminatory practices upon the workplace, clubs, etc does
-> legislate morals.  It is "morally" right to be treated equally.  And we as
-> a nation impose this on others who are here.
-> 
-> How do we apply this in our day to day political discussions?  Look at
-> Governor Mario Cuomo who is "pro-choice" because you can not legislate
-> morals.  Yet this same Governor will not sign the death penalty bill in the
-> state of NY because it is morally wrong.  Bill Clinton advocates that we
-> should go into Yugoslavia because it is morally right to do something to
-> help those people.  George Bush forms a coalition to go after Saddam
-> Hussein because it is right.  No moral dimension to out laws or the
-> actions?  I do not think so.

	I'd go a little bit farther than saying laws have a moral
dimension; laws ARE morals that have been written down in a solid and
enforceable form.  A law gets passed, because the people voting for it
think it's the right thing to do.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: tcking@uswnvg.com (Tim King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Verbal Dyslexia
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:28:53 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

An enjoyable excerpt from a recent Nation article:

"George Bush without a Teleprompter can scarcely produce an intelligible
sentence.  I've been listening to him since 1966 and must confess to a
secret fondness for his verbal dyslexia.  Hearing him has the charm
and suspense of those old adventure-movie serials:  Will this man ever
fight his way out of this sentence alive?  As he flops from one
syntactical Waterloo to the next, ever in the verbless mode, in
search of the long-lost predicate, or even a subject, you find
yourself struggling with him, rooting for him.  What is this man
actually trying to say?  What could he possible mean?  Hold it, I
think I see it!

.. The fact is that unless someone else writes a speech for him, the
President of the United States sounds like a borderline moron.  But
the media sit around pretending that he can actually talk -- can convince,
inspire, and lead us."

- Molly Ivins, "Notes from Another Country", The Nation, 9/14/92
                                             ---------- 

Transcribed for your pleasure by:

Tim King, tcking@uswnvg.com.
Taxed and Spent Liberal
From: larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush bashing, etc....
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:23:31 GMT
	<JASON.92Aug31131725@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Data General, Westboro, Mass.



    Jason> 	I love when the Democrats try to nail Bush on this one.
    Jason> It was their idea to raise taxes and Bush compromised to
    Jason> try to get things done.  They got their way and now their
    Jason> bitching about it.


I was hoping to see someone else make this point.  If we want to call
Bush a liar, then maybe we should start calling Clinton a liar too for
his slick (another term for lying, evading the facts, whatever you
wanna call it) responses to smoking dope and evading the draft.

Was he in the ROTC when he didn't inhale, or did he drop out of the
ROTC after two months because he couldn't inhale, or ...

I am sure that we can find a condition under which every president did
not keep campaign promises.  Do you think that slick Willie will keep
all of his?  This is a crock.

Get to the issues ladies and gents, and keep the name-calling out of
it.  You got reasons to vote for either of these candidates, let's see
'em.

--

     @@
    @@@                 Larry Rogers               *
   @@@@                 Larry_Rogers@dg.com        *   Big Brother
   @@@@ &&&&            larry@boris.webo.dg.com    *   is Watching
    @@@ &&&             Data General               * 
     @@ &&              508-870-8441               *

The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.

"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
   Dire Straits

"I don't know what the big deal is about GUI's anyway; I'm blind."
   Unknown
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:54:16 GMT

In article <9106@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> 
> In <1992Sep14.212152.29355@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
> NL:As I have said before, I will not waste my time debating with people who
> NL:question my honor or my credentials. That is the reason I have not and will not
> NL:give any "evidence" at this time. If any polite posters want to pick up
> NL:this debate, I will be happy to continue.
> 
> NL:Norman (for the anti-intellectuals)
> 
> NL:Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> 
> Flame and duck,  Excellent technique doc.  I'd have to give this performance
> a 9.7
> 

Oh shove it Mark! As I said when somebody polite wants an explanation of why
I think that rag is biased, I WILL respond. But not to you.

Norman (for you anti-intellectual types)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> -- 
> --Mark
> My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: The Power of USENET
Organization: gte
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:01:33 GMT

In article <JASON.92Sep9115817@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.191058.1656@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin) writes:
> -> Because it is a politics group that doesn't have Clinton or Bush in
> -> its title!  If I am undecided, but still interested in politics,
> -> the miscellaneous group would be first on my list of things to read
> -> as it would be a cross-section (hopefully) of the two sides, battling
> -> against each other, as opposed to the Bush and Clinton groups which
> -> are much more one-sided.
> -> 
> -> >
> -> >So?  How many of those readers are going to present arguments
> -> >favorable to the candidate that the reader doesn't support to said
> -> >friends?  How much will those postings improve the effectiveness of
> -> >said readers promotion of his/her favored candidate?  Unless the
> -> >answer to the first or second is "lots", Usenet postings don't affect
> -> >off-list people.
> -> >
> -> 
> -> Answer to Q2) none at all
> -> answer to Q3) quite a bit. By reading UseNET postings, one could
> -> find some ideas that are pro-their-candidate that they possibly hadb't
> -> thought of or hadn't heard before that may be effective in swinging
> -> friends.
> 
> 	From what I've been reading, most of the posting are
> anti-the-other-guy and not pro-their-guy.  I guess it's a lot easier
> to insult than compliment.

No, it's just that both Clinton and Bush are lousy candidates: vote
Marrou instead.




-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Cuomo
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:21:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.022320.19012@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>
>   I can't believe that the man whom Clinton accussed of being connected to
>the Mob in his conversation with Flowers a few months ago is now his
>leading candidate for the Supreme Court.  And people talk about Quayle!

Speaking of media distortions--
I heard a playback of that conversation.  The part about the
Mafia went very much like:

GF: That Cuomo seems awful tough.  Is he connected with the Mafia?

BC: Boy, it sure seems like it.

From the casual tenor of the conversation, and recalling that
GF was not a district attorney or anything, this was not at all
a serious accusation, and it was most definitely GF, not BC, who
raised the subject of the Mafia.

-------------
Jer.
walsh@wri.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: A POLL THAT MEANS SOMETHING
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:35:43 GMT

Stan Knight (stank@perrault.net.com) wrote:
: 
: 
: Many pro-Clintonies have posted results of polls and added "Hey look how far
: ahead we are in the popular vote." Many pro-Busher have come back, and
: rightly so, to say "Popular vote means nothing, show me a poll with 
: electoral votes." Well the 1st one(at least the 1st I've seen)is out. It was
: published on the front page of the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS on 9-10. I've been
: surprised not to have already heard about it on the net. The poll was put
: together by the FIELD INSTIITUTE and here are the results.
: 
: There are a grand total of 538 electrol votes. 270 electrol votes needed to win.
: 
: If election held today
: Clinton would receive a mininum of 366 Ele. votes.
: Bush would recieve a mininum of 35 Ele. votes.
: All others too close to call.
: 
: The number Clinton would receive is based on the 33 states that he currently 
: has a lead of more then 5%. Of those 32 states there are 18 that Clinton has a 
: lead of MORE then 10%. This includes D.C. These 18 states have 225 votes. 
: There are currently NO states that Bush has more then a 10% lead in.
: The votes that Bush would receive is based on the 4 states that he has between
: a "5 to 10%" lead. 
: There are 14 states with with 137 votes that are up for graps. 
: The article does go on to say that this poll is not meant to be a prediction
: of things to come but just the way they are today.
: 
: Stan Knight
: |"Just the facts, SIR!" --Bill Murray--(Stripes)|
:  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4270 alt.politics.clinton:4257 alt.politics.elections:12554
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:59:50 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
>    It is well known that nursing is going to be a field in big demand over
>the next few decades.  Graduating nurses are going to be getting great
>starting salaries with tremendous benefits.  There are going to be more
>slots available than people to fill them.  Why aren't more students
>switching their major to nursing (or similiarly needed profession) instead
>of pursuing a degree in a field which they know right now does not offer a
>good chance of employment in the future?  Students are going to have to be
>more realistic.

Well, I don't know how it is in the USA, but here in the UK
young people are queueing up to become lawyers, stockbrokers,
accountants etc, but it's very difficult to get anyone to be
interested in engineering and technology. Market forces,
however, stubbornly refuse to increase the salary of the latter
at the expense of the former :-(.

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4870 alt.politics.clinton:5098 alt.politics.elections:12951