HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gps@vexcel.com (gps account for JPL)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:26:26 GMT

In article <rabjab.228.721028709@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>>>Ask yourself why you abstain from using drugs.  Is it because they are
>>A *great* example from Richard Lawrence Miller's book "The Case for Legalizing
>>Drugs": how cheap would cigarrettes have to be before you would begin
>>smoking them?  What if they were a dime a pack?  Would you take up smoking
>>then?
>
>If we go to socialized medicine, there will be a massive effort to 
>discourage drug use (cigarettes, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and everything
>else).  If you told your perspective health insurance provider you
>were a dope addict, would they give you nice low rates? ---- no way!!!
>
>For all you drug afficianados out there:  the more socialized the
>government gets --- the less freedom you will have!  CERTAIN drugs
>may be decrimalized, like Marijuana, but never expect many of
>the others to gain that status!  Ok, tax drug sales, but how much
>will you need to bring in to cover all the potential health problems of
>a drug addict and possible offspring!?  I'm telling you, combining

Are you trying to claim that these problems don't already exist?

>legalized drug sales, socialized medicine and government would be
>just plain nuts, though it would be a drug pusher's dream.
>
>I promise you, I will vote against it!  I don't care how many
>conservative judges recommend it! (like the one in L.A.)
>
>-------------------------------
>rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What Conservatives fear most
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:55:02 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65 writes:
>
>Go read "The Real Reagan Record", in National Review (8/31/92)
>
Or check out England's roaring economy. Rock solid currency. Low
inflation. Supple infrastructure. Full employment. Where Supply
Side didn't have to compromise with nay sayers in Congress you
get to see the true proof in the pudding.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: STUPID VOTER AND STUPID PERSON 
Keywords: STUPID
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:41:21 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Robert J. Wade writes:
>handd writes:
>>WHAT A STUPID CHOICE FOR 1993~1996!!!!!
>>
>>1993=> DOUBLE UNEMPLOYMENT + DOUBLE INFLATION + DOUBLE DEFICIT =>1996
>
>wow, a psychic....can you tell me what lotto numbers to buy for this week too?
>

Please enlighten me. EVERYONE putatively ascribes the inflation of the 1970s
to Jimmy Carter. Just what is it that Carter did to create that inflation?
I've asked the question about a dozen times and there have been 0
responses to it. Posters....and you know who you are....love to make the
claim. Candidates for president love to make the claim, but no one
offers an explanation of what the h*** Carter did to create the inflation.
Back in the 70s it was widely believed that deficit spending created
inflation. Well, 3 trillion dollars later, who believes that anymore? 
The Federal Reserves printing presses create inflation. And it is an
unelected independent body. If the Fed's Board of Governors all woke
up feeling daffy one morning they could print 4,000,000,000,000 simoleons
and wash away the debt with a blink. And the Prez couldn't do a thing
about it.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu>
From: cvafyaga@vmsa.is.csupomona.edu (Srikanth Viswanathan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Where is this quote from?
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:36:00 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic University, Pomona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I've seen some people mention this quote that is attributed to Bush:

"I don't know if athiests are citizens of this country or not."

Does anyone know where this quote is from?   Thanks! 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16730 alt.politics.democrats.d:424 alt.politics.elections:23375 ba.politics:6965 co.politics:1758 ne.politics:2858 nj.politics:640 or.politics:551 ny.politics:163 talk.politics.misc:59402
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
X-Xxdate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 15:12:50 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:16:19 GMT

In article <Bxo8t2.45B@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Greg, gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
writes:
>This is a more complicated issue than you make it out to be.  I refer
you to 
>Ross Perot's book, _United We Stand_.  In this book, Mr. Perot's
conclusion
>is that Reagan had a VERY GOOD reason for running such high deficits: 
he was
>trying to bankrupt the FORMER Soviet Union.  

...and managed to bankrupt us too in the process. Furthermore
there is good evidence
that they were well on there way to bankruptcy without our help and
that we may even have delayed the collapse by providing  a threat.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15970 alt.politics.bush:13268 alt.rush-limbaugh:9095
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:42:19 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <1992Nov4.195742.11288@odin.corp.sgi.com> archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:
>In <Bx7Etz.MFE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>*They then
>*asked those same people if they are worse off today than they were
>*four years ago and nearly 70% said no.  Hmmmmmm....
>
>Which means that only 30% felt they were better off.  Now, would you feel
>very good if you had made no economic progress in four years?

Umm...

I read the top. I read the bottom. I re-read them each three times.

I can only assume Archer didn't read the top, as 70% said they were
better off.

						- greg
-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:55:53 GMT

In article <BxIn3y.57z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> bondc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Clay M. Bond) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.033316.29196@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

: I'm paraphrasing, but I believe this comes from Genesis.

	He was referring to why Eve was created from Adam's side, not
his head or his feet; he claims that it indicates a command to be
egalitarian in marriage. The Bible makes no such claim, and it states
that God had created Eve so Adam wouldn't be lonely, _after_ creating
a lot of animals for that very same purpose, and failing. And if
_that_ isn't blatant sexism, then what is?

>Where, exactly?

:  |  Read the Democratic party platform, then       
:  |  the 1933 Nazi Germany platform.  Now note 
:  |  the similarities.

>Ah, but it was the Republicans, not the Democrats who ran the
>traditional family values platform.

	"Traditional values" that are called in German "Kinder,
Ku"che, Kirche" (children, kitchen, church), which the Nazis supported
for women. They were very big on being "pro-family", outlawing
abortion and birth control for members of the "Master Race".
From: QAA@psuvm.psu.edu (Tim Bieling)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the military
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:15:16 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <matrix.721260216@sol>, matrix@sol.acs.unt.edu (Goodman Byron) says:
> [...ranting post deleted...]

Funny thing - some years ago I met an ex-Air Force guy (who's gay) and
he told me the biggest hassle he had while he was in the service was
having all these other guys asking him for "special favors" (because they
knew he is gay)...

The things ya hear that make ya go HMMMMMMM...:)

-Tim
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16193 alt.politics.democrats.d:345 alt.politics.elections:22961 ba.politics:6848 co.politics:1632 ne.politics:2765 nj.politics:567 or.politics:468 ny.politics:94 talk.politics.misc:58607
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:28:46 GMT
	<1992Nov6.093340.7001@RedBrick.COM>
	<1992Nov6.154034.17906@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University

In article <1992Nov6.154034.17906@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:


> A point you do not acknowledge is that the value of your money due
> to inflation goes down over time and there is NO current way to
> offset that without paying taxes on the "dividends" you get if yoiu
> invest your money.  The capital gains tax would be more acceptable
> if it allowed for an adjustment of your initial dollar investment
> based on inflation.  Example: I buy a house for cash $200,000.
> Ten years from now I sell it for $300,000.  Why should I pay 
> capital gains on $100,000 IF the inflation rate has essentially
> offset that added $100,000 value of the home? 

	But if someone else took the same money and put it in
a mattress for ten years the government wouldn't pay them the
difference in value at the end of that time.  Thems the breaks.
Everyone loses money to inflation whether or not they invest.

					--Jeff Turner
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16690 alt.politics.bush:13666
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:25:09 EST

In article <1992Nov9.205809.7729@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.183044.13115@netcom.com> dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk) writes:
>>vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>>
>>>Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
>>>OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.
>>
>>>For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
>>>down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
>>>I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
>>>assholes.
>>
>>>If you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WE DON'T NEED YOU NOW, OK????
>>
>>>Jeez...
>>
>>>-Garrett
>>
>>Gee, a very intelligent argument.  Shows us how tolerant some of the non-
>>conservative dorks are!

Who me? I'm just a cute little fuzzball!

>>
>>Give unity and cooperation a chanc.
> 
> When I see postings like Garrett's, it makes me wonder sometimes if I
> did the right thing in making peace overtures to the other users.  I mean,
> my candidate (Bush) lost, but I refuse to be a sore loser about it.  I may
> not agree with Clinton but at least I will give him a chance.  What irks
> me is not that Clinton won, but that a very small faction are being "sore
> winners" about the election.  Some of us would like to see non-partisan
> flame free discussions--I hope Garrett's postings won't ruin that.

Hey Amerika, Lighten up!

-Garrett


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: walsh@dragonfly.wri.com (Jerry Walsh)
Subject: Cong. Pay Raises Was Re: Ignorance
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:31:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.184033.5936@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
>of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
>Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
>tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
>any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
>gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...  How
>
>-- 

So the average working guy gets a 3% raise every year, and
congresspeople get a 33% raise every ten years.  What's
the big deal?

In the long run, are the salaries of members of Congress growing
faster than the average worker's wages, or are they actually losing
ground?


j. walsh

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 10:16:44 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov6.060050.14101@eng.ufl.edu>, seed@joker.mil.ufl.edu (Steven Seed) writes:
|> 
|> Excuse me! But the "rich" are not an arbitrary group. They are the ones that
|> have been living it up for the past 12 years with the tax cuts. It's time
|> that they pay their fair share! The minorities (what ever you mean by that)
|> have suffered along with everone else except for the rich elite.

Excuse me but the 'rich' *are* an arbitrary group, particularly when you
make the claim that they are the 'ones' who have been 'living it up' for
the past 12 years.  Also, please give your definition of 'fair share'.
Maybe then we can evaluate both your notion of 'fairness' as well as have
a stick to measure actual results agains.

|> 
|>   Just because you cut taxes on the wealth is no guarentee that they'll
|> invest in the country.
|> 

So you believe it is right to take someones earnings simply because they
might spend it the 'wrong' way?  A persons income does not belong to
the government.  It is not the responsibility of a valid government to
take away money simply because it feels that the earnings are being
used inappropriately.  Under out Constitution (rapidly becoming a
lifeless hulk), the government can only collect taxes in order to
fund legitimate functions of government.  It can collect taxes simply
because it thinks a person might do the 'wrong' thing with their
earnings.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16561 alt.politics.democrats.d:399 alt.politics.elections:23240 talk.politics.misc:59149
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:55:19 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov6.234729.18885@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

|>The top income tax rate was at 70% prior to 1981. It was dropped from 70% to
|>50% in the Reagan (Kemp-Roth) Tax Act.

|>It was dropped to 28% in 1986 (with no loss of revenue from high-income
|>taxpayers; in fact, revenue gains were made.)

|>It will be heading above 50% again if various Democratic proposals are
|>enacted.

In the 1960's Kennedy reduced it from 90% to 70%.

When combined with California's top rate of 12% this meant that for every
extra dollar in income, you paid $1.02 in taxes.  Now that was socialistic.
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's mailbox is full now!
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:41:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <BxFJI7.779@rice.edu>, byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
> I just tried to email some stuff to Clinton (75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM, or
> so I'm told) and guess what:  he doesn't seem to be answering his mail.
> His mailbox is full!
> 
> So much for having access.  Evidentally, that was only for the
> campaign.
> 
> -OR-  Maybe he's taking a well-deserved break.
> 
> Anyone had any luck mailing (and receiving) email from
> Clinton, or even his staff?

CompuServe mailboxes only hold 100 letters at a time.  So, unless somebody 
there cleans it out several times per day, you'll NEVER get through!

Rush Limbaugh has the same problem.  Gosh, they DO have something in
common!  :-)

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
From: howard@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: acceptance speeches?
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:22:21 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Does anyone have the text to the acceptance speeches of either
Governor Clinton or Senator Gore? If so please post or e-mail. 
Thanks!

-Mary Howard

"A crisis of community, a spiritual crisis calls upon each of us to remember 
and to act upon our obligations to one another.  The purpose of community, 
the purpose of our government, the purpose of our leaders should be to call 
us to pursue common values and common good, not simply in the moment of 
extreme crisis but every day in our lives, starting right now, today. "
                              -Bill Clinton, at Notre Dame, 9/11/92


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:43:20 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov4.233909.6664@s1.gov>,lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.070545.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>    Here's a little trivia quiz.  Who said the following?
>>
>>    "The modern individual family is founded on the open or
>>     concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society
>>     is a mass composed of these individual families as its
>>     molecules."
>>
>> No, not Hillary Clinton, but Frederick *Engels*, author of the
>> Communist Manifesto. 
>
>	Or maybe they have read the Bible, which compares that
> husband-wife relationship to the master-slave relationship [Ephesians
> 5, 6]. The wife/slave is supposed to obey the husband/master, while
> the husband/master is supposed to take care of the wife/slave. This, I
> may add, is a _very_ asymmetrical relationship, and one that the
> husband/master would have an easier time enforcing than the
> wife/slave.

     I do not want to get too deep into theology here, but the 
husband-wife relationship is to be modeled after the Jesus Christ-
Church relationship.  If the Church's relationship with Christ is
consistent with your definition of slavery, then I'll agree with
*some* of your comments.  It is important to realize, however, that
the Bible and the Manifesto are diametrically opposed in their
views of family roles.  Another example of Hillary's adoption of
Manifesto principles is in her so-called "children's rights"
campaign.
 
> 	I'm a bit disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not ask her
> critics to read the Bible here.

     Who knows -- maybe we'll find a copy of the Manifesto in every
hotel room during a Clinton administration.    :-)

     C. Perttunen
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:15:00 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>   Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?

>Dan Quayle will get the fuck out of it and maybe they'll let
>Richard Truly (a great American) run it like he's paid to do.

Will that mean the end of the Space Exploration Initiative?
I have read that Clinton/Gore are in favor of the SS Freedom, but
are holding back on manned planetary (which I take to include lunar) 
exploration.  

>   Given the finite amount of money available and the rather heavy list
>   of social programs he plans to begin, I can't see any alternative to cuts,
>   probably delay or cancellation of the Space Station, the super-collider
>   and other major projects.

>Clinton is on record as supporting the super-collider
>--

I think money for the super-collider comes through Department of Energy.
But won't all big science programs be weighed against each other,
regardless of directorate?  Will the liberal side of the Democratic
party favor bio-research (AIDS, cancer, fundamental genomic biology)
over the more esoteric physics and space research?  If it could
be argued that increased funding for bio-research would translate
into much lower health-care costs (given the introduction of something
like socialized medicine), would Clinton/Gore be tempted to label
bio-research as "most relevant" to societal goals, and put that
spending at top priority?


-------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: matthew@base.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher)
Subject: Re: cost per vote
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date:  6 Nov 92 21:38:33 GMT

elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:

>some statistics from the election.
>   (I am very unsure of the campaign spending figures; if
>    anyone has anything more accurate, please let me know)

>			  Clinton	  Bush		  Perot
>total votes		 43,728,000	 38,167,000	19,237,000
>total expenditures	110,000,000	110,000,000	72,000,000
>cost per vote		   $2.50	   $2.88	  $3.60

I saw in the LA Times (I think) that Perot spent (roughly) $60,000,000
of his own money on losing the presidency and that Bill Koch spent
(roughly) $67,000,000 on winning the America's Cup (yacht racing).

Who got the better deal?
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16127 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6387 alt.politics.british:326
From: darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.british
Subject: US Election: The Real Historical Parallel
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:43:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Davis

The candidates in the US election have been fond of harkening back to
various historical elections as they predicted the outcome or tried to
frame the issues. Bush liked to invoke Harry Truman (a Democrat!) and
say that he would pull out an upset like Truman over Dewey. There have
been other parallels also: Clinton invoking the 1960 election of JFK by
talking of "generational change". And the Democrats have also referred
to the first election of FDR tossing out Herbert Hoover (making the
Bush = Hoover parallel). Then Bush talked about John Major's last election,
the British Conservative winning in a squeaker when he was predicted by
all the polls to lose. 

All of these analogies have some validity, but I feel the one that comes
closest hasn't been mentioned by anyone. In their first election after 
World War II, the British kicked out of office Winston Churchill, their
immensely popular war leader. It seems to me there is a real parallel here
to Bush losing after "winning" both the Gulf War and the Cold War. A
victim of his own "success", Bush and his ideology became largely 
irrelevant in the post-Cold War era, as Sir Winston did after WWII.
Thoughts, anyone? I'm particularly interested if any of you Brits agree
that there is a parallel here.

Richard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton