HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the military
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:57:42 GMT

matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu (Goodman Byron) writes:

>...
>People say
>homos can reframe from their sexuals desires, but the a hetrosexual marine
>cant stop worry if that fag is going to give him AIDS or truck to screw him
>in the ass.

So, it sounds like it's the heterosexual marine that has the problem in
your example.  Is this correct?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16645 alt.politics.democrats.d:411 alt.politics.elections:23310 ba.politics:6943 co.politics:1734 ne.politics:2845 nj.politics:628 or.politics:539 ny.politics:151 talk.politics.misc:59283
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
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: 9 Nov 92 16:20:10 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation


>The country is in trouble, thanks to the Reagan/Bush "put it on the
>credit card" excesses. 

The country is in trouble from a HISTORY of over-spending!  It is really
reaching to try to blame it on an individual president.  

>
>Anyhow, I still think tax increases will be less important than just
>getting the economy moving again. 

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.

>Taxes are paid on profits, increase

Wish that were true ...  I don't consider trading my labor for someone else's
Federal Reserve Notes is profitting me.  It's simply a FAIR TRADE, my labor
for their money.  Where's the profit? 

>profits and we will increase corporate tax revenues without any
>changes in the rules (other than perhaps paying attention to the
>loopholes and cheats more carefully.)

FAT CHANCE!!!  Why is it that town governments are "allowed" to waive taxes on
businesses to attract them to their area? 

To Recap:  Taxes aren't the cause, they are the result!  Excess Government
spending is the cause.  Taxes only band-aid the problem.


-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16405 alt.president.clinton:148
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: cost per vote
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:34:53 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <matthew.721085913@base.cs.ucla.edu>, matthew@base.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher) writes:
|> elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
|> 
|> >some statistics from the election.
|> >   (I am very unsure of the campaign spending figures; if
|> >    anyone has anything more accurate, please let me know)
|> 
|> >			  Clinton	  Bush		  Perot
|> >total votes		 43,728,000	 38,167,000	19,237,000
|> >total expenditures	110,000,000	110,000,000	72,000,000
|> >cost per vote	   $2.50	   $2.88	  $3.60
|> 
|> I saw in the LA Times (I think) that Perot spent (roughly) $60,000,000
|> of his own money on losing the presidency and that Bill Koch spent
|> (roughly) $67,000,000 on winning the America's Cup (yacht racing).
|> 
|> Who got the better deal?

   Well, they both got their egos stroked big-time. I'll bet each of them
sees it as worthwhile. 

In <92wccln@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

>This morning's Sacramento Bee (11/6) had a very interesting set of figures,
>the amount of money each candidate spent.  Bush spent something like $129
>million, Clinton $112 million, and Perot $59 million.  *Per vote* (the really
>interesting figures IMO), Clinton spent about $2.50, Bush about $2.95, and
>Perot about $3.08.  In short, the *low* spender won the election.

OK: Let's redo the table:

			  Clinton	  Bush		  Perot
total votes		 43,728,000	 38,167,000	19,237,000
total expenditures	112,000,000	129,000,000	59,000,000
cost per vote		   $2.56	   $3.38	  $3.07
electoral votes		    370		    168		      0
cost / electoral vote	302,700		767,860		 Infinite

				- Lee Campbell  <elwin@media.mit.edu>
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Na na, na na na na, Hey hey hey , good bye
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:04:55 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov11.143230.13630@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
> In article <LARRY.92Nov9121509@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:
>>
>>We cannot afford welfare health care in this country at this time.  We
>>can neither afford an ill-conceived growth program based on monies
>>that are not there.  Clinton may succeed by trying a different
>>approach.  We will see.  In the meantime, lock in those mortgage
>>rates; we are in for a bumpy ride.
>>
>>Larry
> 
> wow larry, you know it all.  what lotto number should i buy for saturdays
> drawing?  how many millions have you made in the stock market with all your
> expertise??

	Well, how about you?  Show him yours and maybe he'll show you his.
:)

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16162 alt.politics.democrats.d:342 alt.politics.elections:22942 ba.politics:6842 co.politics:1629 ne.politics:2762 nj.politics:564 or.politics:465 ny.politics:91 talk.politics.misc:58565
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
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: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:27:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Nov5.181343.1619@claven.ucar.edu>, by woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods):
> 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?

A tax based on consumption is regressive: for instance, the sales tax.

Here's how a pure consumption tax would be regressive.  Say you have a
single person, no dependents, making $50,000 a year, needs less than
half of it to survive, banks the rest, consumes relatively little,
pays little tax.  Then say you have another person who makes $50,000 a
year, supports a spouse, six children, two aging parents, spouse's
aging parents, and other miscellaneous relatives, spends all of it,
banks nothing, and pays more tax than the playboy above.

That sounds like trickle-down, and I don't like it.  Tax should be
based on ability to pay.

All taxes, for obvious political reasons, should be levied on those
best able to pay them.  Many taxes, for other political reasons, are
avoided by those best able to pay them.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16957 alt.politics.democrats.d:484 alt.politics.elections:23581 ba.politics:7045 co.politics:1848 ne.politics:2927 nj.politics:687 or.politics:597 ny.politics:209 talk.politics.misc:59781
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
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: 12 Nov 92 18:36:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <KVC=yK=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.082806.15389@RedBrick.COM>, jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
>|> >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:
>|> >> 
>The Federal government guaranteed accounts up to $100,000.  This was
>stupid, but a promise is a promise.  The government should pay depositors
>according to its agreement.  Of course, after payoff, the insurance
>system should be scrapped for some form of private insurance, or at
>least public insurance with premiums based on risk.
>
>|> 
ah, but guess what...they didn't just pay 100k.  since bush's rich buddies
had money in all this they went ahead and paid *all* of the money 'lost',
even all those accounts that had more than 100k in them....surprise eh?
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Caution: objects in election are closer than they appear
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:36:52 GMT
 <!D==Qt-@engin.umich.edu> <1992Nov5.183351.14559@informix.com> <lj==-a=@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <lj==-a=@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.183351.14559@informix.com>, davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
> |> 
> |> My personal belief is that most people in favor of term limits really mean
> |> "there should be term limits on all those *other* reps, but I want to be
> |> able to keep voting for mine, since they bring home the bacon.  
[...]
> |> The real problem with incumbency is, of course, that
> |> the power derived from that seniority is likely to corrupt.  Oftentimes
> |> the constituents really don't know what shenanigans their rep/senator is
> |> up to (how many of us track our rep/senator's voting/attendence/spending
> |> records?).  The problem is, they don't care, so long as it
> |> doesn't cost them anything (or at least that they don't perceive it as such).
> |> Voters don't think "what a crud - he got us millions for a new bypass, but
> |> it drove up the deficit by millions," but rather "Congress has driven up
> |> the deficit, the cruds, but at least our rep is good, since he got us
> |> money for that new bypass."
> |> 
> 
> I agree with this assesment as well.  My feeling is that we should have
> a Constitutional ammendment defining term limitations so we have a constant
> across the country.  I think it is in the best interest of the entire
> country to prevent unsightly seniority buildup.  I don't believe it is
> in the national interest that states with more senior reps have advantages
> that other states don't have.  Congress could, of course, reform
> the seniority system, but I prefer the slightly stronger Constitutional
> approach.

"Unsightly seniority buildup" -- what a catchy phrase!  I like it!  You 
could have written copy along this line:  "Are you tired of the same old 
congressman?  You've tried scandalling him out, and voting him out, but he 
just...keeps...coming...back.  But now -- You can prevent unsightly seniority 
buildup with 'Congress Be Gone'!..."

But seriously, one-third of the states now have term limits.  Assuming that 
they ALL survive court challenges (incumbents filed suit in Florida just
*hours* after it passed), which is no sure thing, then Congressfolk from
states with term limits will begin trying to pass *national* term limits --
just to be sure their states don't lose out in the seniority game. 

------ 

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Lori L Hartman <lhartman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the military
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:14:44 GMT


Homosexuals have been serving in the armed forces since the beginning of time.
And in this country, our "world power" has not been "diminished," and the
military has been able to "accomplish its missions" (I don't recall in our
military's history any failed battles due to a homosexual grabbing someone's
ass - however, I'm sure we have saved a few . . . )

The "inner conflict" you project on this piece of legislation is nothing more 
than heterosexual homophobia.  We have been in the military  all along -  
visible or not - and we have fought in battles and given our lives in the name 
of freedom - just like you.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: HILLARY FOR A-G
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 06:05:03 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Nov4.123055.8608@ac.dal.ca> egilmour@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Clinton should make Hillary Attorny-General
>Nepotism?
>Ya right, and I'm sure Ed Meese was appointed because he was such a
>nice guy and a great lawyer. Bullshit! This is politics.
>Anyway John Kennedy appointed Bobby A-G.

   Well, those are interesting precedents but do you think the country
is really ready for its Presdient and Attorney General to have sex ?
Maybe if they agreed to a vow of abstinance ...

>Also
>1. She is eminently qualified. She went to Harvard. She is consistently
>ranked as one of the top Lawyers in America by her peers.

  Based upon recent practice, sounds like an automatic disqualificiation
to me.

>
>2. Politically it would send a message that the Clintons, and the 
>Democratic party by extension, fully accept women in places of authority.
>Both parties lag far behind the American people in their acceptance of
>women in politics. If you don't believe me ask John Seymour. I think it very 
>unfortunate that the Democratic handlers felt it necessary to reduce 
>Hillary's role to that of doteing spouse and cookie baking mom. This would be
>the perfect opportunity for a bold move to show Clinton's commitment to 
>working women.

   How many cookies did she bake ? I think this evaluation is premature.
Let's wait at least until she publishes her first cookbook. At least we won't
have to worry about Ghost written dogs.
>
>3. Fairness to Hillary. She made more than three times Bill's Governor's
>salary last year. She will undoubtedly have to give up her partnership
>in the move to Washington and couldn't get a job their due to conflict 
>of intrests.

  Hmm, what are the ramifications of claiming the President as your dependent ?

