HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Subject: Re: crips's letter on clinton's gov't takeover
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:57:30 GMT

Andy Freeman writes: 
>It's rather difficult "to be reasonable" (as opposed to trying
>to appear to be reasonable) when one doesn't know relevant information.

True.  I must admit to being uninformed in general on gun control, and
I apologize for entering discussion on it.  I had in fact pointedly 
avoided earlier discussions on the issue because of this.

I did feel, however, that I had to take issue with was the idea of Mr.
Crisp's that Clinton had sinister intentions on the issue, and to
say why it seemed to me that he had that position.

>The measures proposed can't affect criminal access because they don't
>affect sources criminals use

A good point.  This hadn't occurred to me, but it makes sense.

>We get to decide whether he's
>lying or stupid, but does it really matter?

I don't think Clinton is lying or stupid, but perhaps just has a
different opinion than you on the issue.  The point you make is a good
one, and if you care enough, I suggest writing him a letter about it.
What could it hurt, right?

So maybe I'll think twice next time before I say I favor gun control.

But I still think Mr. Crisp's letter was paranoid, and can't accept
his scenario any more than that UFO plot that came across a while ago...

	
		John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:54:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.161706.6787@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>
> ...  On a similar thread, I could say that I will not vote for anyone from
> Tennessee because I never liked Elvis and dislike his music....

Not to take a single sentence completely out of context ... ;o)

Wasn't Elvis Presley from Texas?

During my first stint at voter registration one woman told me that she could
never vote for Bill Clinton because of all the dogs running around loose in
her neighborhood.  I never did find out what she thought the Governor of
Arkansas had to do with the lack of enforcement of leash laws in Woodland,
California, assuming that Woodland even HAS leash laws.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "I have NOT lost my mind:  it's backed up on tape somewhere."  - Anon.   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Keep it civil, please
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:11:22 -0500
Summary: more on rudeness
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

"if you would pay attention to the facts instead of your own BULLSHIT maybe you
could get a job" (approximate words used in recent post)

Do we really need to stoop to this level?  Can we not be better than our
so-called leaders in the level of our political discourse?

Since finding the political nets recently, I have grown increasingly
disillusioned by two things:

1)  People are disputing parts of arguments in such a way as to indicate that
they don't bother reading the entire post before responding.

(and even worse)

2)  People resort to every manner of name-calling, derogation, poor language,
ad hominem attacks, and outright libel.

The opening example is by no means isolated.  I don't mean to imply that that
net-user is alone (and maybe I've been rude myself here).

But please, if that's all the better the net can do, I'll go back to watching
TV, where you can at least see their veins pop out when they behave badly.
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:42:16 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

Elayne Boosler was on Crossfire last night and was great. (The subject:
The Emmy's and Hollywood's "unfair" attacks on Dan Quayle over the
Murphy Brown issue. Also on was the California Republican candidate
for the Senate who was not so good: some people just don't come off
well in that format or else he's just a noodge.) Often John Sunnunu's
bluster and bullying flusters the Liberal guest or moves them into
a similar style. Boosler held her ground with humour and literally
left Sunnunu either speechless or laughing himself. Memo to the Clinton/
Gore team: get off your arses and tap into Boosler. She's unabashedly
liberal, smart, funny, coherent, and absolutely unflappable. Sunnunu
came off as just another heckler at a comedy club.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3471 tx.politics:4598
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:13:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug24.140434.3640@sun44.synercom.hounix.org>, Allan Maxwell writes:

> In article <KgFyr*FR0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >The Democrat party has controlled the House for 40-50 years.  The House controls
> >ALL spending of the Federal Government.  So, think again.  Slick Willie's buddies
> >in the House spent the money - NOT the Republicans.
> >
> This statement seems somewhat naive, Jim.  Do you honestly beleive what you
> are saying here?  Doesn't the president draft a budget each year that
> congress must pass?  Do you know what modifications were made to our
> president's proposed budget for 1990 before it passed congress and why he 
> vetoed the very budget that he proposed?  Have you ever heard of the
> Gramm-Rudman (sp?) Act?  Did you hear our president on TV last week saying
> that raising taxes was a mistake --I assume that he is taking responsiblity?

Don't you people know anything about how our government operates?  Every bill
is a compromise.  Each side trades this for that to get what they want.  The
President traded the tax increase to the Democrats to get something else that
he wanted.  He now realizes that that was a grave mistake.  However, the tax
increase was a DEMOCRAT idea forced upon the President by holding his other
programs hostage.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Andrew Smith)
Subject: Re: Joke, j-o-k-e:  more!
Reply-To: js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Andrew Smith)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:07:50 GMT


1. Barbara always likes it on top because George always fucks up!

2. The difference between a Republican and a bucket of shit is the bucket!

3. Along with the oxymorons "military intelligence", "government intelligence"
   and "athletics scholarship" belongs "conservative thinking"!

4. Show me a pro-lifer, I'll show you someone who supports the death penalty!

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|	J. Andrew Smith		js13@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu		|
| "Against stupidity even the gods fight unvictorious." - Roman proverb	|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: russ@math.okstate.edu (Horatio "Random" Hellpop)
Subject: Re: Responsibility: The Dirty Word (was Re: Insulted by... 
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:04:51 GMT

My apologies, Jude.  Clearly you were discussing something other than the
question Larry asked.

Silly me.

-- 
Russ "Random" Smith
+----===Comedy!  Sudden, violent comedy!===-----------russ@okstate.edu--------+
|  Godfather of the Random Gang; Diplomat of the Brotherhood of Evil MUDders  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:19:28 GMT

black@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black) writes:

>The Truth: Clinton's plan would raise taxes ONLY on people making more than
>$200,000 per year. Apparently President Bush doesn't know anyone who has a
>job that pays less than $200,000.

Unfortunately, to pay for $220,000,000,000 worth of new spending which
Clinton has promised to inner-city mayors, etc., you would not get enough
revenue from these people even if you enforced a confiscatory tax rate of
100 percent.

>The Truth: Clinton's plan will CUT taxes on the middle class.

The truth is that any tax increase to offset increase spending will have
to come from the middle class. The middle class is the largest source
of tax income for the government.

>The Truth: A President can submit a balanced budget at anytime. Bush NEVER
>did. Under Bush, the national deficit has doubled to $400 billion. Gov.
>Clinton balanced the Arkansas budget 11 times in a row.

A balanced budget occurs over time, not in a single leap from $250 billion
deficit to instant balance. Congress has consistantly returned higher
spending bills than executive-branch-originated to Bush for endorsement.

>These were just a few things I wanted to set straight. 

Well, better try harder next time. Perhaps you oughta try a non-biased
approach to debunking.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Intelligence issue
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:55:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

fay@iscsvax.uni.edu says:
>We seem to hear a lot about "character issues" in elections.  Why is it that
>so few people seem to talk about intelligence issues?

Yeah, why is that?  I mean, sure I'll grant character is important...
But so is this.  Its something the voters should give at least a little
thought to.

>After 11 years, I would guess that Arkansas would have found out if Clinton is
>an anti-Christ.  And I'm even going to assume that Bush is a good man.
>
>They both strive to do what they feel is right. Can we be civil on that point?

Yes.  Definitely...  I seriously dislike indiscriminant attacks and 
childish name calling.  Neither one of these two wants to hurt the 
country...  the question is who would be best for it.  And the intelligence
issue is a factor...

		Always trying to be practical...
				John
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Gore's Definition of Pollution
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:09:45 GMT

In <1992Sep3.153709.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>     We all know of Sen. Gore's care and concern for the ecological
>welfare of the planet.  On pg. 247 of his book, "Earth in the Balance,"
>he gives us an indication of what he considers as 'pollution.'

>     "Indeed, the first instance of 'pollution' in the Bible
>     occurs when Cain slays Abel and his blood falls on the
>     ground, rendering it fallow. ... God then tells Cain that
>     his brother's blood has defiled the ground and that as a
>     result, 'no longer will it yield crops for you, even if
>     you toil on it forever!'"

>Are these words typical of a mainstream, moderate, centrist politician?
>Moreover, is there anyone out there in NETland that agrees with Gore's
>statement?  I would be interested in hearing.

It certainly is an interesting interpretation of the story of Cain and
Abel, one that would probably confound most biblical scholars. God
wasn't angry because of the "pollution" per se, but because of the
murder! Gee, wonder if Mr. Gore has ever bled onto the ground
before....?

Michael
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Reply-To: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:34:04 GMT


In a previous article, skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) says:

>Oh what a joy to watch the right wingers crying on Crossfire last evening
>about the liberal media electing Bill Clinton. Where were these people
>when the media was trashing Clinton in Jan. ???? The best comment of the 
>night was that the media only metioned the J. Flowers story three times
>on the news. 


Hey, the media is biased towards the left (this has been documented
in several studies).  And it sure as hell looks like that bias is
translating as a push to get Clinton elected.  After all, why hasn't
the media (ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN, New York Times, Time magazine, etc) talked
about Gore's call for the censorship of non-alarmist data on the
environment?  Why did the media point out Reagan's mistake, yet
remain silent on Clinton's mistake?  


Now yes the media used to scrutinize Clinton.  But that was many
moons ago when he was running against other Democrats.  I suspect
the media thought that Clinton was "unelectable", and they hated Bush
so much they tried to derail Clinton early to get another Democrat
to face off with Bush.  But, that didn't work, so now they are
stuck with Clinton.  Thus, in a choice between Clinton and Bush,
the media can't bear to give Clinton any "negative" coverage for
fear they would help Bush.  


>Face it, the Republicans are running scared !
>

I suppose they are.  They fear a return to the "Carter Years".
But they ought not to fear too much, as it's one thing to
win the White House, it's another to keep it.  Clinton and
the media have been "dooming and glooming" so bad that people
flocked to a Perot.  Now Clinton is painting himself as the
"hero" and is promising all sorts of things.  He is also
portraying himself as a "moderate".  If the economy doesn't get
better, if it gets worse, and if Clinton imposes all sorts of
liberal changes on society, if a foreign crisis happens, and he
raises more taxes, etc we can kiss Clinton good bye.  

Look at it this way.  Clinton has created for himself a very tall
order to fill.  If his term becomes like Carter's, the Republicans
will be running against the last TWO times the Democrats had
both the White House and the Congress from then on. If Clinton
screws up, it'll be the last time the Democrats have the White House
for a LONG time. ~

 
  


-- 
Michael        
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: BUSH FETAL TISSUE VETO
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:11:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.013414.27680@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.000959.29147@adobe.com> 
>kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>>>dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>>>> President Bush supports federal funding of fetal tissue research.
>>>> The Bush administration has set up a fetal tissue bank that will 
>>>> collect fetal tissue from spontaneous and ectopic pregnancies.  
>>>>
>>>> President Bush does not support funding of research which involves the
>>>> use of fetal remains from elective abortions, because this might have 
>>>> the effect of lending legitimacy to abortion, and helping to encourage
>>>> abortions.  
>
>>> Yep, you and Bush are 100% right.  Why, just the other day, one of my
>>> female friends said to me:  "There needs to be more fetal tissue for
>>> research.  I'm going to go out, get knocked up, wait 8 weeks, and then
>>> have an abortion.  I just love that wonderful feeling I get when my
>>> cervix is being dilated."
>
>I did not say anything about women getting intentionally pregnant to
>donate fetal tissue.  That is your strawman.  
>
>The existence of fetal tissue research which uses the remains from 
>elective abortions may help to alleviate a pregnant woman's possible 
>misgivings about obtaining an abortion, thus encouraging abortions.  
>It may also help to legitimize abortion. 
>
>> One of the TV news programs did a segment on the need for fetal tissue
>> research.  A preacher in Florida, who is anti-abortion, had a child die
>> of a genetics disease.  Their 2nd pregnancy was determined to carry the
>> same genetic flaw and the preacher spent his resources to get fetal tissue
>> to correct the flaw in utero.  
>
>This is complete nonsense.  Fetal tissue research is still in the 
>experimental stage.   
>
>> Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>
>
>Doug Holtsinger


 Also, interesting how you left out the part of my reply where the
 researcher found that women who had already decided to abort would
 not release the fetus for research.
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

        "Giving power and money to the government is like giving 
         whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."  

		- P.J. O'Rourke, former gulf war correspondant, summing
		up what he learned during two years of research on how
		our government functions.
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:55:51 GMT
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized

cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert) writes:

>In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> 
>lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>> Bill Clinton's 128 tax increases. Distortion. Refuted numerous places.

>Still, he did raise them a lot more than he lowered them.   I'm sick of 
>
So we overlook the blantant lie?  The whole country knew that it was
wrong and he used it again.  I don't know how anyone can excuse
that.

>Democrats calling Bush a liar over "No new taxes".  I don't think he 
>intended to deceive anyone when he said that... and I think that he felt 
>that the circumstances that existed justified he change of heart on the 
>matter.  
>
HA!  There's no way that even Bush could have believed his "no new taxes"
campaign ploy in '88.  And now, for his '92 campaign ploy, he's
playing Santa Bush, flying thru South Dakota and Texas on his sleigh
just giving gifts left and right that would make any liberal proud
of him (whatever a liberal is defined as).  I heard a comment on a
news report (you know that liberal media) that we should have
elections every 6 months.  Bush seems to be full of money and
promises at election time.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Aren't KILL files great?!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:29:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.205939.16633@u.washington.edu> roger@wrq.com (Roger Fulton) writes:
>I just started reading this newsgroup today, and the
>first thing I did was:
>
>/^From\: crisp\@netcom\.com/hK:j
>
>Yahoo for KILL files!

Yeah, but you miss out on all the fun times playing with Richard.
And all the newest permutations of Original-or-Extra-Crispy's last
name.


--
"There's one reborn every minute."
		-- Dalai Dan, 153rd Reincarnation of the Lama.
From: jms@central.cis.upenn.edu (Jonathan M. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: On progressive taxation
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:06:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


>Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
>Organization: Columbia University
>
>One reason a progressive tax system is more "fair" is that, in a real
>sense, 10% from someone earning 10K hurts more than 10% from someone
>earning 100K.  People with a lower income must devote a greater part
>of their income to basic necessities, such as food, rent, etc.  Such
>necessities can easily come out to around 9K a year for a family.  On
>the other hand, someone earning 100K may spend more money on food,
>rent, etc., because that person is buying better quality items, but,
>overall, the percentage of his salary devoted to such sundries will
>still be less.  If you are trying to distrube hardships equitably, a
>higher rate for that person would hurt less than a comparable rate for
>the less well-off.
>
>

This is an interesting point which is often made. There are other ways
of looking at the same situation which might indicate a flat tax
(rate). For example, a government provides services to all its
citizens (e.g., defense, roads, court system, etc.). Access to these
services is really more or less independent of wealth (one can argue
that better lawyers give better results in the court system, but in
principle, not better access). Yet, since the poor pay less in
absolute dollar terms (proportional to their income) they are getting
a better deal - sort of a discount at the tax register.

A progressive tax implies that a more than proportional (e.g.,
non-linear) benefit accrues to the wealthy, and thus they should pay
accordingly. I think that this latter argument would be interesting to
examine with some hard economic data. My own opinion is that a careful
analysis would probably result in the discovery that the wealthy get a
non-linear, but less-than-proportional benefit from their tax dollars.
Are there any economists out there with good data/good math?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3530 alt.politics.bush:3528
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 31 Aug 1992 21:06:19 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug31.013633.6926@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:

Earlier I wrote

>>3. There was no evidence that he was going to propose any cuts/freeze
>>to Congress. We now see that when Congress does something unpalatable
>>(like raise taxes) as part of a compromise, Bush sandbags them later. So
>>suppose Congress gets up the guts to means-test Social Security (or
>>whatever). Then Bush hits 'em with "Those aren't the cuts I meant. Oh.,
>>I'm sorry. I regret it." Bush rides high and then invades Tonga.
>>Congress faces the music and gets cursed out good at home.

Let me rephrase this. Recall in 1990 Bush (and the whole conservative
movement) had very few improvements to suggest to the budget
compromise. Remember, many GOP Congresspersons signed on too.
Now Bush is welshing. However, he hasn't said what he would do in lieu
of new taxes, i.e., if I had only 1 question to ask of Bush, it would be
"A time machine has taken you back to 1990. What would you do now?"
I asked this of Bush supporters on the net -- so far silence!

Bush can't run again, but Congress can. Why should they put their necks
on the line again? Suppose entitlements are cut, and then in the midterm
election Bush yells "Congress made me cut Social Sec to balance the
budget. Really I wanted to save it by cutting waste fraud and abuse".
Or "We wouldn't have had to cut Soc Sec if I had gotten my capital
gains cut."
Congress knows that Bush is not dependable in this respect, since he has
no visible principles.

>>4. Bush has had four years to do this already and hasn't done it once.
>>Why believe him now?

Sugent essentially suggested that Bush was waiting for his 2nd term to
do this. Bush, man of courage ... NOT. Before you vote for him, what
else is he waiting till his second term for, so we can't get back at
him? The "Pat Robertson School Prayer Amendment"? The "Family Values
Abortion Amendment"? The Competitveness Council overturns all
environmental legislation by fiat?

andy