HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 20:24:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <1992Oct2.165715.10372@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1992Sep28.170215.27441@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:
|> >Nothing ludicrous about it:  the $500/week guy and the $50/week guy are,
|> >after all, getting the same government, why shouldn't they pay the same
|> >price for it?  
|> 
|> Well, actually they aren't.  Insofar as a lot of the functions of
|> government go (smoothing trade and commerce, police, fire, defense,
|> etc.) the person with more money has more to protect and is hence
|> getting more service.

This statement isn't any less absurd now than the first time you said
it.  Federal tax isn't based on how much "stuff" you have.  I can earn 
a million dollars a year and live in a cardboard box under a bridge 
and pay the same tax as a person who makes a million dollars a year 
and has 6 homes and 12 cars to "protect".  Your statement doesn't even 
make that much sense at the local level either.  It doesn't cost the 
police more to arrest a burglar in a $500,000 house than a burglar in 
a $50,000 house.  It doesn't cost a fire department any more to put 
out a fire in a 2000 sq. ft. house in the rich part of town, than the 
same size house in the poor part of town.  A woman driving a Mercedes 
doesn't put any more wear and tear on the roads than a man driving a 
Yugo.  Admit it, it's a big wealth redistribution scheme.  People with 
more money have to pay more because they CAN, not because they get 
more "services" from the government.

|> When you can ensure [sic] a $50 vase and a $50k vase
|> for the same amount of money, then perhaps this line of argument will
|> have more merit.

Government services aren't insurance.  The police don't protect the
$50k vase ten times as much.  In fact, the rich typically require less
police protection because they tend to hire private security guards or
install alarm systems.

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWD Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
From: breinhar@access.digex.com (Robert B. Reinhardt)
Subject: Re: 20 reasons TO VOTE REPUBLICAN (not)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:11:46 GMT

In article <BvF4vo.4H1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>Twenty reasons to vote Republican this year...
>
>1) Republcans have been in the White House for twelve years. Four more 
>should send people rioting in the streets, which makes for cool television.
>2) This time, why not the *greater* of two evils?
>3) America's been on top too long...time for Germany or Japan to take over.

Whatever position you put us in, the people in this country still
get screwed.  Do you like it better on the bottom, or on top...now
there's a campaign issue.

-Rob R
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7860 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4742 alt.politics.bush:7235
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:09:58 GMT
Organization: The College of William and Mary

In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>
>     In this corner, Al Gore, apostle of charity, compassion, and
>     saving the earth.  His opponent, Dan Quayle -- avatar of
>     Republican greed and selfishness.  Tax returns show that the 
>     two had similar incomes last year.  Guess which one gave more
>     to charity?  Of course.  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
>     of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
>     1 per cent.  Maybe Mr. Gore was trying to strengthen the case
>     for federal poverty programs.
>
>It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>dwarfs his private generosity.
>
>     C. Perttunen

Hmm...or it could be that the Quayles just wanted to weasel out of
paying their fair share of taxes by writing off more "charitable"
deductions than the Gores...

John
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:56:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> What gets ridiculous about the whole AIDS issue is that people keep saying
> "Anyone can get it".  But take a look at how it is spread, and take a look
> at what the high-risk groups are.  How can I get it if I don't do any of
> the things that would expose someone to it??  I figure, if you don't shoot
> drugs, and practice abstinence (I'll get flamed as a prude on this one, what's
> wrong if I have self-control?/), you chances of getting it drop to near zero.
> Am I wrong here??
> 
> Simon
> 

Boy, I must be getting thicker skin.  I can't believe I'm going to jump
into this one.

The definition of high risk behavior is becoming broader all the time.  As 
more people get the virus, it becomes more and more of a heterosexual 
problem.  I spent some time in Africa last winter, and AIDs is *not* a 
homosexual or drug-users disease.  It is rampant in the whole population.  
That may very well happen here also.  The way that relates to you is that 
you cannot be sure you're safe just because you don't engage in hi-risk 
behavior.  The virus can go undetected for years, and it's affecting more 
people all the time.  When everyone except you has the virus, there is no 
such thing as low-risk behavior.  Twenty years ago the chances you might get
the AIDs virus were virtually 0.  Now you say yourself that the chances
are *near* zero.  In ten years from now, your odds will be worse.  The 
idea that you can ignore this one because you aren't part of a high-risk
group is a dangerous assumption.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Originator: cs911461@a02.ariel.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:54:18 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.182624.10881@unet.net.com>, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>> If you open your eyes just a little bit you'd see that Rap is not a white/black
>> thing. It's more of a generational thing. True, the majority of rap artist
>> are black, but the reason that it is so popular is that the young of this
>> country(all colors)like it and support it. I don't like rap myself but I 
>> have to support the artist that speak out against drug abuse, gang violence,
>> sexual abuse, racism ect.. in their music. Not all rappers are like Ice-T 
>> calling for violence. Of course these are the artist that get the most 
>> publicity. The only reason I know this stuff is that I have a teen daughter 
>> who, like all of her friends, like rap.
>> BTW:Anyone who accuses someone else of being racist because of their personal 
>> choice in music CAN'T be taken seriously.


Rap is still very racially motivated.  If a white guy (such as Vanilla
Ice) wants to "sing" rap songs, he has to make a big deal about his
whiteness ("Go white boy! Go white boy!", etc).  

If rap lyrics against drugs and violence actually had any effect, maybe
it would be more appealing to me.  As it is, I can only see it as a way
of defining "cool" black culture which we must all like otherwise we're
instantly trailer-park bigots.

I don't like it.  I also don't like movies with titles like "White men
can't jump" which we whities are supposed to laugh at (as in: "Oh ha ha!
Isn't it true!?  Aren't white men the most incoordinated, clumsy pieces of
outdated machinery that there every was!").  What's with the double 
standard?  Why can't we have a movie called "Black men can't read"?  Even
"Black men can't play marbles" would be against the unwritten laws but
we're supposed to find "White men can't jump" funny?!?!  It's disgusting.

Abolish racism IN ALL IT'S FORMS!


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Re: One of Clinton's 128 "Tax" Increases
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 18:32:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.101249.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> Thanks for pointing out the NY Times list.  You're right -- I
> do not see the change-of-sex fee on this list.  The media (specifically,
> the New Republic) displays its "quest for accuracy" once again!

If you are going to blame TNR for the mistake in your original article,
please cite the issue and page where the claim was made.  I subscribe
to TNR and read every issue cover to cover (except the art and book
reviews).  I read Kinsley's article on the Bush campaign's tax list,
and he made no reference to a change-of-sex fee.  He did (accurately)
point out a license fee of $500 for abortion clinics.

I've seen no reference to a change-of-sex fee in any other TNR article.
Perhaps you got your facts confused.  It happens to the best of us, but
it is unfair to blame the error on TNR.

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Subject: Re: pat buchanan's convention speech
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:45:23 GMT

In <Bvq5tn.6pq@cs.psu.edu> groenvel@brown.crayola.cs.psu.edu (John D Groenveld) writes:

>I am looking for some quotes out of his speech but don't have the time
>read the transcript. 
>John

     Maybe I am reading this the wrong way, but are you asking the
public to go and do your research for you?  
     Sounds pretty lazy to me.  I have the speech, but won't edit for you.
Do you also ask librarians to read your books for you?






Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:51:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep23.043700.6260@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>, cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

> What good will your flimsy Beretta do against an Army?  I don't like the
> idea of being owned by the State any more than you do, but what the hell
> can you do about it?  

Vote.  No, wait.  What good will my flimsy vote do against the Government?
Damn, this stuff is more complex than most knee-jerkers ever consider.

In short, one armed citizen is EXACTLY as important as one voting citizen.  
So be both.

> Can Iraqis remove Saddam?  Yes they can, but a whole lot of them will be
> killed trying.  Then, a new State will own them.

So why bother, is that it?

> Insofar as this pertains to drug use, I'm trying to communicate that
> no one can claim the "right" to destroy their body with narcotics. Why?
> Because the State owns their physical bodies and has an interest in 
> them.  Just as America had interests to protect in Kuwait, so it has
> investment in each citizen.  This investment amounts to ownership.  

This is sicker than the stuff in alt.dead.babies.

> Kind of a modern day slavery.
> 
> C. Armour-Kidson
> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

.ca is Canada, right?  Not China?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: community based boot camps
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:16:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.215001.6764@crd.ge.com> ebstokes@maxwell.crd.ge.com (Ed Stokes) writes:
>On several occaisions, I have heard Governor Clinton speak about
>"community based boot camps" for non-violent drug offenders. What
>exactly does this mean ? Every neighborhood will have its own little
>"drug offender boot camp" along with the school, post office, etc. ?
>What will take place at these camps ? Who will administer them ? Who
>will pay for them ? What will happen to second time offenders ? Has
>Clinton addressed any of these specifics, or is this just a kinder,
>gentler way to say "shock incarceration camp" (a Bush phrase) ?

No, he's talking about encouraging states to duplicate a successful
program that they have in California.

Who will pay for it?  Well, 3 months ago a crack addict broke into my
house to steal my TV.  It was worth about $5-$10 (it was about 10 years
old) but that would have been a couple good hits for him.  He could
have had a gun, he could have killed my entire family.

Right now we're paying for the fact that we DON'T have such programs.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
"I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:37:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep25.002336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>     All it takes for me to illustrate my contention (that the Bible
>is not entirely symbolic) is to show one counterexample; but for
>your contention (that the Bible is entirely symbolic), you must
>prove that every verse is symbolic.

     I made no such assertion - I merely questioned your statement
that only portions of the Bible are symbolic.


>  That is obviously not
>possible, so I will not ask of you what you ask of me.  Here
>goes:
>
>     Deut 5:19 - Neither shalt thou steal.
>
>I claim that this can be taken at face value.

     I agree that it can be taken at face value.  To prove your
claim, however, you need to show that it _cannot_ be taken symbolically.


>  Now, it's your turn.
>Since you claim the *entire* text is symbolic,

     I did not make this claim.


> please discuss how
>this *one* verse cannot be taken at face value. Let me give you
>a starting point -- you need to either claim that 'thou' (the subject)
>symbolizes something (it's hard to make a pronoun become a symbol)
>or that 'steal' (the verb) symbolizes something.  When I look in
>a Bible concordance, the verses that use 'steal' do not seem to be
>esoteric in any sense.  Therefore, unless one learned reading
>by the Whole Language Method, one can reasonably conclude this
>verse is to be taken literally -- just as I reasonably concluded
>that your questions were to be taken literally.  How do you 
>interpret this verse?  

     Your conclusion that "steal" is meant in any literal sense
appears to be rather unfounded.  It may not "seem" to be esoteric
to you - this does not preclude its use in a symbolic manner.

     You have failed to provide evidence to support your claim that
only a portion of the Bible is symbolic.  Would you care to try
again?

					-Phil
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8572 talk.politics.misc:49657 alt.rush-limbaugh:6586 alt.politics.bush:7796
From: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:29:35 GMT
Reply-To: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: cassidy@dolphin.cps.msu.edu

In article <lcpdggINN8hn@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>John J Cassidy) writes:
>|> > 
>|> > After my exhaustive analysis, I have finally concluded that 
>|> > I am not a Liberal or a Conservative. 
>|> > 
>|> > js
>|> 
>|> 	I'm with you.  Only I might be considered more of
>|> a conservative.  I am more of a socialist, than most conservatives
>|> I know.  I am almost tempted to side with the Democratic party
>|> some times.  Except that they LIE, and pretend that what they are
>|> promising is not socialism.  Tom Haden admits that when he says
>|> "economic democracy" that he is really talking about socialism.
>|> He says that "socialism" has a bad name, and as such tries to 
>|> avoid that term.
>|> 
>Tom Haden is nor more your typical Democrat than Rush L is your
>typical Republican.

	I might agree with you on that one.  'Cept Tom Haden's ideas 
are quoted a couple of times in Al Gore's latest book.
>
>-- 
>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
>
	John J Cassidy		cassidy@cps.msu.edu
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8632 talk.politics.misc:49727
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton at Oxford (Clinton while he was supposedly at Oxford...)
Date: 6 Oct 1992 16:33:37 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Stupendous Man) writes:
|> Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:
|> > To the person who said Oxford was an easy school to get in, please
|> > note that Clinton was there on a Rhodes Scholarship, one of the
|> > most prestigious of all scholarships.
|> > 
|> > Let's hear it for a smart man in the white house for a change.
|> 
|> 	Not only did he not go to the classes, he never took the exams.
|> 
|> 	Yeah, smart guy.
|> 
|> 	Draft dodger, class skipper.
|> 
|> 	Hoo boy.  Let's elect all the hoods from our high schools!
|> 
As long as they all carried 3.5 or better GPA's, I can deal with it.
Going to class wasn't a pre-requisite for getting a good education,
but taking the exams was the measurement.  I haven't heard anything
about him having a large number of F's or incompletes.

|> Brett                                                      

If I had posted this drivel, I'd have done it anonymously.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Interesting observation of Clarinews groups of Clinton and Bush
Organization: The Ohio State University
 
 
  The OSU just got the Clair.News.Hot.Clinton/Bush/Perot groups. One 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:46:16 GMT

  Hmm, wonder why.
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Where is ELECTORAL tally?
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct6.201844.11829@sei.cmu.edu> hsm@sei.cmu.edu (Scott Matthews) writes:
>
>Hi everybody
>
>A few weeks ago, somebody posted the IMPORTANT statistics for the elction at this point in time.  I.e. the RUNNING ELECTORAL votes.
>
>That person had collected the support polls and assigned electoral votes to each candidate based on which states they were carrying.  CLinton was way ahead because Bush is only beating him in a few little electoral vote states.  
>
>Assuming Clinton keeps kicking ass in the BIG STATES like CA, etc.  he really couldnt lose.  Has anybody updated these electoral college numbers?  If so, please post...

80-line columns please (actually, 60 would be better, so we can have
an almost cascade like series of follow-ups)

The ABC morning show (Good Morning America?) showed a nicely
color-coded map of the US, to indicate which states were Clinton's,
which were Bush's, and which were toss-ups.  They weren't specific
about how a state was deemed to be in Candidate X's camp (perhaps a 5%
or greater advantage in the local polls?), but they mentioned that
Clinton would have around 307 electoral votes.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: incumbent
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:40:15 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct5.125256.7317@iscsvax.uni.edu>, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
> If you're not voting for Clinton, you're really voting for Bush.
> 
> There is only one incumbent.  There are lots of non-incumbent candidates.  But
> if the incumbent gets the pluarlity, he stays in office.
> 
> Non-votes help the incumbent, too.
> 
> If you're not voting for Clinton, you're voting for Bush.
> 
> p.s.  If you want Bush, that's your right.  Let's avoid clogging this thread
> with defenses of him, though.
> 
     Get out your Drano -- here I come!  This, along with a previous
thread, could be the basis for an Abbott and Costello routine.
Let me see if I have this straight.  A vote for Perot is actually
a vote for Bush.  Moreover, if you do not vote for Clinton, then 
you are actually voting for Bush.  But, a vote for Marrou is
actually a vote for Clinton, since a Marrou supporter is more
inclined toward Bush than Clinton.  Also, a non-vote is actually a vote
for the incumbent, who happens to be Bush.  A vote for Lyndon
LaRouche (sp?) is actually a vote for Mike Dukakis since both
LaRouche and Willie Horton are in prison; but Mike Dukakis is not
running, so the vote is wasted.  Therefore, if you do not like
either Bush or Clinton, your vote should go to LaRouche.  Do 
I have it yet, or is there more?
     Another question is: "who's on first?".  Correct!

     C. Perttunen   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: incumbent
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:01:13 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
:If you're not voting for Clinton, you're really voting for Bush.
:There is only one incumbent.  There are lots of non-incumbent candidates.  But
:if the incumbent gets the pluarlity, he stays in office.
:Non-votes help the incumbent, too.
:If you're not voting for Clinton, you're voting for Bush.

Of course, then there are those of us who would not stoop so low as
to vote for any of the "Big Three."

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

Marrou/Lord in '92