>
>4. You want to stack the cabinet with political loyalists. Bill can't get anyone
>more loyal than Hillary.
>
> Come on Bill do something bold. The American people elected you on a platform
>of change. Sweep away the old anachronistic useless position of "First Lady"
>Put a women in your Cabinet. Make Hillary your A-G.

  This sounds a like a no win proposition. It could get very difficult if
he has to fire the A-G.



-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: To all of the alt.politics.* people
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:34:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.231852.611@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:

>					       The truth of the matter is that
>Perot, billionaire that he is, tried to buy the presidency, and the fact that
>he did so well is a demonstration of the extreme gullibility of the American
>people.  And be real, how do you think he made all his money?  Do you really
>believe anyone can become so mind-bogglingly rich and be perfectly clean?

	A couple of points:

	1) If Perot  tried to buy the presidency, Clinton spent more
	   money and succeeded. 
	2) Do you really believe someone can become as mind-bogglingly 
	   powerful as the President of the US and be perfectly clean?


Do I beleive this? not really, I'm just trying to show that rhetoric 
cuts both ways.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17002 alt.politics.democrats.d:500 alt.politics.elections:23638 ba.politics:7065 co.politics:1885 ne.politics:2940 nj.politics:692 or.politics:604 ny.politics:214 talk.politics.misc:59870
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
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: 12 Nov 92 19:16:48 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

>>The discussion is why such a family should be given a tax credit, to
>>protect them from the results of their choice. I see no reason 
>>why they should be.
>
>  
>  And dependent deductions are designed to protect the welfare
>  of the family, an institution that most people in the country,
>  including our dearly departed Veep, feel is extremely important.
>  It has always been felt that a minimum level of income for each
>  person in a family unit should not be taxed so that there is
>  sufficient income to provide for sustenance.  Any change in this
>  would have a regressive effect on poorer families.  It is 
>  surprising that so many people want to support "family values"
>  but are unwilling to provide the poorest families with the
>  level of sustenance needed to survive.  Sigh...

The problem here, as I see it, is that one can't survive on the amounts per
person which aren't taxed.  Who could feed, clothe, and house themself on
$3000 (or whatever the current deduction is)?  It just can't be done!  I agree
very strongly with those who support family values.  The key word here is
"family" and NOT government.  Family values begin at home!  When BOTH parents
*have* to work to survive, that leaves the school system to the all important
task of teaching those family values.  I might add, a task the Gov't IS NOT
qualified to fill!!!  Give back some tax money, where "mom" can afford to stay
home, and the Gov't and schools can go back to teaching the 3R's again.  Let
mom and dad do the values teaching! 

>
>  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.
>

I agree with you brother!  But then again, it shouldn't surprise you.  It is
written that in the latter days people will turn from their first love.  At
least there is HOPE for those who keep their eye on the prize and finish the 
race ...


ron
-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  6 Nov 92 17:19:14 GMT

The Clinton transition team has just announced that another module for
the space station will be proposed to Congress: the MMPPL - the Manned
Microgravity Poultry Processing Laboratory.

Martin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: greenjb@thatcher.cs.clemson.edu (Jeffrey B. Green)
Subject: Re: Clinton's mailbox is full now!
Organization: Clemson University Computer Science Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:09:19 GMT

In article <BxFJI7.779@rice.edu>, byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
> 
> Anyone had any luck mailing (and receiving) email from
> Clinton, or even his staff?

I received the message below from the 75300,3115 account a few days ago.

->Jock Gill
->Clinton/Gore Campaign
->Little Rock, AR
->
->[Note: This channel will be closed for a short vacation and relocation.
->The intention is to hold this interruption to as short an interval
->as possible.  Thanks for your patient understanding - J.]]

-- Jeff

J.B.Green (greenjb@cs.clemson.edu)
From: dick@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Ron Dick)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 23:24:47 GMT
Subject: Clinton in Arkansas
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton



This was posted to ca.politics. I believe it summarizes Perot's Sunday
night infommercial regarding Clinton in Arkansas........ 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compared to other states Arkansas ranks, after 12 years of
Clinton-omics,

ECONOMY:
44th in tax fairness
48th in disposable personal income
47th in per capita income
48th in percentage of people living in poverty
17th highest tax burden
50th in youth employment
50th in workplace safety

EDUCATION:
50th in teacher pay
47th in per capita education
5th highest percentage of adult illiteracy
43rd per capita higher education spending

CRIME:
50 in per capita spending on police
50th in per capita justice system spending
48th in per capita spending on corrections

ENVIRONMENT:
50TH for lack of gov't action to protect environment
48th in overall environmental quality
42nd in percent of clean rivers and streams
10th highest in per captia ozone depleting emissions

CHILDREN:
45th in well-being of children
45th in low-weight babies
49th in child death rates
47th in teen violent death
9th in per cent of children in single parent homes
---
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ***STOP THE NONSENSE, ALREADY***(was Re: Not a president yet)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:45:58 GMT
Organization: ucsd
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>What can be done to de-rail the Democrat's efforts to turn
>this country into a socialist's paradise?  There doesn't
>seem to be anyone capable of stopping the Democratic tax 
>and spend juggernaut. 

     ****** TAX REVOLT !!!! ******

--------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc