HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Libe
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:20:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
+Actually, I don't understand why we are all arguing over something
+like this.  Webster has alread got a working definition that we can
+all use as our basis of communication.  Isn't that what dictionaries
+are for?
+
+From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (in alphabetical order):
+conservatism
+	a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established
+	b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social
+	 stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring
+	 gradual development to abrupt change
+	c: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation
+	 to change.
+
+liberalism
+	a: a movement in modern Protestantism ...
+	b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from
+	 restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-
+	 regulating market, and the gold standard
+	c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the
+	 essential goodnes of man, and the autonomy of the individual
+	 and standing for the protection of political and civil
+	 liberties.
+
+No wonder the Republicans and other conservatives are looking to redefine
+these words.  The real definitions say that the difference is between
+"forward looking" and "give me that old time religion, it's
+good enough for me."

Squeeze me? Baking powder?
"The essential goodness of man"??? Aren't all rich people somehow
inherently evil that they deserve to be taxed to make things "fair" for
everyone? Aren't Republicans "nazis"? How about business and the
environmentalists?

"The autonomy of the individual"??? except for unemployment benefits,
health care reform, business regulation, etc. It seems to me the current
liberal hierarchy advocates the dependence of the individual upon
government.

"Standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." At the
expense of the majority's rights. More like standing for the protection
of quotas and protection from international competition and attacking
the problems of racism by legislation rather than by encouraging a
change in heart.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:49:01 GMT

In article <92274.124352JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.004106.21516@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>,
>kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) says:
>>
>>tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>>
>>>FACT:  FOUR OUT OF FOUR budgets that Bush submitted were larger than
>>>the previous year's budget.
>>
>>FACT: There is no Federal law requiring a balanced budget.
>>
>>
>>>FACT:  Clinton as Gov. had 12 out of 12 *balanced* budgets.
>>
>>FACT: Most states have either a state law or constitutional clause
>>requiring a balanced budget.
>
>And?

...and George Bush, never having been a Governor, has never had to
build the skills needed to create a balanced budget.  For example, The
NYT article Monday about how Clinton is very good at getting two sides
to agree.  This is something you need to do to get people to work
together to solve a money problem.

Even when Bush was in charge of the CIA he didn't have to care about
the budget since most of the CIA funding comes from the "black budget"
that citizens never see.

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.bush
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: How do three way debates go?
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:45:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.082010.996@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>Has there been a precedent?
>
>Is there a standard way of doing this?

Certainly! Don't you ever watch the World Wrestling Federation?

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "No, what he didn't like about heroes was that they were usually
    suicidally gloomy when sober and homicidally insane when drunk."
                          -- Terry Pratchett, _The Colour of Magic_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7884 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4753 alt.politics.bush:7251
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:28:11 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore

In article <1992Sep29.223717.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu says:
>
>     Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
>National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
>

      <Much National Review Sludge Deleted

>It looks like Gore, the media-proclaimed moderate, is really just
>another hypocritical bleeding heart -- since his public rhetoric
>dwarfs his private generosity.
>

All it tells me is that it's likely that D.Q. has more disposable
income and he carefully accounts for his charitable giving for tax
purposes.  Let's compare percentages of net worth.

Hope this helps,

Jeff Luck                   *My Opinions are Mine, but Facts are Facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University               "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:32:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.181450.27998@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.235401.2769@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>>However, I checked with my parents (who live a similarly SOL as I do,
>>so it's a decent reference of comparison) and they pay MUCH MORE taxes
>>now than they did before.  This is by % of income.  (no, they haven't
>>retired or anything like that which might put a spin on the figures)
>>
>>Who is the "TAX AND SPEND" president?  I say it was Bush.
>
>That's a useful piece of information only if you think that Clinton
>will be LESS of a tax and spend president than Bush was.  According to
>the announced plans, Clinton plans to spend more than Bush does.  Are
>we really supposed to assume that Clinton is lying, that he'll spend
>less than he's promising?  (Note that the announced tax increase and
>spending cuts don't come close to covering the new spending, so ....)

This is a LIE.  Bush has dodged the issue and not spoken any specific
plans.  Therefore you can't say that he plans on spending less than
Clinton.

If Bush was serious about solving the deficit problem, he would have
sumitted AT LEAST ONE budget that spent less money than the previous
year.

You can't put 100% of the blame on the congress if the commander
in chief doesn't lead.

FACT:  FOUR OUT OF FOUR budgets that Bush submitted were larger than
the previous year's budget.

FACT:  Clinton as Gov. had 12 out of 12 *balanced* budgets.

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)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7891 tx.politics:5768
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:14:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA

In article <21634@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.231902.2611@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>Hmmm.  This plan is even more clever than I thought (not).  Well then, lets
>>see how that scenario will work out in practice:
>>
>>Since the government does not pay interest on the national debt, the dollar
>>becomes worthless.  All investments directly related to the US dollar (bank
>>accounts, treasury bills, bonds, etc) become worthless.  Investments indirectly
>>related to the U.S. dollar (stocks) lose 90% of their value.  At this point
>>the majority of Americans have lost more wealth than they saved on lower
>>taxes or on no taxes, with the ironic exception of the poor.  [Simple enough]
>>
>>But wait, that's not all.  The government no longer has any money to pay for 
>>such things as the military, police, courts and prisons, so we lapse into
>>anarchy.  Now we have a worse political system than existed in 1492.  [Simple 
>>enough]
>>
>>Here's where things start to improve:  Cuba and Mexico send their armies over 
>>and divvy up the country.  Of course they haul all of our possessions back to
>>Havana and Mexico City.  We've already lost our financial assets, now we lose
>>all our property.  But at least we save on taxes.
>>
>
>Now, please explain why this didn't happen prior to the repeal of the Poll
>Tax =and= the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

Short answer:

Because the government has never in any past years failed to spend any money
during that year, which is what the previous poster said would happen if
no one payed the Poll Tax.

Long answer:

The idea that the Poll Tax would raise enough revenue to pay interest on the
national debt is laughable, and anyone with an ounce of economic sense knows
that treasury notes, bills, and bonds become worthless if the government
stops paying interest on the debt.

The government has never gone bankrupt before and defaulted on the national 
debt (which answers your question), at least not since the Revolutionary War. 
Why hasn't the country defaulted on the national debt before?  (1) The Poll 
Tax was never the sole nor the main source of revenue for the government.
(2)  We have never had a $3.5 Trillion national debt before.

Even if you accepted the notion that Americans would be willing to return to
the past, and forgetting for the moment that conditions in the country are
quite different from what they once were, the new political system you propose 
we all adopt does not resemble anything from the past.

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.140303.1852@gacvx2.gac.edu> emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
>In article <5693@news.duke.edu>  writes:
>>joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>-egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>->c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>->>So who's in the lead in terms of number of books sold, current ranking, etc.
>>->>
>>->>Ross Perot's Book, Albert Gores, Rush Limbaughs, or Clintons Biography?
>>->
>>->Limbaugh's book is on the top (#1) of the NY Times Bestsellers List, as
>>->of Sunday.  <head shaking, wondering "Why?">
>
>Why? Because it takes less brain cells to read!

	Yes. Takes much less imagination to fill in the gaps in logic
such as one would find in Gore or Perot's books.  You people must really
love your party to blind yourselves.
From: boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Platform Archives on ftp?
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 14:12:57 CDT
Organization: Consultant
Reply-To: "Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu>
Distribution: usa
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1

andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> People who actually want the platform made the relevant phone call a
> long time ago and have it now.  People who don't want it didn't make
> the call.  People who bleat about not having it but don't make the
> call don't want it, they want to bleat.

I made the appropriate phone call a long time ago and never received
the thing.  I would like to see someone scan and post it since I don't have
the phone number any more.

> 
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
> 

Victoria L Boyd PhD

boyd@tmc.tulane.edu

Quayle quote on the concept of a manned mission to Mars: It's "time for the
human race to enter the solar system."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Start new threads, please
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:28:21 GMT


I would like to suggest that people start new threads rather than let one
thread wander all over the place.  It's getting impossible to tell what's
being discussed where since the subject line and the content are often
almost completely unrelated.

Thank you
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:43:42 GMT

In article <BvMJ4x.3Dr@rice.edu> kossack@qvi.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.203245.18119@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>- Not allowing deficit spending for any reasn is a bad idea.  No
>- government spending except to service current debt is a bad idea.  A
>- poll tax as the only tax is a bad idea.
> 
>	Proof by vehement assertion.  How quaint.  

Well, it DOES help if you read the rest of the article.

>
>- >Step 1. Flatten the income tax to 15% of earnings above $10000.
>- 
>- This is a good idea.  It is also where this should probably stop,
>- since most of the rest of this is bad ideas, IMHO.  It will require,
>- however, some *HUGE* cuts in spending.  What gets killed?
>
>	Everything but paying off the debt.  

Gee, if nothing else is important enough to spend money on, why pay
that? 

> 
>- >Step 3. Require referenda for changes in taxes or increase in 
>- >        government debt.
>- 
>- This one I think is probably a good idea.  However, I'm not convinced
>- that it's a WORKABLE idea.
>
>	If the Federales can't figure out how to implement it, I guess  
>   they just won't be able to get an OK on their pork barrel projects 
>   and those projects won't get funded.  Fossilized feces.  

I don't mean unworkable in the sense that it couldn't be implemented;
I mean unworkable in the sense that even needed things couldn't be
funded under such a system.  This is obviously fine with you, since
you apparently feel that there ARE no 'needed things'.  

>
>
>- Why not just say that we're not going to support a central government
>- and secede?  You've created the same net effect.  Of course, since the
>
>	It's been tried.  The Federales murdered them.  

Uh, excuse me, but I think those folks who were 'murdered' fired the
first shot.  Now then, if this is such a great idea, why DOESN'T Texas
secede?  If it's such a great idea, you'd surely be willing to abide
by the outcome of a statewide vote, wouldn't you?  Or is democracy
only a good idea when it comes down on the 'right' side of the issue? 

[And yes, there are lots of stupid decisions taken by the electorate.
That's a 'flaw' that the system simply has to live with.]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Subject: Re: Question: why won't Bush debte
Organization: Odesta Corporation
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:30:30 GMT

pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:


>This is a serious question, not a Bushbash by another name.

>As I understand, the Bush people say they wouldn't debate under the
>proposed format.  Have they said why?  What is it about the format 
>do they claim is unfair?

>The media has been saying that Bush is afraid of the more freewheeling
>nature of a single moderator debate.  I've got to believe that the
>Bush campaign is claiming a different reason

They don't want Clinton and Bush to appear equal, which is what they
would if Clinton can question Bush directly.  One advantage of being
President is that you get to decide who you talk to.  Bush takes advantage
of that and doesn't want to give it up on national television.

Baker apparently also believes that once a debate is scheduled, people put
their decision on hold until "after the debate."  With Bush ten or more
points behind, they don't want that Clinton lead frozen in, even for a week
or two.

Bush does better in short, prepared responses than in long explanations.  A
one-on-one debate would have more of the latter.
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8254 tx.politics:5798
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:00:53 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct02.202452.23707@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>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.

I want to expound on this a little more.  The "rich" often are "rich" for
the same reasons that the "rich" need fewer services.  Because the rich
plan for "rainy days", the rich don't need to rely on Social Security or
public health care.  If anything, the rich use significantly fewer
services and should, according to the theory that we pay for what we get,
pay dramatically lower taxes than the poor.

I often advance this argument because the rich subsidize much of what the
poor get.  For example, used car prices are artificially low because the
rich buy new cars even when the old ones are still in excellent condition.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rkn3u@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (R. Keith Norwood)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:28:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.192756.4299@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>
>The best example of a multi-cultural country that is till holding 
>together is South Africa.

What is your particular definition of "multi-cultural" and "holding
together"?  I seems that SA and the US should fall on the same side.


Keith


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8138 alt.politics.bush:7474 alt.politics.marrou:1383 alt.politics.correct:5581
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:23:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Sep29.212152.1916@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>
>But you're free to believe what you want.  And I'm free to suggest that you
>could stand to learn a little more about religion, science, and manners.
>(And about AIDS, too - it doesn't sound like you understand the true nature
>of the problem.)
>
>   - Dave Borden

Please Dave, educate me about the true nature of the problem.  Please 
include your understanding of the facts that the surest way to avoid 
AIDS is to avoid promiscuity (esp. gay sex) and needle swapping.

Safe sex is only one thing...sex...it is not safe.

Ted
-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8385 alt.politics.bush:7663 alt.politics.elections:15072
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush cowardice? I think not (RE More Bush Cowardice)
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:06:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

>>> 
>> How can we look up to a President who was afraid to defend his country? 

Are you talking about when North Vietnam invaded the United States?

I remember when Bob Kerrey (sp), himself a Vietnam war hero, said that he would
have an edge on Clinton on this issue.  He stressed that issue was NOT relevant
but would be used by the Republicans since they can't win on the basis of real
issues.

How
>>can we look up to a President who- in a church, before his friends, family, a
>>priest and God could not uphold a promise to remain faithful to his wife? 

So you believe everything you read in tabloids?  You must think we live in
a fascinating world.

How
>>can we look up to a President who sees nothing but doom and gloom in the
>>American work place? 

What president are you talking about, Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjami?  If, per
chance, you are ascribing this observation to Governor Clinton, you should
realize that it has already been established that Clinton made such a remark
only in Bush's imagination.  Why do you think not not even Bush still makes
that claim?

How can we look up to a President who has experimented
>>with drugs... particularly in an age when drugs controls our streets, and
>>murders children?

I thought the allegations were that Bill Clinton (if that's whom you're talking
about) experimented with drugs in the late sixties.  A lot of people
have experimented with drugs more recently than that and have gone on to
become anti-drug crusaders.

 You've choosen an interesting thread. Now let's see how many
>>other flaws we can find in "Billary" Clinton. 

I'm usually embarrrassed when my 5-year old daughter indulges in this sort of
childish name-calling.

>>		
>>		 --VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)   

Can't argue with this part.

Peter Lauren
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8186 alt.politics.bush:7509 alt.politics.marrou:1385 alt.politics.correct:5582
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:18:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton