HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Just to keep things straight . . .
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:25:00 GMT

In article <CHRISF.92Sep11205523@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.195641.17918@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>   In article <1992Sep9.204037.4477@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pws2n@vision1.ee.Virginia.EDU (Philip Weaver Smith) writes:
>>   >Clinton plans to raise taxes on those making over $200K to $250K ( top 2-3% ),
>>   >keep them the same for those making between $80K and $200K ( top 20-25% ),
>>   >and lower them for those that make less than that.
>
>>   Clinton's plan will raise maybe $15 to $20 billion (the top 3% earns about
>>   $300B and Clinton will take an additional 5%). In fact, it will be less
>>   than this since the added taxes will discourage the creation of wealth.
>
>Your statement that Clinton will raise "maybe $15 to $20 billion" takes a lot
>of force out of your arguement.  Got a source?

5% of $300B is $15B; basic arithmetic is a source.

>>   Clinton's plan promises a quarter trillion $$ is deficit reduction and
>>   new spending.
>
>>   $250 billion - $20 billion = $230 billion.
>
>>   Question: where does the other $230 billion come from?
>
>Wow!  You go further than Bush.  He said $230 billion - $150 billion.  Ever
>thought of giving some real numbers?

Clinton says that he's proposing new spending and has given an amount.
If that amount is larger than $15B, the money can't come from his
announced soak the rich plan.  Maybe he's planning to soak them even
more, or maybe he's planning on borrowing the money, or maybe we're
all in for increased taxes.

Clinton supporters have been claiming that the increase is in the
$200-250B region, so ....

>>   As you can see, Clinton's plan won't generate the money he needs. He must
>>   therefore raise the taxes on the other 98% of us to get the vast majority
>>   of the money.
>
>So you make up some false numbers, then tell us that Clinton must raise our
>taxes because of it.

No, he just did arithmetic with Clinton's numbers.  If you don't like
the results, you need a candidate with different numbers; arithmetic
isn't going to change.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5319 alt.politics.homosexuality:5979
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:54:46 GMT
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Episcopal Church Foundation at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

:      I thank you for your interpretation.  Let me ask you this,
: what is the difference between an "unnatural lust" and a
: "natural lust?"

Well, if the Church of the Middle Ages is to believed, pride, 
covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth are the
seven deadly sins.

From one Christian point of view, it could be said that sin is
not a "natural" state for God's Children.  Following this
line of thinking, the difference between "unnatural lust" and
"natural lust" is that there is no such thing as "natural lust"
(except possibly for that reflex feeling when passing by an
attractive MOTAS), since lust is a sin, sin is unnatural, and
therefore lust is unnatural, from this perspective.

This isn't to say that there aren't other, differing interpretations
for this whole matter.  Since I am not an author of one of
the books of the Bible, and since I am not literate in Hebrew,
Aramaic, or Greek, I'm in no position to decree this "the One
Correct Interpretation (tm)."  I just offer it as one possible
interpretation.


--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(The Persian Gulf War was)
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			"a stirring victory for the 
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			forces of aggression against
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		lawlessness."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle

Marrou/Lord in '92
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4464 tx.politics:4926 alt.politics.bush:4428
From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:49:23 CDT
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Poverty
Distribution: world
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <21470@rpp386.lonestar.org>, by jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II):
> In article <00715727470@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>                                               However, I don't think that
>>welfare spending, as a whole, particularly needs cutting -- if you add up
>>AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid all together, you get about the price of
>>two Stealth Bombers.
>
> During the 80's we spent about $1T on defense.  During the same period we
> spent roughly $2T on social programs.  If we are going to cut the budget,
> the majority of money is going to come from social programs.  There isn't
> enough money in the defense budget to make a significant difference.

I agree with you.

Note, however, that the vast majority of social programs do not directly
serve the poor, though nominally they do. Take, for example, subsidized
sewer and water system construction for poverty-stricken rural areas. This
was a big boon for construction workers in those areas, but once the things
were built, well, the people there can't afford to pay enough in water and
sewer bills to keep the darn things running and maintained. So they have
unsafe water anyhow.

Then there's the REA, the TVA, urban block grants (thankfully pretty much
phased out), etc. etc. etc., all of which qualifies as "social programs"
but none of which qualifies as "welfare".

I stand by my statement: I don't think "welfare" spending in particular
needs cutting -- what needs cutting are so-called "social programs" which
benefit only contractors and pork-barrel politicians. Which, alas, is the
vast majority of spending in this country.

If we gave to every poor person directly what is spent on "social programs"
in this country, poverty would be ended tomorrow.

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias -- no one else will
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:30:29 GMT

In <Bu9LIw.Koq@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  I would also raise this issue (although I want to make it very clear
>  that I don't think it applies to the current race as I think Clinton
>  is as abad as Bush):  What if one candidate *really is* much worse than
>  the other in terms of his record, character, or whatever?  Should 
>  journalists still feel compelled to provide "balance"?   "Objective"
>  reporting of such a race would result in far more negative references
>  to the bad guy.  Anything wrong with that?

The "balance" being discussed here is one of the approach to the
story. Case in point: the recent coverage of the respective
candidates' visits to Florida. Nearly every television report I saw
concerning the President's response to the disaster -- including the
ABC analysis of Bush's speech by Stone Philips & friends -- ended up
with a discussion of the President's political motives in visiting the
ravaged areas of Florida, etc. Although they didn't come out and say
*directly* "Oh look, Big Bad George is milking this for what it's
worth," they steered the story so as to leave this impression with
viewers. 

Contrast this with the coverage of Clinton's visit down there. I've
seen little or no speculation as to his political motives in this
situation. 

As someone pointed out a couple of days ago, Bush does have some
reason to be there in Florida: he sent in troops to help with
emergency shelters and is in fact responsible for them. Why on earth
is Clinton there? He's not about to send in the Arkansas National
Guard. His main motivation can only be to win votes.

This is the type of media bias I (and so many others) are sick and
tired of. Indeed, the facts get reported -- most of them -- but with
a nauseatingly blatant spin.


-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:04:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.195306.22724@eng.ufl.edu> jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>
>I have heard the Democrats say that there are between 4 to 12 economic Nobel
>Laureates who support his plan.  When the Republican opposition requests
>the names of these individuals, none are ever sited.  From this I believe
>none exist!  The only possible explaination must be (if there are any
>Laureates who support the plan) the Laureates explaining the quickest
>way to economic destruction in the United States.

You know, I thought we'd cleared it up.  I believe someone had posted
the statements from Tobin, Samuelson, Solow, et al.

>
>I fail to see how the restructure of health care (12% of GNP) within 100
>days could be in any way helpful for the American economy.  If you can
>not see DEPRESSION labeled on his plan, you must be near sighted!

Please clarify.  It's not as if 12% of the GNP would suddenly vanish.


--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:50:50 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <BuDHsD.LsK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:
>By the same reasoning, the argument could be made that the Republicans
>are to blame for our current recession.  After all, who's been in the
>Oval Office, exerting pressure on the Fed and supposedly making
>policy decisions for the the past 11.67 years?

Yes, by that same argument, Bush is to blame.  The lessons of the past
show that tax increases (and/or tightened monetary policy) slow down an
economy, and that tax decreases (and/or loosened monetary policy) speed
up an economy.  Bush promised "No New Taxes", broke that promise, and
the economy slowed.  There are only two fixes - loosened monetary policy
(and no, lowered interest rates ARE NOT how you ease monetary policy,
you have to actually lend the money, and banks aren't doing that ...)
or lowered taxes.  Clinton promises to raise spending, which will have
to be paid for by higher taxes.  Bush has FINALLY started talking about
lowering taxes and lowering spending.  We've been promised an end to
the Federal Deficit before (anyone remember Gramm-Rudman?), but if
Bush is elected, we may actually see it.  If Clinton is elected, the
deficit will be $500B next year, and $800B by the end of his first
term.

>Seems to me it's about time for a change.

Also correct.  It's time to get us a new Congress.  I will be voting for
the Elephant party this year.  The Jackass party, well, it's a bunch of
jackasses ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: Biblical Bullsh*t
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 23:56:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.165805.833@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>
>>- "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is 
>>- the most applicable thing I can think of at the moment.
>
>>That statement is a form of bashing.  Bible or no Bible, you cannot
>>separate homosexuality from the homosexual.  Hating the "sin" is
>>definitely the same thing as hating the "sinner."
>
>If that's true, then how can it be that the New York Catholic Archdiocese 
>was running hospices for AIDS patients and admitting AIDS patients to its
>hospitals at a time when other major New York hospitals were turning them
>away?

ACF is correct.  What Werling more accurately should have said was
"... *I* cannot tell the difference between a person and an action.  Hating
the action is definitely the same thing *for me* as hating the person."

Werling has committed a sin.  So long as s/he cannot forgive him/herself,
s/he will have great difficulty in asking God for forgiveness.  So long as
s/he cannot ask God for forgiveness, He will not forgive him/her (the Bible
does say you *must* ask).  So long as Werling cannot separate him/herself
from his/her own sinful action, s/he cannot forgive him/herself.  S/he has
damned him/herself, and is irretrievably stuck unless s/he learns to separate
what s/he has done from the good person whom God created and loves.

The NY Catholic Archdiocese obeys God's commandment to love the people whom
God created and whom God loves by comforting the sick, the homeless, and the
friendless.  It obeys God when it sees Jesus Himself in these AIDS patients,
for Jesus says that He is among them:  "for whatsoever you do to the least of
my people, so also do you do unto Me".  According to the Bible, so long as
Werling hates his/her brothers and sisters dieing of AIDS, s/he also hates
Jesus Christ.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		        ------------+
|   You can choose to do housework or to do things.  I have chosen to do    |
|		things.					-- Anon.	    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
From: dfriedman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (D R Friedman)
Date: 7 Sep 1992 00:32 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep7.031815.25831@athena.mit.edu>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes...
>In article <1992Sep6.205327.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep6.223548.20021@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>> A little chart in this Sunday's NYT:
>>> 
>>> Change in private sector employment by Presidential term:
>>> 
>>> Carter:	+13.92%
>>> Reagan 1:	+ 7.30%
>>> Reagan 2:	+12.05%
>>> Bush:		- 0.04%
>>> 
>>> --
>>
>>     Based on this chart, we must have been living in Utopia during
>>the Carter years.  I sure wish that someone would have invited me to
>>that quadrennial jubilee.
>>
> 
>There was a tremendous amount of job growth during the Carter
>Presidency.  The big problem was that with the large numbers of baby
>boomers entering the job market the growth was not enough to keep
>unemployment down.  There was indeed a party, there just were too many
>guests.  
> 
>I don't think that anyone else could have done any better.  Now, on the
>other hand, a room full of monkeys could have done better than George.
> 
>-bert

George stated that he has had 5 quarters of growth in the economy and that
people were better off now than they were 4 years ago on Brokaw reports
on NBC.  That liberal network that is owned by that liberal company
called GE.
I just can't wait to see what happens if George is elected again to a 2nd
term.  A lame excuse for a president in a lame duck presidency.

Denny
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4759 talk.politics.misc:44587 alt.rush-limbaugh:4514 alt.politics.bush:4620 alt.politics.elections:12777
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Real Reagan Record
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:06:23 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <ncmntj+.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>Have any of you read the  August 31 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.  I found 
>this quite amazing.  On pages 25-62 is found the cover story, THE REAL 
>REAGAN RECORD.  Many (a dozen or so) authors have each taken one plank 
>of the conventional liberal tale of how Ronny ruined America, and 
>smashed it to pieces.
>
>Some of the subjects covered are:
>
>	Liberal claim		This article says
>
>US national debt is terrible	NOT

Anyone who thinks that the national isn't terrible (4 trillion dollars!) is
seriously deranged, and has no business being in journalism.

>Junk bonds were bad for bus.	NOT

Of course they were (see below) !

>Decade of Greed                NOT

A lot of greedy, powerful people did a tremendous amount of damage to this
country's well-being.  Example: greedy bankers plundered the S&L's; they knew
the banks were going down, and they used dishonest means to take as much of
the money as they could, leaving ordinary taxpayers to foot the bill.  (Neil
Bush was one of these greedy bankers - how's that for George's family values?)
Example: greedy people with good credit bought out good, profitable companies
and gutted them, made profits appear to be high by laying off most of their
employees, reneged on contracts with other companies, sometimes putting them
out of business, unloaded the companies to unsuspecting buyers who thought it
looked good (high profits - looks good on paper, but there's really nothing
there), and took the money and ran.  Lots of people out of work, one or more
profitable companies bankrupt, less money in investment, a handful of people
extremely wealthy.  The Decade of Greed, indeed.  (Junk bonds helped make
these things possible - junk bonds are less popular now, because people have
seen how destructive they can be.)

What kind of a trashy mag are you reading, Crisp?  Clearly not a reputable one,
by any means.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:35:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.200608.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     What you say about about the tragedy of infant mortality in 
>the US is true.  The statistic would be even worse if you include
>the 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the US.  We could
>then modify one of your sentences to read: 

      If it rained next Thursday, the Pro-No-Choice people are going
to say it's because of abortion.

      
Larry J


-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:28:33 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <BuL0JA.BJs@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
> :      I thank you for your interpretation.  Let me ask you this,
> : what is the difference between an "unnatural lust" and a
> : "natural lust?"
> 
> Well, if the Church of the Middle Ages is to believed, pride, 
> covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth are the
> seven deadly sins.
> 
> From one Christian point of view, it could be said that sin is
                                                          ^^^^^^
> not a "natural" state for God's Children.  Following this
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> line of thinking, the difference between "unnatural lust" and
> "natural lust" is that there is no such thing as "natural lust"
> (except possibly for that reflex feeling when passing by an
> attractive MOTAS), since lust is a sin, sin is unnatural, and
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> therefore lust is unnatural, from this perspective.
> 
> This isn't to say that there aren't other, differing interpretations
> for this whole matter.  Since I am not an author of one of
> the books of the Bible, and since I am not literate in Hebrew,
> Aramaic, or Greek, I'm in no position to decree this "the One
> Correct Interpretation (tm)."  I just offer it as one possible
> interpretation.
> 
> 
> --
     Once again, I appreciate your perspective.  But when I look
up the word "natural" or "nature" in a concordance, practically all of the
passages talk about the "sinful nature" of man (e.g. one does not
have to teach a young child to lie or to be greedy).  This is
what leads me away from your interpretation.
     I think you can see where I was leading you -- with 
"natural lust" meaning lusting for one of the opposite sex, and
"unnatural lust" meaning lusting for one of the same sex.  Note
that Biblically, both natural and unnatural lust are sinful.

     Cary Perttunen 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:19:18 GMT

In article <BuBB24.34z@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.233948.12289@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>   It's an interesting problem for an "objective" journalist:  merely
>   mentioning a mainstream idea doesn't add any more credence to it because
>   everybody already knows most mainstream concepts (that's why they're
>   mainstream).  So presenting a "balanced" report on the Democrats, the
>   Republicans and the LP doesn't really help the Democrats and Republicans
>   because everybody has already heard of them and pretty much knows who
>   they are.   But it gives a BIG boost to the LP if people see them being
>   compared directly to the major parties.  So any journalist who does
>   this is doing more to help the LP than the other parties which is 
>   practically a definition of biased journalism.  On the other hand if
>   they make disclaimers that the LP is a tiny party with almost no 
>   following they can be accused of slamming or at least biasing their
>   listeners *against* the LP.   It's lose-lose for an "objective"
>   journalist.

     I'm not worried about seeing the Libertarian party or any other
of the minor parties portrayed as being "equal" to the two major
parties.  That would at least be dishonest, if for no other reason than
membership.
     It would be nice, though, if the national television media occasionally
acknowledged the *existance* of minor parties.  There's a big difference
in "balanced" reporting you suggest and occasionally mentioning they
are even out there.'
     But it's their air-time, I suppose.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|            veal@cs.utk.edu          Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush