HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:17:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.193256.1355@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.181450.27998@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>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.

It's no lie.  Bush has presented a spending plan at least as detailed
as Clinton's.  I realize that you Clinton supporters won't dial 800
numbers and insist on getting things via newsgroups, but other people
don't have that handicap.  Moreover, there's the trendline in
appropriations.

>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.

That's relevant only if you think that Clinton wants to reduce the
deficit.  However, his spending plan reveals that he isn't.

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

I'm not putting blame on anyone.  I'm merely assuming that Congress
will be more likely to go along with Clinton than it with Bush.  Does
anyone want to argue that they are less likely to go along with
Clinton than Bush.  Since Clinton is asking for more spending than
Bush is.

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

Which says something about how much Clinton wants to spend; he's
proposing even more.

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

So?  By law Clinton can't do anything else; we don't know what he'd do
if given the opportunity to do otherwise.  We do have a clue though.
Clinton hasn't proposed a balanced budget for the feds; he's promised
even larger deficits than Bush.

Should we ignore what Clinton is promising?  If we don't ignore
Clinton's proposals, if we believe him, then he's even worse on "tax
and spend" than Bush.  Considering how bad Bush is....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:37:05 GMT

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) 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.

Another gasp of bovine flatulence from the being calling itself
'john peter wagner.'

> P.S. Happy extinction, suckers

This from something with a demonstrated inability
to get that first date.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:11:37 GMT

In <21621@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <19spqdINNfd2@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>That's correct.  A person who gives $2 to charity is a more generous
>person than one who gives only $1.

We appear to have found another word that John has redefined.  Does he
really think that someone who gives you the shirt off his back because
it is all he has is "less generous" than someone who gives you $100
that he won't really miss anyway?  It would seem so.

[The argument isn't whose gift is more valuable to the receiver or the
more effective, but which giver should be regarded as more generous.
We seem to be seeing this discussion switching back and forth between
those two concepts as if they are one and the same thing.  They
aren't.] 

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8198 talk.abortion:40065 alt.politics.elections:14957
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton on 24-Hour Waiting Period
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:03:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>I thought Clinton was against the 24-hour waiting period (in
>theory, of course) based on his reaction to the Supreme
>Court decision for that statute.  Has this always been his
>position?  Just wondering...

>     C. Perttunen

As with all clinton positions, it depends on when the question is
asked, and who the audience is. He slithers down both
sides of almost all issues. As an example, here is a
short list:

Fuel efficiency standards - Was for 40 MPG federal standards, but
then backed off so as not to upset the UAW.

NAFTA - was for it a few months ago, but to keep the 
protectionist Gephart wing of the party in check, now
says 'gotta study the agreement.'

Defense spending - Has stated that he will cut military
spending more and faster than Bush, but then pledges to
build more unwanted (by the Pentagon) SeaWolf subs to get
union votes during a campaign stop in Connecticut (where
the SeaWolf is built).

Gulf war - Was against it, in principle, but after Congressional
action (and public opinion) supporting the war, said he would 
support it.

I'm sure more active clinton detractors can list more,
but this is just a quick list from memory.

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Making "I've got a bomb in my backpack" jokes
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:34:47 GMT


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.

I think that the laws, both U.S. and Canadian, regarding this sort of
thing restrict the truly draconian penalties to the crime of making
false statements that imply you have a weapon, are planning to hijack
or destroy an airliner, etc.  Telling a Customs Agent that you're a
citizen of Grand Fenwick, on the other hand, might earn you some
hassles (or some chuckles, depending on how well-read the agent was
and what kind of a mood he was in), but it probably won't get any
large shit-hammers dropped on your head.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Subject: It gets bigger (was Re: The Big Lie)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:31:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.031032.7555@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>In article <Bv36B5.H1E.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>"In article <1992Sep23.190304.7059@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>">Instead of
>">getting Hussein, he kills 250,000 innocent people.
>"
>"Again, you repeat this lie.  Do you have a shred of proof?  This number
>"sounds really good, so I'll grant you made a good choice, but where
>"in hell does this number come from?
>"
>"
>
>IT CAME FROM THE RED CROSS AND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, THAT WHERE.

You lie.  Neither Amnesty International or Red Cross has *ever* claimed that 
the U.S. killed 250,000 innocent people.  Volume is not a substitute for 
factuality, so next time tone down your post and present some *facts*.

>
>Palmer.

-anwar

-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: buckmr@vccsouth24.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Platform Archives on ftp?
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:27:29 GMT

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

>In article <hcgzksb@rpi.edu> buckmr@lib110.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>>And does ANYONEhave the Republican latform on-line? Or are they trying to hide
>>the thing??

>Interesting assumption "doesn't seem to be on usenet" = "hiding".
Well, there are obviously so many Republicans on the net and one would think
that one of them would be proud of their platform to scan it in.

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ``D.C. in 93!''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"...and monkeys might fly outta my butt."  -- MADONNA, in a S.N.L appearance
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:10:29 GMT

But why should I pay for a bus service that is unreliable??  If the city
improved it then people would be more willing to use it, and to pay for it.

The city dosen't need to raise taxes, they need to use the funds the have
more efficiently.

Simon
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Where is ELECTORAL tally?
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:42:35 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct6.220201.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.010417.27717@u.washington.edu>, gnat@stein.u.washington.edu (L Boyd) writes:
>> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>Clinton would have around 307 electoral votes.
>>>				-- Homer Simpson
>> 
>> 
>> Anything over 270 is Okey Dokey with me!
>> 
>> Lauren
>> 
>     It sure was nice of that pundit of politics, Homer
>Simpson, to grace us, the "electorally"-blind, with such an 
>act of noblesse oblige.  Wow, 307 -- I thought Homer could
>only count up to eight (he has three fingers and a thumb on
>each hand).  Even if Homer knows binary, he could only
>count up to (2^8 - 1) or 255.  How did he account for the
>remaining 52?

Well, I've been misquoted by a bad cut on a text editor.

But, let's take advantage of this merry gift of serendipity, and
try to figure out how that soon-to-replace-McLaughlin pundit,
Homer Simpson, may have meant.

Binary would be too hard to count in, but he can make hash marks on
the kitchen table.  It'd be base eight, though: in our number system,
307 would be 199.  I suppose Homer has astutely observed that the
election is still up for grabs, and Clinton shouldn't sit on his ass
and wait for Bush to kick him in the head (Bill, are you listening?)

Lisa-Maggie '24 !!!!!



--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Subject: Re: Education President Flunks Arithmetic
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:30:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.171117.22248@walter.bellcore.com>, nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
|> The ad says that Clinton ``increased the sales tax by 33 percent''.  
|> Actually, he increased the sales tax from 3 percent to 4-1/2 percent.
|> This can be described as either a 50 percent increase 
|> or a 1-1/2 percent increase;
|> but there is no way it can correctly be described as an increase of 33 percent.

You misquoted... the ad states that Clinton "increased taxes by over 33
percent."  This being the case, the ad is quite correct, unless, of course
you live in a different universe, because in any math using any (legal) base,
50 > 33... :-)

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
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 19:22:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.173748.17742@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>You said "You can't fight rascism with rascism"--how true!!
>
>Most of the problem today is that there is so much name calling and finger
>pointing going on, no one can talk about real issues.
>
>Recently I got intoi a big arguement ith someone because apparently he
>considered my comments against rap music to be rascist--this guy isn't even
>black and he's suddenly an authority on race relations.  I mean, I'm white
>and I don't profess to understand everyone's problems, but I think there's
>room to discuss ways to solve them that are beneficial to everyone.
>The really funny thing is that alot of the "rascist" accusations being thrown
>at whites are from other whites!! I am not making this up!!
>

Yeah, I know.  I HATE rap.  It is the most horribly conceived system
of producing excessively rythmic computer-generated noise yet known
to mankind.  However, if I say so, I'm sure to get beaten up because
that would mean I'm a Nazi and Nazi's are guilty before proven 
innocent.  

I'll tell you why there are so many whites out there guarding against
innocuous social/musical/artistic/whatever comments of other whites.

It's because the message is: "Hey there all you sexy chicks/studs, I'm
such a sensitive and conscious person, I'll make a perfect father/mother
for your children.  So let's go and have some really hot sex.  Whaddya
say?  If it'll make the offer any more attractive, I'll call everyone
we meet 'ignorant' (which I'll spell and pronounce 'ingnorant') and
we'll go to every single beer party and we'll eat falafel and vege-
tarian meat substitutes to compensate for the damage we'll do to our
livers and brain cells.  When, er, if I leave you, it'll be because 
I will have grown intellectually too fast for you and will need to 
find someone as generous and socially aware as myself.  I'll always
love you though."

If the idea is to punish the white male population for the sins of
its ancestors or the opinions of a few impoverished trailer park
dwellers in Alabama, then civil war is around the corner.  I'm sure
as hell not going to live in fear because I hate rap "music".


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


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:00:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.085020.29253@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
>I would suggest that the American pejorative use of the word
>"liberal" is quite intentional since it is meant to tar anyone
>who opposes social authoritarianism with the "socialist" or
>"tax-wasting" brush, and thus to dismiss them without ever
>having to face up to their real case.

I agree that the term "liberal" is used in a stereotypic sense and I would
add that the term "conservative" is used in exactly the same way by the left.
Why is it that Rush L. is referred to as "conservative talk show host" 
whereas one _never_ hears the phrase "liberal X host".

And what _is_ their real cause?

I don't under stand what you said above, that liberal is used to "tar anyone
who opposes social authoritarianism...".  Liberals are _for_ social author-
itarinism, they believe that the Government should be as involved in our
lives as possible by concentrating power in their hands.  American liberals
do not emphasize the individual, they put people into groups and grant
special rights to people based upon the group they belong to.  By the
very nature of this approach there can be no equality of rights since each
group has a slightly different set.

I think I see what you mean now, you are saying that because conservatives
are for restraints on behavior that they are "social authoritarians".
Are not liberals for restraints on behavior of some kind?  Do they believe
that we should discourage murder and stealing?  If true then they are
also "social authoritarians".  Does my right to punch you in the nose
end at the tip of your nose?  I suspect you think it does, yet you are
limiting my freedom aren't you?  Your point is absurd.

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7821 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4717 alt.politics.bush:7194 alt.politics.correct:5555
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: One of Clinton's 128 "Tax" Increases
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:55:22 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep28.143750.3382@walter.bellcore.com>, nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.183205.25866@dbsun.uucp>, harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
> |> In article <1992Sep24.101249.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
> |> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> |> > Thanks for pointing out the NY Times list.  You're right -- I
> |> > do not see the change-of-sex fee on this list.  The media (specifically,
> |> > the New Republic) displays its "quest for accuracy" once again!
> |> 
> |> If you are going to blame TNR for the mistake in your original article,
> |> please cite the issue and page where the claim was made.  I subscribe
> |> to TNR and read every issue cover to cover (except the art and book
> |> reviews).  I read Kinsley's article on the Bush campaign's tax list,
> |> and he made no reference to a change-of-sex fee.  He did (accurately)
> |> point out a license fee of $500 for abortion clinics.
> |> 
> |> I've seen no reference to a change-of-sex fee in any other TNR article.
> |> Perhaps you got your facts confused.  It happens to the best of us, but
> |> it is unfair to blame the error on TNR.
> 
> He probably meant The National Review -- same initials, so he got a little
> confused.
> 
     You didn't even check out the facts before you called me confused?
Boo hoo.......

     Another "confused" conservative, :-)
     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Clinton at Oxford
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:06:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.191754.20054@ra.msstate.edu>, cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:
|> To the person who said Oxford was an easy school to get in, please
|> note that Clinton was there on a Rhodes Scholarship, one of the
|> most prestigious of all scholarships.
|> 
|> Let's hear it for a smart man in the white house for a change.
|> 
|> Carolyn Adams-Price
|> Department of Psychology
|> Mississippi State University
|> 


"I think between us, Bill Clinton and I have settled any Lingering myths about the brilliance
of Rhodes scholars,"  Kris Kristofferson.


I think Slick may have been at Oxford on special admissions.  His economic proposals sure
show a lack of real world knowledge.

##############################################################################

You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.

Bush/Quayle 92

Fred Seals

##############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: difference between Democrats and GOP
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:00:00 GMT

In article <cornell.718305397@vivaldi> nobody writes:

>Now, because I have still yet to receive a copy of the GOP platform
>in the mail, does the platform state support to continue the ban in
>the military on certain groups of people?

Yes it does.  The family values portion of the platform is interesting
in part because of its language--it goes in for smarmy, weasely
code-words to pander to the bigots without being too obvious.  But it
does come out with stuff in clear, like the above.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.net.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Dan Quotes
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:57:48 GMT




I'm currently in contact with several different people around Europe. Some
of them have requested any list of Danny-boy quotes that I could come up
with. Could someone please e-mail a list? Consider it as helping with
inter-national relationships thru humor.

I thank you and my European buddies thank you too!

Stan Knight

Ignore the "FROM" line in the header my real email add. is:
*****************************************
          stank@herb.net.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Connecting 2 threads (Was Re: Principles, principles, principles)
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:02:32 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <5642@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>It is now 2:33 AM. My mind has decided to go to sleep.

May explain the rest of your post ;o)

>I don't believe the lines that some of the pro-Clinton people are taking
>regarding Clinton's stance for peace during the Vietnam War.... why did
>he say that he would vote in favor of military conflict in the Persian
>Gulf but that he agreed in principle with the minority (Democrats).

*Now* I remember the old (1960's) definition of the difference between liber-
als and conservatives!  Thank your sleeping brain for me!  You should let it
do that more often!

A liberal is capable of acknowleging the merits of more than one side of an
argument.
A conservative is incapable of acknowleging the merits of any side but his
own.

(That's why conservatives think liberals are wrong, and liberals think
conservatives are stupid, as someone else posted.)


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244	     ---------------------+
| "Creativity in programming is to find deep simplicities in a complex	  |
| process."					- Harlan Mills 		  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton