HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Political Anagrams
Date: 1 Sep 1992 22:23:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) says:

> "Ronald Wilson Reagan" -> "Insane Anglo Warlord" 

Ronald Wilson Reagan -- anagrams
*********************************
 1.  No!  Rare gonads win all!
 2.  Answer: all God, no rain!
 3.  Golden Arrow Inn.  Alas!
 4.  A warier London slang.
 5.  Gondolas nail Warner.
 6.  Re: Al-Anon grows, Linda!
 7.  Oregon'll drain Aswan!
 8.  Ol' Nader is wrong, Lana!
 9.  Lenin was a lord. <groan>
10.  Iron law:  No anger, lads! 
*********************************
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43802 alt.politics.clinton:4073 alt.politics.bush:4105
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:49:40 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Sep3.023702.6299@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>In article <19959@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>>Bill Clinton is planning a trip there this week, too.  Would someone please
>>explain *one* good reason why the residents of that area need him there?
>
>Maybe as next President of the United States, he owes it to the residents to
>see the damage directly himself? Just a thought.

The fact that a fellow Democrat, a fellow Governor, and a fellow Southerner
also asked him to might possibly, remotely, have something to do with it too.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   "There is no smaller package than a man wrapped up in himself" -- Anon.   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42049 alt.politics.elections:11616 alt.politics.clinton:3072 alt.politics.bush:2992
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Better Off ..)
Date: 26 Aug 1992 17:26:19 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Aug25.235417.6163@oracle.us.oracle.com>, kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug20.222440.27721@pony.Ingres.COM> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
> >If Bush thinks it's  time for a   change  then WHY  should  we reelect
> >*him*? Let's vote for a *real* change and throw the fucker out!
> 
> I'm remembering the movie "The Fly": since the guy can't get the machine to
> work, he is so frustrated toward the end that he just randomly programms it
> and makes arbitrary changes, and it gets worse every time.  In the end he ends
> up looking so grotesque that the director tastefully decides not to show his
> whole figure.
> 
> Good things never happen by accident.  They're always the result of knowing
> exactly what you're doing.  Clinton tries to capitalize on the voters' anger
> which makes them want change for the sake of it, and I believe what we have
> now will look real good in 4 years if Clinton gets elected.  Just inflation
> and high tax alone will make you real nostalgic....
> 
> 

Note:

This arguement has no verifiable facts, just speculation. It is
typical of the Republican lies, fabrications, and distortions perpetrated
to make people forget how Bush ignored their problems for 3 1/2 years.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
From: clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider)
Subject: Re: Christian Coalition
Organization: Merit Network, Inc.  Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:43:15 GMT

In article <BtLK25.DBw@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>
>This now from Bush's "coalition partners":
>
>Feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
>The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement
>that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
>practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
>
>McCarthy was never this eloquent or creative!!!
>
>-- 
>-- Pat Monardo
>-- pjm@cshl.org

Pat, do you have a reference for this? Although with the hideous swerve
to the religious right that the Repubs have made, I wonder just how long
it will be before we have a theocracy in this country (a la Heinlein's
'If this goes on...'
Chris Weider
Merit Network


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42761 sci.med:16583
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.med
Subject: More Canadian private health insurance info (Was: National Health Care)
Summary: Re: Canadian Business Report Aug 28
Keywords: canadian broadcast
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:48:07 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

clarinews@clarinet.com ((Wilkins/Standard Broadcast News)) writes 
in clari.canada.biz:
>	
>	(CIBC)+
>	The Canadian Bank of Commerce will continue to offer medical coverage
>on its CIBC Gold Convenience Card with Premier VISA. Deluxe Blue Cross
>benefits will be available to travellers at NO charge... with NO age
>qualifications or special fees. It would represent a significant saving
>over what it would cost to buy medical insurance. 
>	
>	-28-&


This is a twist not offered on my Bank of Montreal MasterCard ... I'd
guess that you have to have your airline tickets or car rental charged
to your card to claim these extra benefits.  I've not heard of any
similiar benefits besides auto and travel *accident* insurance on
American credit cards, but I've not been shopping around since I'm
happy with my MBNA Visa ... note that this is travel insurance w/full
medical and not domestic non-medical supplementary.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:35:33 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug20.194135.14255@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.142804.19593@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>[example deleted]

>>The current capital gains tax and tax on interest would better 
>>be called wealth taxes.

>John, I agree that the situation with capital gains taxes seems unfair
>and needs to be fixed somehow. However, the fairness issue inplies that
>those who are wealthy enough to not work but live off investments, do
>not pay a small tax rate than those who must work.

Why?  After all, the vast majority of such people are retirees.  

Also, they are already paying tax because the company the stock is in
pays tax.  Ever hear of double-taxation of dividends?

>Index the capital
>gains tax for inflation if you like, but don't give some stock
>speculator a break that I, a working person, can't get because I can't
>take all of my income as capital gains.

Well, even the most extreme suggestions - index capital gains to
inflation and don't tax dividends - just reduce the speculator's tax
burden to the level of the ordinary Joe.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42850 talk.abortion:34014 alt.politics.bush:3490
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Date: 30 Aug 1992 16:15:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug30.011352.29396@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <17mtmvINNear@agate.berkeley.edu>
>martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>
>>In addition, the ENTIRE individual is defined at conception.  The mother's 
>>traits and the father's traits combine to create a new DNA structure
>>which equates to a new and unique human being.  Abort the unborn and
>>you will never see that combination again.
>
>Oh, please!  Yes, the genetic code of the z/e/f is determined at
>conception, and yes, if the woman has an abortion there will never be
>another human with that genetic code (the chances are so low as to be
>nonexistent for all practical purposes).  But the entire individual is
>not, *not*, NOT defined by their genetic code.  This is why identical
>twins are different people.
>

But practically speaking, the genetic code of the unborn (whether twins
or not) is UNIQUE and separate from the mother.  So this, hopefully, 
discounts the 'just an extension of the mother' justification.


Simply put, before abortion there is life.  After, there is death.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42914 alt.politics.elections:11996 alt.politics.bush:3547
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:40:11 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: It would help if you read "derailing 1,2,3" and "The Seven Fat Years"

In article <thompson.715376796@kiyotaki.econ.umn.edu>, thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:
...
	The below is indicative of your misunderstanding just about everything
I have posted, in addition to simple facts.  I won't bother replying unless you
have something concrete with which to debate about.

>>	C) taxes...
> 
>>	Tax cuts, for example, are not problem.  Despite the cries of 'debt' and
>>'deficit' tax cuts enable the economy to grow, providing more revenue.  Only
>>cutting spending will get rid of the debt.  You could increase the revenues
>>exponentially, but as long as spending is greater than intake, you'll have
>>deficits and a debt.  So the problem is not taxes, but spending.
> 
> Let me get this straight.  Deficits = spending - revenues.  But the
> only way to lower the deficit is to lower spending?

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:51:11 GMT

lp> Loren I. Petrich

lp> Some of the self-proclaimed Libertarians on this net come off as obnoxious
lp> right-wingers.

  Care to name names?


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42046 talk.abortion:33557 alt.politics.bush:2988
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:10:37 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
|Perhaps I didn't word it right.  I didn't really mean to say that 'consent
|to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like 'consent to
|sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'  

|So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
|a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
|be held accountable for your actions. 

And, of course, getting an abortion is a legal, responsible
way of discharging that accountability.

Thank you for playing, Martin.  The exit is to your left.

Next!

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The documentation doesn't mention the mental health problems that 
develop from doing this, but very rarely is documentation this 
comprehensive." --David Bedno, in talk.bizarre, giving me a new
professional goal as a techwriter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed (was Re: Passing out Condoms)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:48:44 CDT


In article <1992Sep1.212734.14105@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.220420.11509@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug28.201932.4100@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:

> >>Hmm. Well, let's see, where to start?  An example, pointed out recently
> >>could be Hillary Clinton, likening marriage to slavery, and stating that
> >>children should have the right to divorce their parents.
> >
> >	Pure quotation out of context.
> >
> >	About kids suing their parents, I think she was talking about
> >cases in which parents are seriously abusive.
> 
> You think wrong.  Children *already* have rights when they are
> abused. Rights to protective custody and rights to legal representation.
> Courts can and have made these determinations in the past and present.

        "The problem is not that the Bush campaign obviously thinks she
        is an issue, but that the campaign is so mendacious when
        portraying what she has written.  (A bulletin: She does not
        think a 12-year-old should be able to sue parents if asked to
        take out the garbage.)"        - George Will

> The cases Hillary Clinton was considering have to do with other
> things, like "cosmetic surgery, abortion, ..." and other choices
> a child might contemplate.  She wants to expand the scope of
> litigation to cover choices a child might make in contravention
> with the wishes of non-abusing parents.
> The "abusive" parents aspect is a deliberate red herring to
> deflect the issue.
> 
> Both Clintons are well-beloved by trial lawyers. Having lawyers further
> stick their noses into the workings of families is yet another
> solution-by-litigation that has done more harm than good in the
> many areas we have tried.

Come to think of it, Dan & Marilyn Quayle are both lawyers, too.
And didn't the Republican platform call for legislation enabling
the "victims" of "pornography" sue for damages?  Sounds like
a jobs program for lawyers...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Republican Platform 1992: where is it?
In-reply-to: daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu's message of 26 Aug 92 18:25:54 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<1992Aug26.115934.20901@nuchat.sccsi.com>
	<BtLsJ9.KrC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:47:27 CDT

Daniel R. Sawyer writes:

   Personally, I can't wait until 1996: Buchanan vs. Baker vs. Weld vs.
   Cheny vs. Robertson.  Should be a lot of fun.

You omitted Kemp, who I think might be many Republicans' true choice.  I
suspect George Will wants Bush to lose to make room for Kemp.  Also you
left out the obvious front-runner for '96, Quayle.  (I'm kidding (I think).)

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:34:34 GMT

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.225503.7283@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.174255.16003@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug13.023553.20420@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:


>>One thing the capital gains tax cut did was fuel speculation, creating
>>a boom on Wall Street if nothing else.

>What's wrong with that?  

what's write with that?  lots of people are under the mistaken impression
that a high DJIA is good for the economy.  they are wrong.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41740 talk.abortion:33365 alt.politics.bush:2785
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:11:01 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> regard@sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:>
>>> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>> I think it's pretty sexist of you to insinuate that all women think
>>>> alike, and that all of them are pro-choice.  

>>> After about 5 of these sillinesses, I gotta wonder:

>>> Doug, don't you think it's pretty damned narcissitic of you to figure 
>>> all women don't think?

>> Why all this either/or talk?  Either all women think alike, or none of
>> them think pro-choice thoughts?  No middle ground?

> And to think that his article was turned and corrupted by Chris Lyman.

Whose and what article was that, Steve.  Be specific.

> Pro-aborts are so extreme on this newsgroup that they flamed the living
> hell out of their most sensible and intellegent debater, Siren.

That's not how I remember it, but then your memory tends to be randomly
selective.

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:12:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.010643.14418@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 	And my favorite example of capitalist short-sightedness:
> 
> 	During the first half of this century, business computing was
> done with electromechanical punched-card machines. There were several
> companies in this business, but all but one of them are now out of
> business. The exception: IBM. [...]
> 	And now IBM is trying to avoid the same fate as personal
> computers and workstations prove themselves superior to traditional
> mainframes by getting into those types of computers.

This isn't a failure, this is how it is supposed to work. Just what
would you have preferred?

The original claim was that companies that did poorly would go out of
business.  Well, here you have companies that did denied people would
need computers. And what happened? They went out of business! Isn't
that amazing! Now, instead of those companies we have dozens all
ferociously competing to sell better computers at lower prices. And
all of that without any "industrial policy". What little government
policy there has been has been almost completely negative, such as the
DRAM agreement or the current flat-panel tariffs. The latter is a
_classic_ example of how government industrial policy works in this
country. If we'd done the same thing in the 60's, we'd still have the
6 companies making low power high cost computers.

IBM is coming back because their products are getting better. And
isn't that the goal?

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41
	<1992Aug27.155256.4670@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
	<EGGERTJ.92Aug27224022@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug28.051358.8985@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:41:26

In article <1992Aug28.051358.8985@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug27224022@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>   # I do not equate the two.  If you would read the above paragraph, you
>   # will see that I said that the mezuza holes seem to indicate that the
>   # Arab verbal claim is wrong.  Physical evidence tends to carry more
>   # weight than oral claims.  However, present occupation of a house is by
>   # itself physical evidence, and it would take a better judge than I to
>   # decide which physical evidence is more compelling, present occupation
>   # or a hole in the wall.  The former can be stolen, the latter can be faked.
>
>	   How can a mezuza hole, decades (at least) old, in a home (and
>   neighborhood) currently occupied by someone else, be faked?  And you
>   did equate the two with you claim of hypocricy.

Do you have a wall and a drill?  Then you too can make a hole.  It is
pretty silly to think that holes cannot be drilled now, and claimed to
be old.  If they need to look a little older, why, a light application
of stain should be sufficient to create the illusion of decades of age.

I do not claim that the holes are fake; I have no evidence to make
that claim.  It is naive, however, to deny that holes can be faked.
Just as naive as it would be to deny that houses can be stolen.

No, I did not equate the physical evidence of mezuza holes with the
verbal claim of continuous Arab occupation.  I did however point out
the hypocricy of the demand that the Arabs produce complete legal
evidence for ownership of homes and land or be thrown out by Israeli
courts, and then implicitly accepting a hole in the wall as proof that
the houses belong to Jews.  That is hypocritical.
--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:08:33 GMT

> = (Gary Strand) writes:

[re: Libertarians vs. Dems/Repubs...]

>  It seems everyone wants a big government, but at the other guy's expense.
>  Sorry folks, it can't work that way. The libs are going for the "no new
>  taxes" part, the Dems and Reps are promising the 1st part, but are really
>  hazy and vague about how they're going to pay for it, because they know
>  that being realistic will kill them politically. At least libs realize that
>  the two goals are incompatible. They don't promise what they know can't be
>  delivered. Give them credit for that.

No more than Ross Perot.

The only reason the "libs" are being realistic is, they know they have
zippo chance of getting elected.  If they had even a fighting chance,
they'd be circumspect like everyone else.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush