HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:29:35 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <MATT.92Oct6151934@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> In article <01GPMW8JF60W001UUK@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
> 
>> NPR reported he went. Another Clinton supporter has said he 
>> went. I am *asking* why he went, where (Moscow? Eastern Europe?),
>> and what happened?
> 
> You're asking why he went travelling during his Christmas vacation and
> what happened?  I still don't understand the mystery; he went
> travelling so that he could sightsee, and what happened was that he
> saw sights.  Haven't you ever been a tourist?
> 
>> This whole thing sounds just like the typical cases we're told to 
>> watch for in counter-spy training in the military.
> 
> Good grief, this is even better than the smears that Bush is putting
> out!  Bush contents himself with insinuating that his opponents are
> unpatriotic, but here we have a real, live assertion that Clinton is a
> KGB agent!  

	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
denied.

> Or maybe this is a joke, and I'm just not getting it; maybe this is
> just supposed to be a parody of the sorts of things that the Bush
> campaign is saying.

	Nope, just more Clinton-ality.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:22:36 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <2927391007.1.p00004@psilink.com> p00004@psilink.com (Michael Smith) writes:
>>DATE:   Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:20:39 GMT
>>FROM:   Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
>
>>Why?  Because they're not really interested in economically efficient
>>transportation; they just hate cars.
>>
>>-andy
>
>Let's try applying this principle to another topic:
>
>"They aren't really interested in health; they just hate cancer."
>
>Isn't hating cars (or cancer) really quite sensible? Or are you perhaps 
>suggesting that car-hatred results from some obscure psychological 
>motivation, rather than from the car's bad effect on environment, 
>landscape, society, etc. ad infinitum? 

The problem with this analogy is that there are no known benefits to
having cancer. There are clear and present benefits to having a car.
The debate centers on whether it is more cost efficient, and individually
liberating, to switch from automotive transportation to some mass alternative.
The indications are that wherever cars are available, most people choose
to use them in preference to alternatives. The indications are that wherever
mass transit operates, it runs at a loss. Meanwhile car manufacturers, 
dealers, service shops, gas stations, road contractors, and the like show
profits and people are willing to pay. This may be a case of the philosophy
that it is better to burn out than fade away, but that's the market's
decision. Puritanical, sacrifice is good for the soul, types might not
like it, but there it is, vox populi.

Gary
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Autovoter
Keywords: Incredible response
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:47:52 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

This is a T.P.M. voters poll update.

Because of the overwelming response to my poll (5 votes so far), I have
decided to plea for more response.
Current totals are:

Marrou		2 Votes
Bush		1 Vote
Clinton		1 Vote
Perot		1 Vote
Other		0 Votes

Does Marrou truly have twice the support of any other candidate in the
election?  Will he carry Vermont or Alaska?  No one may ever know
because the sampling is just too small.  So, just hit 'r' and reply
to this posting and cast your vote.  Please use the following format.

#
Vote

The word vote should be replaced by the last name of the person you are
voting for.  Note:  multiply votes from the same e-mail address will not
be counted.  All replies are kept confidential, and the e-mail address and
votes are kept in seperate files.  So please, humor me.....VOTE!

-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: ==> Hillary Clinton Biographic Info
Supersedes: <92284.012012U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 16 Oct 1992 00:43:22 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Hillary Rodham Clinton Biography

 Hillary Rodham Clinton, named one of "The 100 Most Influential
 Lawyers in America" in 1988 and 1991 by The National Law Journal, is
 a nationally recognized advocate of children's rights, the public
 education system and is an expert in the changing roles of women in
 our society.

 A partner in the Rose Law Firm of Little Rock, Arkansas, she
 specializes in litigation.  She has served as chair of the board of
 directors of the Children's Defense Fund and the American Bar
 Association Commission on Women in the Profession and is a member of
 the board of the National Center on Education and the Economy.  She
 also serves on the boards of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Arkansas
 Childrens' Hospital and Southern Development  Bancorportation.

 As Chair of the Arkansas Education Standards Committee from
 1983-1984, Hillary Clinton recommended that substantial changes be
 made to the accreditation standards for the state's public schools,
 standards which later served as a model for other states across the
 nation.

 In 1969, she graduated with high honors from Wellesley College in
 Wellesley, Massachusetts where she was President of College
 Government.  She received her law degree in 1973 from Yale Law
 School.  At Yale she was Director of the Barristers' Union and served
 on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.

 Hillary Clinton worked for the Impeachment Inquiry Staff of the
 Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives in
 1974 which investigated former President Nixon's involvement in
 Watergate.  She later taught at the Schools of Law at the University
 of Arkansas in Fayetteville and in Little Rock  and served as the
 Director of the University of Arkansas' Legal Aid Clinic.

 An author and a lecturer, Hillary Clinton has been asked to speak
 around the country on many issues including education, children and
 families, and the changing roles of women.   She has received
 Honorary Doctor of Laws Degrees from the University of Arkansas at
 Little Rock, 1985, and Arkansas College, Batesville, Arkansas, 1988,
 and was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Honor
 Young Mother of the Year in 1984.

 Hillary Rodham Clinton is married to Governor Bill Clinton of
 Arkansas.  They have a daughter, Chelsea, age 12.
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:10:10 GMT
	<10OCT199216483909@utarlg.uta.edu>
Organization: pubs
In-reply-to: lbaum@bcsaic.boeing.com's message of 12 Oct 92 04:53:03 GMT

Stephen Tice (I think) writes:
   
   Bill-Clinton is being offered up as a leader. Where is the evidence?
   He didn't lead on the battlefield, and now I'm being told he didn't
   lead in the peace-movement. So where is the evidence to back up Brave-
   Bill's dedication to the cause he supposedly felt strongly about? 

Aren't you trying to have it both ways?  Bush was just chastising
Clinton to "come clean" because Clinton *did* lead demonstrations.  You
guys will have to decide whether this would have constituted leadership
or treason.  (In fact, he appears to have been a minor organizer.)  By
the way, Clinton's leadership is demonstrated by his tenure as governor,
in which capacity he was voted the most effective governor in the
country, including by a number of Republicans.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
From: gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Class Warfare in America (was Re: Upper--middle--lower class??)
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:34:35 GMT
Reply-To: gurd@wam.umd.edu

Ed Ipser writes
> Wake up and smell the coffe!
> 
> Class warfare in America is no longer about rich vs. poor, capitalist  
vs.
> laborer, or even educated vs. ignorant.
> 
> Class warfare in America is, and perhaps always has been, between tax
> payers and tax consumers. The Democrats are clearly the part of tax  
consumers
> but what has so disillusioned the American voter is that their erstwhile
> representatives in government, the Republicans, have proven to be  
tax-and-
> spenders of monolithic proportions.
> 
> Reagan was the most popular president in modern American history  
precisely
> because he offered Americans the hope of escaping the oppression of  
ever-rising
> taxes to fund ever-failing social programs.

When space cadet Ed, writing from the totalitarian Singapore makes sense  
we'll have no budget deficit.  Seriously though, how can we take this guy  
seriously?  Paul Tsongas who supposedly had an "affluent" appeal said he  
was going to raise the top income tax rate.  Yet, many of his supporters  
are the so called "rich" in this country including many neoconservative  
Republicans disenchanted with King George and his do-nothing policies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!^H^H^H^H^Hbit inventive!
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:49:42 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:52:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.134256.22401@iti.org> Allen W. Sherzer, aws@iti.org
writes:
>>He then said that an environmental
>>plan of that magnitude (world wide) is needed, and that cost should not
>>be bourne by the U.S. alone.  
>
>It does say (according to NPR) that the cost should be disprportionatly
>by the US.

Sorry, what it actually says:

In article <1992Oct15.090506.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> ,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
Page 304:  As a result, the responsibility for taking the initiative,
for innovating, catalyzing, and leading such an effort, falls 
disproportionately on the United States.

Page 314:  And it is time for the United States to take the leading
role -- because no one else can or will.

Note that the word "cost" is not used.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 10:16:38 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct8.074840.27167@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct5.060755.22957@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
|> >When can a company or a company run with significant debt?  When the
|> >increase in cash flow counterbalances in.
|> >
|> >If spending 100 Billion $ increases the _annual_ GDP by 10 Billion,
|> >that will more than counteract 8% interest rates.
|> >
|> >Now, that 10 Billion increase in GDP can take a _long_ time, especially
|> >if you have low interest rates, and still pay for itself.
|> >
|> >A lot of businesses _deliberately_ run up their debt to avoid being
|> >bought out and looted.  Loans used for R&D, equipment development,
|> >training/education, buying into markets or increasing market share
|> >are all worthwhile things for deficit spending as they increase
|> >_income_ by more than their interest cost.
|> 
|> Banks have this nasty habit of requiring *collateral* from businesses
|> and individuals to secure the debt. And they have this funny notion
|> that they want their *principle* paid back on a regular schedule.
|> The US government has nothing but *faith* and *credit* to back it's
|> debt. Well I've lost faith and say don't give them any more credit.
|> 

Actually the U.S. has plenty of collateral to secure debt.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:03:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R.
Moore) wrote:

> To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
> Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
> "willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
> and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
> least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
> reprehensible and offensive.

This is character assassination by innuendo and outright falsehood.  First,
the only evidence that Clinton had anything to do with the KGB comes from
worthless sources and can realistically be dismissed as a desperation
tactic from a doomed Bush/Quayle campaign.  Therefore, all that crapola
about treason is irrelevant.  But it's also nonsense because a) there was
no official state of war at the time and b) the USSR was not even a
combatant, much less "the main enemy."  As for protesting the war in a
foreign country, this is the first time I ever heard that was
"reprehensible and offensive."  Are we all supposed to be good little
party-line Republicrats every time we go abroad? 

> ---John Moore, VietNam Veteran

Oooooooooooh!  You and many thousands of others, a great many of whom would
be disgusted to hear you now.

> John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
> john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
> - Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
> - to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -

Ah, I see, another democracy-hater.  And though you support the Second
Amendment, you evidently despise the First enough to cry treason against
anyone who exercises it.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:07:49 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <2801308322@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>, usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
> I'm looking for info here.  I heard a passing comment made by some one on 
> a news-discussion panel about Perot's economic plan.  The commentator 
> implied that Perot's plan would remove the tax deduction for interest on 
> mortgage payments.
> 
> Any Perot supporters (or opposers) have any info on this?

	I think Perot's plan eliminates it for those making $200k plus per
year.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50580 alt.politics.clinton:9409
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:50:22
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1b37jaINNn1n@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Oct9.140841.27556@osf.org>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:08:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.140841.27556@osf.org> rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org (Andrew Rogers) writes:

> ABC Nightline ran some statistics on the number of Americans who visited
> the Soviet Union from '69-'71, and it was something like 40-60,000 per
> year.

And they're all communists, I'm sure---every last one of them.

> Incidentally, Massachusetts Governor William Weld, who spoke at the 1992
> Republican Convention, also visited Moscow during his days as a Rhodes
> Scholar (source: WCRB-FM news, 10-9-92).

What---a KGB agent is the governor of an important American state?!
It's time for him to be purged, at once.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:00:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct14.185636.18315@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>This "fin de siecle" talk, from Mr Nelson, Mr Perot, or whomever,
>>>is useful in calling attention to the problem of the deficit and debt.
>>>But it is hyperbole to talk as if the we are inevitably doomed.
>>>Our economy is not sinking. We just have a simple problem - our Government
>>>spends too much money. It has a simple (economically speaking)
>>>solution. Stop spending more money;
>>
>>  But what exactly does this mean?   Do you mean "stop spending the
>>  part > revenues"? 
>
>>  If so then the economy takes an immediate 
>>  $390 billion dollar hit.   This is 10 million jobs, NOT counting
>>  multipliers (NYT says that defense industry jobs have a multiplier
>>  of 2.5).  
>
>The "stop spending" would be a multi-year effort, not a single
>year effort. If you go and look at tax revenues, say from 1982 to 1987,
>we got a fairly hefty increase in revenues over five years.

  But that's because we had lots of GDP growth.  However a big
  chunk of that was from deficit-spending, by both the government
  and corporations.  These are tapped out now.  So there's no reason
  to assume such a rate of GDP growth.

>If we increase the economy 20% over five years, and at the same
>time reduce the Government expenditures 20% over five years
>we can essentially balance the budget without raising taxes.

  As I said, the consensus forecast for GDP growth next year
  in the US is 2.7%.  But lets say subsequent years are a bit,
  higher, say, 3%.  This produces a compound growth rate of 16%
  in GDP, which if taxes are kept steady would probably produce
  a 16% growth in overall taxe revenues (excluding modest effects
  from bracket creep on the income tax side).

  However if you reduce government spending by 20% then you're 
  looking at a $280 billion reduction during that time.  This
  is about 7 million jobs (not counting multipliers).  Even if
  these are distributed over 5 years, how will the economy be
  able to absorb them plus normal growth in the workforce and
  grow at all?   Your numbers just don't add up.

>Now, that implies two things: a 4% GNP increase and a 4% decrease
>in Government spending per year for 5 years.  If you attack this as
>Usenerdism, I'll plead guilty, because this would require extraordinary
>skill to pull off ... I can't see any candidates doing it. 

  Right, so why suggest it?

>>  So again I say, do the numbers and show us how you can get growth
>>  and deficit-cutting at the same time.  


---peter








Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51626 alt.politics.clinton:10315 alt.politics.usa.misc:183
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Good Boy, George. But Why Did It Take You TWO YEARS?!
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:32:44 GMT
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore



Well, George Bush has admitted that his tax deal with the Democrats in 
Congress was a mistake; that it caused the recession and the unemployment.

Now, he has given notice that Darman and Brady, the principle White House
architects of that deal, will be joining their fellow Americans in the
unemployment line.

But why, WHY, has it taken George Bush two years to recognize the problem?

Why does he insist on doing everything at the very moment when it appears
most politically opportunistic?

Darman and Brady should have gotten the axe the day they first proposed that
Bush betray Americans on his "no new taxes" pledge. Its just too little, too
late.

Now if he would just commit to putting Jack Kemp in their place, maybe he
would get a little more respect. (Just a little.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Russians Release '69 KGB Blackmail Film of Clinton in Drug Orgy...
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:19:08 CDT


In article <BERG.92Oct12132837@logan.cass.usu.edu>, berg@logan.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg) writes:
> What I would like to know is how Clinton got into Moscow in the first place.
> It wasn't exactly an easy place to get into during the 60's.  The fact that the
> Soviets let him in "on a vacation" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Oxford encouraged student to travel through Europe.  Current Mass. Gov.
William Weld went to Moscow as an Oxford student a few years before 
Clinton.  

So what part of the trip "doesn't exactly inspire confidence"?

-- 
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,alt.politics.clinton
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:50:36 GMT

In <1992Oct5.221656.4554@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu
(Stupendous Man) writes:
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In what sense, I wonder?

>However, the Libertarians believe that the individual, and the market,
>are strong enough to keep these things under control.

They're probably strong enough.  However, they're obviously not
motivated enough to do so on their own.

Unions, boycotts, blockouts, and vigilante justice would probably be
just sufficient to keep big business in check.  Government inspectors
seem a bit more in line with the kind of society I feel comfortable
with, however.

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)