HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:19:44 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep30.132016.12343@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.084826.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.033139.8908@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>>    By replying to your post I already gave it some value, which doesn't
>>> really have any.   If this is all you have, it's really a sorry case for
>>                                                            ^^^^^
>>> you.  Are you a pupil in the Childcare Center of University of Louisville ?
>>>
>>> 
>>     If you recall, it was Michael Dukakis who proposed a national
>>child care/day care program.  Fortunately, he lost the election;
>>hence, there is no nationally-funded child care center here at
>>U of L in which I could be a pupil.  Maybe you should vote for
>>Clinton/Gore -- they are proposing a "National [Insert-Any-Noun-Here]"
>>program.  Then, there might be a national program to reform the
>>"sorry" folks like myself.
>>  
>   Whom I vote for is my business.
> 
>   But I do support some kind of national child/day care program or other
> reasonable solution for the families with children. Even though I don't have
> my own children besides my god sons, I won't mind if the government use my
> tax dollars to do some good for the future of this nation, rather than 
> giving my tax money to Saddam and Ayatohla (sp ?), the Pentagon contractors,
> people like Neil Bush, etc.   Don't you agree ?

     It's interesting that you would ask a "childcare pupil" like
me to discuss federal budget priorities. :-)  If you seriously
want debate from me, I would recommend that you "cool off"
for maybe about an hour after reading any post so as to avoid
the knee-jerk reactions and name calling which are pervasive
in your posts.

>   While I am at this, let me also say I will also support program of a 
> real "education president" that will produce less sorry minds like J. Wagner's
> and yours.

     First of all, I can only speak for myself; i.e., do not involve
*me* in your personal vendetta against Mr. Wagner.  Secondly, I
find it hard to think of a person who: (1) did not attend classes and
(2) did not take the final exams in his second year of his Master's
degree program (I'm taking about Clinton at Oxford) as the epitome
of a "Real" Education President.  I know that you will say he
had a "higher calling" which led him to go to Moscow on New Year's
Eve in 1969....

     C. Perttunen
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7876 alt.politics.bush:7245
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:43:52 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
 <1992Sep28.235401.2769@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
 <1992Sep29.181450.27998@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 <1992Sep29.193256.1355@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
 <1992Sep30.004106.21516@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>

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?

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,alt.politics.correct
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 20:46:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.162334.14459@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>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
>-- 

"Esp. gay sex?"  I didn't realize gay sex=promiscuity.  Certainly news
to me - have I been missing out?  As for the last
part - I have to admit I'm at a complete loss.  How do you define
sex, BTW?  And what precisely are you trying to say?  Driving a car
 - even with a seat belt - is not safe.  That doesn't seem to keep
people from driving...

  

>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."
>
Thanks, I've got a job.  As do most of the Dems that I know.

>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu


======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org, Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, 
Austin, TX  78727-4409,  512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:47:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.050027.16201@news2.cis.umn.edu> bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu () writes:
>
>I think name calling reflects how ignorant a speaker is.  If a person is
>ignorant enough not to pay attention to what he or she refers to, how can
>he or she understand  who that person is.  an example is "native american"
>which was always refered to as "indian".  I'm sorry you better learn where
>India is.


I can't speak for everyone but when someone uses the word 'ignorant' in
a political broadcast, it really puts me off.  All this means to me is
that the author learns everything he knows about life from Beverly Hills
90210 and People magazine. Even if the point being made is reasonable,
I cannot pay attention because I've already tuned-out.

Since 'ignorant' is used as such a catch-all insult, I'll suggest a few
off the "top of my head" for future reference:

Some acceptable substitutes for 'ignorant':

unwitting, oblivious, green, rude, superficial, incognizant, 
unacquainted, unenlightened, empty-headed

-----

So, substituting all instances of 'ignorant' in the above text, I can
comment on the message.

I don't care for your politically-correct name calling.  Everyone in 
America is an AMERICAN and that's the way it will always be.  If we 
start encouraging little armies of 'African Americans' or 'Native
Americans' or 'Icelandic Americans' or 'Taiwanese Americans', soon
we'll have another country like Canada where political correctness
is such an obsession that nothing else can get done.  

Cultural diversity within the bosom of a single nation is a force
more destructive to the cornerstones of unity than all the atom
bombs in the world.  If you live in America, if you vote in America,
if you work in America and if you love America then you are an
American.  Nothing else.


C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8618 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4955 alt.politics.bush:7832
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 02:21:07 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:

> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu wrote:
> :      Here's an interesting little piece I found in the October 5
> : National Review (pg. 12, col. 2):
> : 
> :                          ...  The Quayles gave $5,670, or 3 per cent
> :      of their income, while the Gores gave $1,727 -- less than 
> :      1 per cent. 
> : 
> :      C. Perttunen
> 
> And you believe those figures.   Gee, I guess no Republican would ever lie wo
> 
> 	Ben

And they are never, ever wrong, are they?

Pope Charles   Subgenius Pope Of Houston       Save America, Dump Bush!


--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN)
Subject: Re: Making "I've got a bomb in my backpack" jokes
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:56:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.173447.23637@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep25.224754.19782@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca>, 
>cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) said:
>
>>> *chuckle*  I've always been tempted to answer "Terran," but it would
>>> be my luck to be facing a border guard without a sense of humour when
>>> I try that.  [StarOwl]
>>
>> I don't know about the US but in Canada it is actually a criminal
>> offense to joke about such things with customs officers.  A minister
>> was once charged because he made a joke about having a gun on him
>> before boarding a plane.  It's pretty draconian in my view.

	Really, if you want to do comedy, try stand-up in a nightclub.
	When the lives of over 300 people depend on YOU not leting a
	maniac with a bomb or what have you on the plane, you take it
	seriously when someone announces  that he's carrying a gun in
	his luggage. Don't ask me why, it's one of those 'funny' things
	of modern life.


Costin,
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:27:52 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Clinton Legacy RE:George "Tax and Spend" Bush
 <1992Oct02.201319.640286@locus.com> <5765@news.duke.edu>

In article <5765@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
>
>Yeah, and if Congress were so interested in having a balanced budget
>maybe I could vote for a Democratic Congressman. I hear a lot about how
>it's the President's fault. Well, if you didn't like his balanced
>budget, why didn't you <referring to Congress, particularly Democratic
>leaders> just pass a balanced budget yourselves, huh???
>

What balanced budget?  Neither Reagan or Bush ever submitted a balanced
budget.

As for the Executive and Legislative *both* being culpable: I'll let more
knowledgable persons than me address that issue:

"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

Bush obviously learned much from Ronald Reagan.

Hope this helps,

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7557 alt.politics.bush:6977
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The 128 'Clinton' taxes
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:40:06 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <7g5dhcr@Unify.Com>, Caroline E. Bryan writes:
>Would anyone happen to know what percent of
>the deficit would be reduced if he got elected (unlikely according to current
>polls) and somehow succeeded (as he wouldn't have the authority), considering
>that the 14 people he wants to throw out of work would then get unemployment
>compensation?

No dice, Carrie, Hersch is against that, too. I expect the only further cost
to the gubbmint (as Bruce Herschenson would have it) would be to provide a
few bullets to shoot them... Oh, I forgot, he's pro-life. Silly me. 

But then again, Bruce is going down hard, so if your friend or neighbor or
family member is an elevator operator in the capital building, I wouldn't worry
about their job security...

ZJ
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:36:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.162334.14459@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>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.

Lordy.  Sex is still safer than driving a car to a supermarket. If 
your sex partners are uninfected, AIDS isn't going to spontaneously 
generate just because you're violating someone's subjective standard 
of morality.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.105048.7267@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I suggest that all pro-abortion people start by aborting their own
>children, all of them.  Then, when they have found the joy of it
>they can tell the rest of the world and the rest of the world
>can voluntarily join them.
>
>			J. Wagner
>
>P.S. Happy extinction, suckers
>

I would wager, Mr Wagner, that it is the individuals that you represent
who are becoming extinct.  Hell, if you bother to look at the stats,
the individuals with your view point are already a minority among the
well educated and financed.

tag


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Job Creation (Arkansas vs. USA)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:01:09 GMT

In article <Bv7oL9.HCK.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>In article <47895@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
>>An amazing bit of statistical data:
>>
>...
>>
>>Another piece of information from this morning interview:  Arkansas, under the
>>allegedly "tax-and-spend" Governor Clinton has the second lowest tax burden 
>>among all the states in the USA.  Does the label stick?
>
>Yes, it truly is amazing.  A state with one of the lowest average income levels
>in the country also has one of the lowest "tax burdens".  Will wonders never 
>cease?

The tax-income ratio in Arkansas is pretty low.  In the bottom half, though
I don't have an exact figure off-hand.



--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 17:04:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <MATT.92Oct5103321@physics16.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
|> In article <1067@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|> 
|> > Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
|> > Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.  
|> 
|> Funny.  In this country, it is legal for me to marry a woman but
|> illegal for me to marry a man.  This doesn't look very much like
|> "equal protection of the law."
|> 
|> Or is it your opinion that the marriage laws of all fifty states are
|> in fact unconstitutional?
|> --

This is not a value judgement, just a comment.

There is no right that heterosexuals have with regard to marriage that
homosexuals do not have.  Homosexuals *choose* not to marry, because
they are not attracted to people of the opposite gender.  Heterosexuals
living with people of the same gender do not have "marriage" rights
either, because a marriage is currently defined in our society as a
special bond and legal contract between 1 man and 1 woman.  There is
no statement of sexual orientation anywhere, though it is certainly
implied.  But the law does not state the homosexuals cannot marry.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:11:09 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <9292@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
]In <1992Sep22.152036.26058@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>In article <1992Sep21.215009.10231@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
]JP:Conservative are cold-hearted and dangerous
]
]JM:I challenge you to support this claim. It is a favorite claim of the
]JM:left that we (conservatives) are cold hearted, but I have yet to see
]JM:any plausible support for this.
]
]Isn't it obvious, conservatives refuse to surrender the whole of their
]income to support those groups that the liberals have declared worthy
]of support.  They're dangerous because they go around telling people
]that it is possible to live without government guidance.  This kind
]of dangerous talk must be stopped at all cost.

My goodness, you're right. I missed that entirely. I guess we conservatives
are cold-hearted and dangerous. Thanks for straightening me out ;-)
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7961 alt.politics.bush:7322
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:21:49 GMT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA


In article <1992Sep28.235401.2769@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
> 
> I think the real question to ask is, "Am I paying more taxes now then I
> was 12 years ago?"  I can't answer that because 12 years ago I wasn't
> out of college yet.
> 
> 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)
> 
> If you want to look at real dollars (adjusted for inflation) you get
> the same answer.  They were better off THEN.
> 
> 

> 
> Tom
> 
> P.S.  I really wonder what kind of flames this will get.  Unless they
> claim to have broken into my parent's tax records, I'm going to be very
> surprized at their reply.
> 
> -- 
> 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)
It seems seems very odd that your parents were better off 12 years ago... when
the whole nation was just recovering from the highest inflation ever, the
highest unemployment in decades, gas lines and the rest of the liberal
"successes". Truely your parents are an exception to.. to an entire nation.
Perhaps you should do some more research as you so comically declare. Look up
the economic record of the last Democratic government we had. If research is
what you seem to be so hooked on, perhaps you should look up how Arkansas is
doing right now. It is an incredible accomplishment for one governor to spawn
such a large body of complete morons, Democrats, and cretins alike. 'tax and
Spend' you say? How about Clinton's economic plan? He WILL raise our taxes 250
BILLION dollars, a pledge that he will not only keep, but takes pride in. And
if you think that he is only going to tax the rich, you are as blind as your
are stupid. How about we rationalize through this, since you obviously cannot
understand a simple econmic plan. 'Slick' is calling for increased domestic
spending, increase in government scope, and serios restrictions on business.
This means that in order to draw enough revenue to run the government, your
fucking messiah 'Slick Willie' will have to tax, small businesses, and the
middle class. If your parents can afford this, I am truely amazed. Don't be
a moron, and do some real research, besides that of watching CNN. Adios,
sucker.
			vsg001@acad.drake.edu
			--Vince Goddard "The Arch Conservative" 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct,alt.sex