HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:58:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio

From article <85098@bcsaic.boeing.com>, by lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com (Larry Baum):
> 
> One additional lie: Quayle kept asserting that Clinton's plan
> calls for 150 billion in new taxes.  In fact, the paln calls
> for 150B in new spending, offset by 104B in other spending
> cuts.  So the accurate figure is 46B in new taxes, presumably
> from the higher taxes on those making > 200K + foreign
> corporations.  I have no idea if the nubers really add up (I
> doubt anyone on the next can speak authoritatively about that)
> but it is an absolute lie to assert that the plan calls for
> 150B in new taxes.  (This factoid courtesy of CNN)

According to CNN the numbers don't add up at all.  Clinton claims his
proposals will cut the deficit by half over four years, CNN says the
numbers add up to a ten billion dollar cut.

USA Today said way back on July 28th, "[Clinton's] new spending would
be paid for in part by $150 billion in new taxes on the rich and
businesses."  So whether or not Quayle is correct, there are clearly
independent sources out there drew the same conclusion about Clinton's 
plan.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Early voting in Texas  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.230159.15173@samba.oit.unc.edu>, 
Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes...

>Here is a press release from the Clinton/Gore campaign.
> 
> Ann Richards to Cast First Vote in the Nation for Clinton/Gore

I heard Ann Richards voted again for Lena Guerrero, the recently resigned
incumbent democratic Texas Railroad Commissioner? Haven't had a chance
to verify it yet. Here's a classic example of Texas Politics. First,
L.G. resigned in disgrace after her opponent uncovered that she lied
about graduating from the University of Texas. 

The Bigger Lie is the name of the Railroad Commission itself. What would
you think the job would be about??  To quote the League of Women Voters:

	The RR Commisioner administers rates charged by express
	companies, contract and freight companies, and buses;
	administers state laws regulating natural gas and liquefied 
	petroleum gas industries; establishes requirements for 
	mined lands; and sets allowable production of oil and gas.

It's a powerful position. L.G. was well on her way to a run for
governor or higher office some day. Was. Needless to say Lena Guerrero
needn't bother continuing to run for "re-election." And likewise I'll be
voting out Ann Richards when her time comes too. 

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas    "Otherwise Early Voting is Great"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50629 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6581 alt.politics.elections:15908 talk.abortion:41703 alt.sex:32477 alt.politics.clinton:9448 alt.politics.bush:8461 soc.singles:27419 alt.politics.homosexuality:6399 talk.bizarre:33486
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:24:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: ringer.1992Oct9.212452.21501
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <BD.92Oct9110836@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
Lots of stuff about family leave deleted.>
>
>Listen, Rush has this image of a mess-load of workers taking
>three months off because of the death of a parent, or whatever reason.
>
>The vast majority of the people covered by this law wouldn;t be taking
>time off because they couldn't afford to.  I make a decent living
>where I am, but I'm not swimming in excess cash and believe me,
>two *weeks* without pay would be a serious hardship, forget about
>three months.  I wouldn't take three months off if my *wife* died,
>forget about if one of my parents did.
>
>Not many people can afford to take three months off from work, and not
>many would.
>--
Perhaps i'm missing something here.  I've read that 75% of workers aren't
covered in the proposed family leave bill.  Next I'm confronted with what I
believe is a truism that most people couldn't afford to take the time off
unpaid and as a result not many would.  It seems to me that there really is
no reason therefore to saddle employers with another profit draining
regulation.  I've owned a small business with less than 50 employees.  If
one of my employers wanted time off for an emergency and, importantly, I could
provide it and still make a living I would do it.  The thing a lot of liberals
miss on this whole issue is that people are in business to make a profit.  One
last thing such a law would be so easily flaunted as to make it useless.  There
are unscruplous employers and if they want to be rid of someone they can always
find a way to do so.  With family leave in place they would then be forced to
sue there employers and prove that they were fired for taking family leave.
This is just what we need a new class of lawsuits.  Ever wonder why Clinton
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:48:07 GMT

In article <Bvs8IH.2Ks@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
    >The most amusing thing about the Claymer's rattling on about
    >the "10% figure" is that he's probably right -- it's likely
    >to be incorrect. Kinsey's study counted only those whom he
    >labeled "5" or "6" on his sexuality scale, and only measured
    >behaviors.
    >
    >If Kinsey had included everyone *inclined* towards
    >homosexuality, but without same-gender sexual experiences, as
    >well as people more towards the "bisexual" areas of the
    >spectrum, I would be surprised if this figure were less than
    >30%!

Dream on.

Of course, if you only have a teeny weeny hammer, I guess everything
looks like a great big nail, eh?


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:07:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct8.061124.16245@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
...
>Yes, he wrote in the now-infamous ROTC letter that he "loathed" the
>military.  But I think it's clear from context that he loathed the
>leadership of the military that would get us involved in Vietnam and
>mess up so badly while there.
...

    Clinton did not write that he "loathed" the military. According 
    to CBS, he wrote that there were "many fine people loving their 
    country and loathing the military".

    If the letter is so incriminating, why haven't the Bush supporters
    already posted it?  I mean, there have been a lot of campaign
    propaganda posted here in the last couple of months, why not
    the infamous letter?
...
    Whoever said "Lie repeated a thousand times becomes true" 
    (Goebbels?) may have been right.




-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Reagan/Clinton a tale of two govenors
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:54:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bw17An.1Iy@mail.boi.hp.com> smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay) writes:

>Sadly, I have to agree. Reagan was amazing in his ability to screw the entire
>country into the ground and make a majority feel good about it.

  Not to defend Reagan, but let's put the blame where it belongs:  The
  country screwed ITSELF up.  Total corporate+private+public debt in
  the US ballooned to 103% of GDP by 1990.  All the junk-bond-leveraged
  LBO's that landed huge corporations in Chapter 11 a few years later
  and all the fat,dumb and happy corporations that had to have massive
  layoffs a few years later, and all the consumers that got in over their
  heads and went Chapter 13 (1 million in 1991 alone) were acting of 
  their own (presumably) free will.  

  Presumably the people who made all the decisions that are coming
  back to haunt us now were adults.  Reagan may have "set the tone"
  in some literary or dramatic sense, but that excuses nothing. 

  I acted responsibly -- saving, buying cars and other consumer items
  for cash, etc, during the 1980's and I don't have a metal plate in
  my head to deflect the "thought waves" or whatever emanating from
  Washington.  

  This country is going to continue to swirl into the toilet until
  we stop blaming Washington for our problems are start accepting
  responsibility.  


---peter
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush & Clinton Numbers Don't Add Up!!!
Date: 15 Oct 1992 15:26:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   But these experts on CNN said that Clinton's plan won't even lower our
debt, let alone cut it in half. Same for Bush. They said that people are going
to have to realize that we ALL have to suffer to pay this thing off. Only
Perot's plan, they said, will do that.
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:59:53 GMT


In article <1992Oct8.183558.8297@tamsun.tamu.edu>, 
enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) said:

> In 1969 and 1970, I attended anti war demonstrations.  Eight years
> ago, I visited the People's Republic of China, a communist country,
> and home to George Bush's buddies, the butchers of Tianeman Square.
> I do not remember most of the people I met during my visit. Am I
> unpatriotic?

Face it, James, the only litmus test of patriotism in America today
is this: Do you support George Bush?

       And last night [Thursday, October 8th], at a Houston fund-
    raiser broadcast nationwide to other GOP events, Bush raised the
    issue again.  "I simply for the life of me cannot understand how
    someone can mobilize demonstrations against the United States of
    America while our kids are dying halfway around the world."

     -- From "President repeats criticisms of opponent's protests
        in 60s," Boston Globe, October 9, 1992, p.1 (cont. at p. 21)

Of course, this is the same bozo who a few years back proclaimed that
"Flag-burning is wrong, dead wrong," but never actually said exactly
what was wrong with it.  If Bush was about fifty or sixty years
younger I might hold out some hope that he'd grow out of this
assholic, brainless form of "patriotism," but today...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:44:10 -0400 
From: "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 12-Oct-92 Re: rights and
responsibili.. by kellmeyer steven l@ux1.c 
> 2) A fetus is an unviable tissue mass.

This assertion is false. If fetuses have been know to survive early
deliveries and botched abortions becoming born children then the fetus
is viable.

> 4) Abortion is NOT murder (see 1 and 2 above for clarification), it is
>    a medical procedure involving the removal of unwanted tissue that must
>    be kept safe and legal.

This is an assertion of your beliefs and/or opinion. I see abortion as
murder. " a medical procedure ... that must be kept safe and legal" is
also an opinion. Many people don't want to see murder legalized. (Note:
I didn't say this was my opinion. I'm just showing that all you've done
was state assertions.)

> 5) Abortion must be kept available so that all women have equal choices 
>     about maintaining a viable economic lifestyle choice.

Women can have choices without abortion. The postings on the French
birth control pill (RU485?) show that. Not in this country yet. But
I have a feeling that it will eventually get through the system here.

Question. What do you mean by logic errors? Granted if I believe that
I'm Houdini, that's an error in logic. But just because someone has 
a different opinion than you because of their moral upbringing doesn't
mean that there are errors in logic.

= John, I'm afraid that the logic of legal abortion makes it QUITE clear that
= it takes *ONE* to produce a child.  As the pro-aborts are so pleased to

Question. How is this so?  Maybe in lab experiments they can merge two eggs,
but that still takes some force outside the mother to make the fertilization
possible. Without fertilization there will be no child. As far as we know
now, it takes two to make fertilization happen.

ag

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Vote for Clinton!
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:35:26 GMT

  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!

  If he wins, then the GOP will be spanked for putting up such a lousy Prez
  as Bush, and they'll come up with someone better in '96. The bonus is that
  a Clinton presidency will make us fondly recall our current economic woes, 
  as his policies will put the economy into a Carterish state. 

  Basically, ya kill two birds with one stone -- Bush is kicked out, and the
  Dems won't have control of the White House for decades to come after the
  Clinton disaster.

  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!  VOTE FOR CLINTON!

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:30:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.142420.11260@telesoft.com> trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite) writes:
>
>While it's way too early to be counting chickens (we haven't even seen all
>of the eggs, yet) I'd like to ask why you think the American congress is so
>much different from the average American voter on the issue of gridlock?
>Maybe they'd be GLAD to have the opportunity to elect a truly non-partisan
>executive to work on the tough issues in the next term.

An interesting notion.  Perhaps were the electorate to "advise" their
representatives to take advantage of this opportunity...

Dave

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:37:38 GMT

tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>This is the same Robert Dornan who started as a right wing
>>TV talk show commentator (sounds like a trend) and whose wife
>>once asked (when co-hosting) if homosexuality was hereditary.

>What was wrong with that question?  How about recessive genes or
>kin selection?

Just as a reality check here: *how* do those homosexuals have offspring?
Do we discuss the same "homosexuals" here?
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Vote for Clinton
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:11:06 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


>> give families $300 per child.  Bill Clinton has never claimed that he
>> can raise $150 billion from raising the tax rate on individuals.  He
>> will raise that amount through a comprehensive tax package -- that
>> closes corporate tax loopholes to raise $58 billion, for example.
>> The commercial which made the Quayle charge was branded "misleading"
>> by the Washington Post (10/2/92).  The Wall Street Journal says,
>> "Clinton has proposed to cut taxes for the sort of people featured in
>> Bush's ad." (10/2/92)


>Please define the middle class- Democratic Governor Florio designed his
>massive tax increase to hit hardest at individuals making more than $35,000
>and families earning more than $70,000 - Some middle class indeed.
>BTW, Florio said he say now reason to raise taxes before the election and
>promptly raised them after he won- DRAMATICALLY.


The Democrats have a rolling definition of middle class.  It is the middle
51% in income in each state so they can secure its votes.  I see nothing
noble in forcing other people to pay more taxes.  If you really want the
gov't to have more money why not pay a little extra yourself.  STOP
SPENDING OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.  ....and I am poor myself, I go to college and
my mother, who I live with during the summer, makes only 8000 a year.  You
would think Clintons message would have my eyes glazed over and my mouth
salivating, but I can look past what would benefit me for just the next
four years.  I do not think it is just to make people who have a little more
to pay for our (the poor/lower middle class) insatiable greed.
High taxes do not punish the rich, they stop the poor or middle class from
improving to a better income bracket.  Those that have money are not going to
risk it on investment if their tax burden is to high.  If the money is
lost, it would be too hard to replace.   I say cut the lousy social 
programs from the Federal Budget, and let the states offer it if they chose.
That will give the various states a way to compete against each other by 
offering differing packages of taxes and programs.  Then, if states like 
Lousianna chose to have poor schools, or if California choses to have high 
Auto emmision standards, don't make Ohio or Illinios or any other state pay
for it.  If you don't like it, then you have a choice to move elsewhere.

-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:42:52 GMT

In article <70165@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
> In article <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>>
>>I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
>>Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
>>cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
>>progressive result.
> 
> PROGRESSIVE RESULT?  This has got to be one of the most disgusting examples
> of government interference.  The way congress pandered to the public (and
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hold on there... aren't they supposed to work for us???  isn't that the
whole idea of representative democracy?

> especially the networks), embarrassed the President, and infringed on the
> rights of the cable companies in one fell swoop is a tribute to the type
> of scum that inhabit our legislative branch.  What better pre-election
> gift from Santa Congress to the "entitlement junkies" than the promise to
> lower their precious cable bill!  Never - NOT ONCE - did I ever hear anyone
> in the media suggest that you simply cancel your subscription if it's too
> expensive.  People think they're bloody ENTITLED to low-cost cablevision, as
> if it were a necessity of life!  The locals interviewed generally responded
> something like this [in your best red-neck, "Bubba" accent]:  "It just
> ain't far that I gotta pay 40 bucks a month for my M-T-V!"  Combined with the
> fact that so many people this election year think Clinton is going to 
> significantly improve their lives, this bill well illustrates the selfish
> idiocy rife within the American public.

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|               Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah -- Shane MacGowan                |
|                       Aoibheann beatha an scol/aire!                        |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton will clarify
Date: 9 Oct 1992 17:44:41 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 15518@linus.mitre.org, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
> 
> Just like the drug-use question of the same period...
> 
> "I was in protests against the United States, but I didn't inhale^h^h^h^h^h^h
> organize."
> 
> 
> And for those with "that far in the past doesn't matter":  Care to vote for
> Nixon?

Well, if he it was a choice between Nixon and Bush, I'd vote for Nixon.
At least he has convictions....errr sorry about that, he was pardoned.

Besides, per the 22nd amendment, Nixon cannot run for President....


Bob De Guc

Pot is an Herb,
Bush is a Dope!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51525 alt.rush-limbaugh:7321 alt.politics.bush:9022 alt.politics.clinton:10227 alt.politics.elections:16585 talk.abortion:42445