HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.122145.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>Make that two Simon. No, we are not alone, but these "free speech" liberals
>will try and beat you down and make you feel as if your ideas and beliefs are
>worthless. Don't back down Simon. _We_ will win in the end. After all,
>Conservatives are in the *Right*! :)
>Disclaimers. Disclaimers
>
>
>"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
> a Fools heart to the Left."
>                      --Ecclesiastes 10:2
>--A far better lesson
>
>		VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard- ARCH Conservative)
One of the biggest jokes about liberalism is that they promote Orwellian
doublespeak (PC), then call it free expression!!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9174 alt.politics.bush:8262
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: blood
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:00:15 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <BvtL8H.Msw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>: How much blood do I have in my body? Lots?
>: 	Take a little. There. It's only a mosquito bite. It will grow back.
>: You need it. It's ok.
>: 	Why are you still drinking? Have I not given you blood to solve
>: your problem?
>: 	What? Your friend wants a drink? Well...Ok. Only another mosquito
>: bite...
>[...]
>
>I think that our friend has finally begun to lose it....
>
>: 	Drive a stake through the hearts of the vampires; eliminate
>: the leeching Democrat party.
>
>I must admit.  This is the most creative senseless bashing I've seen
>in a long time, and one of the few articles that have come across these
>groups that really takes thought to understand.
>
>I don't like the message, but I have to give it a 9.7 (out of 10) for
>presentation.  :-)

An 8.

It would have
been neater					sentences snaking
with free-form					all over the
						screen.

For the finale, a big ASCII

LL		EEEEEEE		   AA		  CCCC		HH    HH
LL		EE		 AAAAAA		CC    C		HH    HH
LL		EE		AA    AA        CC		HH    HH
LL		EEEEEE		AAAAAAAA	CC		HHHHHHHH
LL		EE		AA    AA	CC		HH    HH
LL		EE		AA    AA	CC    C		HH    HH
LLLLLLLL	EEEEEEE		AA    AA	 CCCCC		HH    HH

would have been better. :-)


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10469 alt.politics.bush:9186 alt.politics.elections:16828
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:18:33 GMT
	<1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu>
	<1992Oct12.202409.22544@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Oct12.202409.22544@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

   In article <1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu>, 
   kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu said:

   > The problem is the same old thing, character, or lack of it. Why is
   > Clinton not answering questions about Moscow honestly.  I know a lot
   > of you will say that he is, if the answers are honest, why do they
   > keep changing??

   I know I may regret asking this, but... what are the questions about
   Clinton's trip to Moscow (besides "Did you go to Moscow?") and what
   answers given by Clinton have changed over time?

Bush makes up stuff that didn't happen, Clinton says he doesn't
remember it, and then Bush tells him to stop lying and come clean.
Its called Republican campaign strategy.  Luckily its not working,
thought you'll hear a lot of it this month cause its all they've
got left.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9738 alt.politics.elections:16120
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Comments on state-by-state
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:47:07 GMT
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Oct9.225422.28810@beaver.cs.washington.edu> barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington) writes:

   Has anyone seen the Las Vegas or London "trick bet" lines?  I'd
   be interested in the odds against Perot winning at least one state,
   or finishing second in at least one state.

"The Economist" reports that the London odds (Ladbrokes) this week are
Clinton 1 to 4 on, Bush 5 to 2, Perot 25 to 1.  Don't know the odds of
Perot winning a state.

-david
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10401 talk.politics.misc:51745
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Over 500 Economists Endorse Clinton (II)
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:25:48 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <VEAL.378.719080927@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>     Ask five different economists what the outcome of X economic program 
>will be and you'll get five different answers with five different time 
>frames.

I think it was Truman who once requested a one armed economic advisor.

He wanted someone who couldn't say

"On the other hand ..."

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9415 alt.politics.bush:8431 alt.politics.elections:15879
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Coup de grace:CLINTON Cowardice
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:14:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.101224.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.010822.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
>WILL THE DEMS PLEASE ADDRESS THIS???

Clinton is a liar.  Bush is a liar.  The question is which liar do
we want for president?  Which lie is more serious, Clinton's draft
status or Bush's Iran-Contra involvement?

My motto for this election:  slick is better than slimy.

David (A *former* Republican, thanks to George Bush)
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:20:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194641.24493@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.144901.26786@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>> [Men "faking" homosexual marriage for the benefits stuff deleted]
>
>  When you can show me that any significant number of heterosexuals
>are doing the equivalent, I might be impressed. Otherwise I'm not.
>In any case, the only thing that would point out is the absurdity 
>of entitlement programs...

Yes, I have been caught again using the Limbaugh approach of pointing
out absurdity by being absurd.  I don't really expect that heterosexual
men will be marrying to simply get the benefits associated therein.

What we are really discussing is not soley homosexual rights but also
the definition of marriage and the implications associated with legitimized
homosexual marriages.  That is everything from the right to adopt children
to the right to be on game shows as couples.  Perhaps more importantly,
the right to be accepted in society.

What this has to do with the subject line I cannot say.  I, as a conservative
for those of you who do not know me, am uncertain as to which side I would
fall on (so far).

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 21:26:42 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX

In article <1992Oct7.133239.14067@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> Pardon me for making the apparently fallacious assumption that we are
|> all speaking standard English here.  I will try to keep in mind that
|> there are apparently some people who cannot read even the most literal
|> interpretations and be more explicit for them.

English I have no problem with.  You seem to be forever berating
people for not accepting what is too "obvious" for Fred McCall to
bother writing, or things that Fred McCall is too "busy" to bother
writing.

|> >That's not the case in Austin or Albuquerque.  Both of these have
|> >"student ghetto" type housing near the universities.  But regardless,
|> >this is the point:  Is it really cheaper to live far away from school
|> >if you also have to buy a car to GET to school?  
|> 
|> Well, then things are apparently somewhat different in small cities in
|> the Southwest.

And your sample size was 1:  Boulder, Colorado.  YAWN.

|>  Other than that, yes, it is still cheaper even if you
|> have to buy an old junker to get back and forth to and from school
|> with (assuming you don't already have one, which is relatively rare in
|> the United States).

Now lets put his back into the context of the discussion.  Simon was
complaining about how long it takes him to ride the bus to school in
San Antonio.  Since he regularly rides the bus, I think it's safe to
say that he doesn't own a "junker".  At this point, there are several
possible "solutions" to his problem, one of which is moving closer to
school.  Simon, being no dummy, I'm sure has thought of this.  So I
ask what his reasons are for not living closer.  At this point, Fred
McCall jumps in, rants and raves about the cost of living in Boulder,
Colorado, and proceeds to berate ME for not accepting his statement
that "cars are more necessary in the United States", which I never
even disputed.  And you wonder why I think you have a chip on your
shoulder?

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
                "Fight the real enemy" -- Sinead O'Connor
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10605 talk.politics.misc:51972 sci.econ:8116
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Presidental Politics
Keywords: Read their lips!
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:53:48 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <ballard.35@panther.adelphi.edu> ballard@panther.adelphi.edu (Terry
Ballard) writes:
>
>   Has anybody but me noticed that when true blue, God fearin', Gun totin' 
>conservatives speak, you only see their bottom teeth?  If you think I'm 
>kidding, then watch Bush tonight.     

PUH-leaze stop linking together Conservatism with "gun-toting".  I happen
to be a moderate Liberal who LIKES guns.

Thanks so much,

   don
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Reasonable men may differ: Capital Gains Tax
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:31:58 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
: I'm curious as to the Democrats opposing a cut in the capital gains tax.
: Being conservative, I support the cut. I have *never* received a substantive
: answer why it shouldn't be cut. Here's what I know of both sides:

[...]

: LIBERAL
: -------
: 
: We can't lower the capital gains tax, because that would help the rich.
: 
: That is the *only* argument I've heard. Come on, Demos, is there a
: *better* reason?

Honest question here.  When Al Gore was pontificating night before last,
didn't he say that in addition to increasing the marginal tax rate on
families earning > $200,000, the C/G camp wants to offer tax incentives
to increase investment?  Did I hear Al say something about lowering
the capital gains tax?  I'm not sure -- the joint appearance was a
bit nasty for my tastes, and I ended up having to turn off my hearing
aid for short periods of time to keep my sanity.  ;)

Personally, I think that under our current economic and taxing systems,
a capital gains tax would be a Good Thing.  'Twould (IMHO) give 
people with money a reason to invest, rather than just save.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: loeb@tintin.ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's e-mail address
Date: 12 Oct 92 02:48:33 GMT



clinton-hq@campaign92.org  will work...


bush-hq@campaign92.org
perot-hq@campaign92.org
marrou-hq@campaign92.org

also work.


Does anybody know if Ron Daniels is on the
ballot in 50 states?  If he is I have to
make a daniels-hq address too.


Eric Loeb
1992 Presidential Campaign Information Service
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:22:40 GMT

In article <Bw2u6A.832@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.020924.18159@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>...
>>For example, an across the board cut in income taxes of 1% of income
>>will give a millionaire $10,000 less in taxes, and someone making
>>$20,000 less than $200 less income. So the millionaire got
>>a "bigger" break.  So what? the *proportion* of taxes paid doesn't
>>change much.
>
>    So what? Since we are running a budget deficit, cutting income
>    taxes by 1% across the board amounts to collective borrowing
>    on a credit card where the millionaire gets to borrow 100 times more 
>    than somebody making $20,000 a year.  Does it mean that, when
>    our collective bill comes due, the rich guy will end up paying
>    100 times more too?

You ripped out the context, which was the Citizens for Tax Justice
complaining that tax cuts, e.g. capital gains, give most benefit to the rich.
My point was that even an across-the-board tax cut, while
it will *proportionally* effect everyone equally (more or less), of course
those with higher incomes have higher absolute changes.

You can turn it around. Is it fair that Bill Gates pays more in
taxes than the entire N million poorest Americans?
(I'm not sure what N is, but it could easily be > 10 )
It's not as if upper incomes are paying their share now.
The rich are paid a *larger* share of the income tax total revenue
in 1990 than in 1980.  As Mr Nelson pointed out,
it would be *far* better to close
loopholes than to raise rates if you wanted to get more
revenue. We are hurting ourselves by not having a capital
gains exemption, and we will also hurt ourselves if we
unnecessarily raise tax rates.
You are for a flat tax right? Then why buy into the
"soak the rich" mentality?

>    I do not have the numbers, but seeing GHWB (who undoubtly has done
>    his homework) running around the country and offering everybody
>    a 1% tax cut, as long as he gets it too, I am willing to bet that
>    the answer is NO.  That is, if Bush has his way on taxes, I'll 
>    end up paying my share of the borrowing costs, and some of his too.

>    Now, if he offered to increase the personal deduction, I might
>    take it, but he will not, 'cause such a tax cut would not benefit 
>    him, and people like him, personally.

He has offered a "GI bill for education" for lower income folks
and proposes a first-time homebuyers exemption. He's not in either
category, and obviously doesn't personally benefit.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: The Best Reason Not to Vote GOPS & DEMS  (was Perot IRS)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:50:00 GMT

In article <1bk6bvINN20u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes...

>You Perot people just might re-elect what we are all trying to unelect,
>think about it on the Nov. 3.

It's the Democrat's and Republicans who put us $4 trillion dollars in
debt. If either (as if there's a difference) wins then nothing changes.
The evidence is the $1.5 Trillion dollar FY'93 Federal Budget passed by 
congress last week. The most recent in series of Gramm-Rudman lies.

The only difference I can see in the Democratic and Republican Parties
is that the Democrats are helping to implicate themselves. Go figure?!

>Timothy B. Reynolds
>CLINTON/GORE

-- Stephen 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Commentary on the V-P debate
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:11:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.162633.13690@engage.pko.dec.com> bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender) writes:
>Raise your hand if when Quayle said that he wanted to bring Gore's book, you 
>were hoping that Gore would say that he wanted to bring a potato.

	Believe it or not, the New York Times mentioned that
in the pre-debate finaggeling, Gore's folk said that they
would bring a potato if Quayle brought the book.

	-rj

--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Statement by Governor Bill Clinton
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:48:43 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>In article <29287@life.ai.mit.edu>, 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
>> 
>>  For Immediate Release:                  
>>  October 13, 1992                                  
>>                                                
>> 
>>                 Statement by Governor Bill Clinton
>> 
>>       Choosing a running mate is the first major decision that a
>>  future president makes.  If the American people were to vote on the
>>  basis of that decision alone, the Clinton-Gore ticket would win a
>>  landslide.  Tonight, Al Gore made it clear that he has the character,
>>  judgement and vision to step into the Oval Office should, heaven
>>  forbid, something happen to me.

>	Willie, here comes the reality hammer: Gore should have stomped all
>over Quayle.  He didn't do that.  That is a clear victory for Bush.  What kind
>of person can't beat Quayle in a contest of wits???  *BAM*

The point of this debate was not for those two to stomp all over each other.
It was for the public to have a chance to see who they would prefer to
be next in line for the presidency.  Gore was wise not to sink to Danno's
juvenile level of ranting.  He new went to let Quayle rant and get on
with the business of the debate.

He knew that if he spent to much time arguing with Dan it would have made
both of them look stupid.  Instead he just stood back like a patient
teacher waiting for the bad kid to finish his tantrum.  Very smart and
very presidential.

Remember, never argue with a fool.  People might not be able to tell the
difference.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush Remembered - Editorial
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:14:11 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: The usual media disinformation
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

In article <18171@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:
> This editorial from today's Sacramento News & Review, a weekly community
> newspaper, is reprinted without permission.

	What's their editorial address, I SEE A GREAT NEED to write them a
letter correcting their errouneous view of history.

	Mind you, most of the stuff is accurate, but these flaws need
addressed:

> * Ditching the Global Warming Treaty
	Not relevant.  It was non-binding, merely a "feel good" statement.

> * Racist 1988 Willie Horton ad

	No such thing.  Bush never aired a Willie Horton ad (an ad that showed
his picture or even used his name).

> * Knee-jerk anti-tax rhetoric actually favors the rich

	Not true.  The middle class income rose 39% during the 80s, the upper
class rose 25%.

> * Vetoes the Family Leave Bill

	Good thing, too.  Government should stay out of business as much as
possible.

> * Uses Houston hotel room as his residence, avoids state income taxes

	Which 99% of all federal overseas employees and military personnel do.

> * Says he'll do anything to get re-elected; means it

	So?  Do you want someone who won't do anything to get elected?  How
Taft-like.

> * This litany: "tax and spend, spend and tax"

	Hurts, doesn't it? :)

> * Pretends the North American Free Trade Agreement will create jobs

	It will.  130,000 to be approximate.

> Whoever finally becomes president - and we dearly hope it's not George
> Bush again - we desire a new administration that can erase these
> memories and begin digging us out of this mess. We deserve better.

	The citizens of your town are probably desiring a new newspaper.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:39:08 GMT

StarOwl (StarOwl@uiuc.edu) wrote:
: I must admit that I was impressed with Perot. 

I liked Ross, but I wouldn't vote for him.  The biggest problem with Perot
was summed up with Clinton's "It's not that simple" response.  I've worked for
both government and industry, the they're two entirely different institutions.
A corporate CEO doesn't have to worry about a bunch of guy getting together
and doing something dumb.  Dealing with Congress successfully is the most
important talent a president needs and industry provides
no equivalent experience.

I also have some problems with his actual policies.  The best response to them
came on "Washington Week in Review" where the statement was made that they 
would have been good four years ago when (as Dukakis pointed out) we were
going in the wrong direction but hadn't suffered much damage yet.  It's easy
for somebody with 3 billion dollars to talk of shared sacrifice, but it's a
little tough on the average guy trying to make ends meet.


Grim thought for the day.  I've voted in every election since 1972, but I've
never voted for an incumbent for President.  So much for this country's 
leadership.  The only vote I would consider changing was the one for Carter
in 1976.  (Nice guy, bad president).