HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jcconger@athena.mit.edu (John Conger)
Subject: Re: Progressive Taxes
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:40:53 GMT

john peter wagner says:
	Many of you are under the impression that soaking the rich will
	solve all of our nation's financial difficulties.

I disagree.  I think that we need to scrap together money wherever we
can afford it to reduce the deficit.  Raising the taxes on the rich by
a little bit will raise some money.  A little bit.  That's all that's been
suggested.  2% increase ( if i remember correctly) on all those with
200K+ salaries.  This is hardly soaking, considering that a decade ago
they were 20% higher.  If they try raising taxes back to 20% higher then
I'd call it a soaking.  But they got a hell of a break, wouldn't you say?
This figure is only from memory, but if someone else has the figures...?
I know the highest rate was above 50% back then.  (Hell it was 70% in the 
sixties...)

The government is simply short on cash and they need to get it where
it is available.  Taking a little bit more here is one of those steps.
They aren't trying to eliminate the deficit with this.  They're chipping
away at it.  You got to start somewhere, you know?  

So stop making it sound like there's a low/middle class rebellion against
the rich.  Nobody's getting *soaked*.  The government isn't confiscating
corporations for the purpose of paying off the debt.  It's *just* a little
tax increase....  Geez.

		Trying to be practical,
			John

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Crisp's Gestapo/Plan (Was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:04:13 GMT

In article <w6gn_qc.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.211456.4895@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>
>>>Begging to differ, my dear:
>>>If you check Clinton's Economic Plan speech and the Democratic Platform
>>>you will find the proposal clear as a bell.
>>
>>To clarify matters, here's what I found in the copy I have:
>>
>>	% Fight crime by putting 100,000 new police officers on
>>the streets. We will create a National Police Corps and offer
>>unemployed veterans and active military personnel a chance to
>>become law enforcement officers here at home. We will also expand
>>community policing, fund more drug treatment, and establish
>>community boot camps to discipline first-time non-violent
>>offenders.
>>
>
>I can't recall if this came from the Economic Speech or if it came from the
>platform. Whichever one it didn't come from should also be posted in the
>interest of completeness.
>
>Thanks, Elizabeth.

This was on top of the file I pulled that excerpt from:

	PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST

	A NATIONAL ECONOMIC STRATEGY FOR AMERICA

	Governor Bill Clinton

	June 21, 1992


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Connections
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:18:36 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

ERHART, WESLEY RONALD writes:
>
>Finally, it seems to me that if anyone took a look at how that war was
>being run they would decide to avoid it.  During the Persian Gulf war,
>the point made again and again was to avoid another Vietnam.  Why do
>people fault a person whose was capable of realizing this before the
>US government called it quits? w.
>

One of the few times I've ever agreed w/ William Buckley was the time
he talked about the great Modern Sin: selective indignation. Clinton
dodged the draft. If he wants to "explain it away" that's fine w/ me:
I found the war intolerable, too. He doesn't need to explain anything
to me. But Quayle also dodged the draft. It would be selective indignation
to moan about one and not the other...or selective approbation to
say "Yea" on the one while dismissing the other. On this issue. It's
a scratch race on Viet Nam service. 

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3163 alt.politics.bush:3096
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush and Baker
Keywords: State
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:20:14 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Aug29.183657.20774@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>Clinton supporters can't have it both ways.  If it is unreasonable for
>Bush to remove Baker from state, it is unreasonable for Clinton to do
>so.  Was Clinton going to keep Baker on?  No?  They were going to
>remove Baker for THEIR political reasons?  Then they don't get to
>complain when Bush removes Baker for his political reasons.
>
That's stupid!  You're talking about the difference of a five-month,
temporary appointment by Bush and Baker, as opposed to a period of service
of at least four years, possibly many more, by whomever Clinton would choose.
There's no similarity between the two.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Aren't KILL files great?!
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:04:40 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <5182@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> mpc+@pitt.edu (Mike Contento) writes:
>>Yeah, I kill crisp, psg, and ra.  This newsgroup is so much
>>better for it.  I highly recommend it to all intelligent readers
>>who can't stand Buchananism (my new term for their form of fascism).
>
>Once again we see on display what the liberal means by "tolerance for 
>the views of others" and "free exchange of ideas"  just stick your
>fingers in your ears when you hear or cover your eyes when you see 
>something that disrupts the constant humming of the Democratic 
>mantra being repeated in your head
>
>You didn't think it would be that easy, did you 8^)
>
>PSG
>
>courtesy of my good friend!
>-- 
And in most circumstances, a  violation of most usage rules.  Now that
aside, the reason that many of the Crisp and Crisp'ets are being put into
kill files is their lack or REAL substance to most of their arguments.  

Most often, when asked for hard sources, no reply is recieved or a flimsy
source at best is quoted by the Crisp'ets.  Just to give an example, 
I think it was Paul who posted an article over Canadia's Health system 
from Reader's Digest.  He seemed to ignore the multitude of articles which
can be found in various medical journals.

tag@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman)
Subject: Re: If Bill were in George's place
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:29:30 GMT

tertium@milton.u.washington.edu (l boyd) writes:

><MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>>If Clinton were in George's precarious political place, a sitting president
>>fighting tooth and nail for a second term generally perceived as someone
>>who does not really care for anything happening within the USA and needing
>>to demonstrate compassion to save his political skin; then he probably would
>>have called the FLA Governor on the phone MONDAY and said, hey, request help
>>NOW!  Don't wait.  Why didn't George just call and ask the gov to make the
>>request.  I don't get it.  Someone had to be aware of how damning the pictures
>>out of S FLA could be for him, whatever the protocol.  You have to ask yourselv
>>es, what other opportunities are eluding GHWB grasp?     Melissa Brown


>Well said!

>GHWB really blew it on that one.  More evidence that he is out of touch with
>the average American experience -- even when it is plastered all over the
>media for FOUR DAYS!

>I vastly underestimated the extent of the storm, yet I wrote a check that 
>night, knowing it was going to be a long haul for those folks.  I just don't
>understand how GB could have missed it  -- HE WAS THERE!

	I understand part of the problem was caused by the switch in the
White House staff under Baker.  On Monday some people in the White House
were still trying to get their phones hooked up.  Plus  the chairman of
FEMA quit over the weekend.  
	However, this doesn't excuse Bush and points out one of his 
problems, a problem shared by Reagan.  These guys are out of touch and
depend on staff (Baker especially) to do everything for them.
	Clinton, the policy-wonk, may be handicapped by the opposite
problem--trying to run everything himself, but you won't be able to
charge him with not trying (or caring).

	-JG
.
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:40:18 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:

>>According to the USA Today (8-26-92)           
>>                                                               
>>"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
>>presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
>>but still led the nation to war".                                 

>I think USA today made the mistake. The reports I saw had Clinton
>giving Lincoln as an example of a president who never saw *military
>action* (i.e. he served, but didn't fight).

That's a pretty lame argument. It sounds too much like some of his other
embarrassing gaffes, like "I never had a drop of whiskey until I was 18,"
Does that mean he had some beer or wine, then? Clinton has demonstrated
his willingness to tell half-truths such as this for his personal advancement
on numerous occasions.
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:10:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep1.181051.26686@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
>In article <21444@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.220001.2595@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>>"Socialist" media? This sounds like the communists are coming.
>>>When the election comes around, look at who your local newspaper
>>>supports. Look at who it supported in 88'. Time will prove you 
>>>wrong.
>>
>>Newsweek or some other magazine did a report on which candidates
>>the media supports.  The conclusion was that while they support
>>both sides, they support the left about 4 to 1, measured in terms
>>of dollars.
>
>"The media" is a very broad term. I saw a poll that stated many reporters
>tend to support the democrats. Perhaps they give money accordingly. But look
>who owns the media.....the Hearst family, the Quayle family, etc., etc.
>I think then media doesn't support the "left" enough!

Remember that GE owns NBC.  And there have been some cases where
NBC wanted to air news reports on nuclear accidents and have been
overruled from the top.  A report about French nuclear power was
gutted to ensure that no discussion of problems with the plants
or complaints of people around the plants got through.

There are a couple books I reccomend: "Who owns NBC" and
there's another one the name of which I can't remember
(written by two people who founded FAIR (fairness and accuracy in the media))
who did a study of guests on Nightline and McNeil/Lehrer and 
discovered they were (1) mostly white men, (2) mostly government spokesmen, 
and (3) mostly represented think tanks from the right side of the
spectrum.  On sending this report
to Nightline and McNeil/Lehrer, Nightline said "We're ABC and
you're FAIR so why should we listen to you" or something to
that effect, but McNeil/Lehrer has improved its balance 
immensely.

david redish
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3856 tx.politics:4756
From: dave@gergo.tamu.edu (Dave Martin)
Subject: Re: Family Values
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:30:00 GMT

In article <5247@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes...
} 
} 
}A few questions about happy families that I would like answered
}concretely (abstractions not welcome).
} 
}1) What is the difference between Democratic and Republican family values?

My understanding of the *implied* FV concepts from the two parties is this:
The Republicans are for a family composed of never-divorced husband and wife
(faithful to each other) where the husband works while the wife stays home to
tend the kids (none of which are allowed to be gay, have abortions, or become
single parents -- or know anything about sex until they move out) and, of
course, all go happily to church each Sunday to pay their tithings. As Bush
has stated, "like the Waltons".
The Democrats support the same thing, except they allow for single-parent
families (via divorce, or unwed mothers), accept gays and athiests as part
of the family, allow for abortions, sex education in schools, and so forth.
The Dems would probably accept the Simpsons in their definition, though it
might be a hesitant decision. The Waltons would still fit, as would families
like Murphy Brown, Roseanne, Soap, and other fictitious families.

}3) How will they help to bring down the unemployment rate and the budget 
}deficit?

Heh. You're kidding, right?

}4) Who thinks that campaining on a 'family values' platform is goofy?

Actually, the funny thing with FV is that it would have a greater tendency
to push people *away* from a candidate. There are a lot of gay Republicans
(yes, they exist) who are uncertain about voting Bush due to the Rep stand
on "family values".


* Let's have a Texas "Bar B/Q '92" -- VOTE CLINTON/GORE! * 

 -                                                                     -
 - Dave Martin - Geochemical & Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M - 
 - DAVE@GERGA[GERGO,GERGI].TAMU.EDU - BROOKS@TAMVXOCN.BITNET - AOL:DBM -
 -                                                                     -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider)
Subject: Re: CNN/Crossfire
Organization: Merit Network, Inc.  Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:30:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.102052.4381@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>>Jeff Davis writes:
>
> [a post which praised Elayne Boosler's appearance on Crossfire defending 
>  Hollywood's handling of the Dano-Murphy Brown tiff: deleted] 
>      
>>
>>Well, I hope others see the irony in having a comedian represent the
>>liberal viewpoint.  I saw this show too, and came away with the opposite
>>impression.  I note that you left out the other person being interviewed
>>(I think he was a Republican from California).
>
>Please note lines 3-5 of my original. I don't remember his name,
>but I did discuss him. But he was such a non-noodge that you remembered
>His Fireballness's name, yes?
>
>>Boosler was most certainly rattled when Sununu said
>>conservatives are blackballed in the entertainment industry now and
>>asked "Name one persn in your field who is conservative."  She looked
>>clearly befuddled and after 2 false starts finally said "Well my
>>field is not very conducive to conservatives."  She also added alot
>>to the debate by saying "Comedy takes intelligence and that's why
>>conservatives can't do it."  More smug and vacuous comments from
>>one of our leading liberal thinkers, Elaine Boosler.
>

I guess this makes Arnold Swartzenegger a 'token Republican'?
More smug and vacuous accusations from that paragon of probity and
humility, John Sununu.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: pradeep@bkd.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Pradeep Deshpande)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Reply-To: pradeep@bkd.b11.ingr.com
Organization: ISGS, Intergraph Corporation. Huntsville, AL-35894.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:16:06 GMT

	It's one of the most bogus campaign issues, I have ever heard. It's a 
fruit of a campaign devoid of any merrit and substance but otherwise filled
with lies and inaccuracies.  A good example of what one's supposed to do when 
caught with his pants down. 

-Pradeep.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Blunder
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:13:10 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

What Clinton blunder?  I read the Washington Post account of Clinton's
speech to the Amercian Legion.  It said that he said that Lincoln,although
he did not serve in the United States army, did serve in the state militia,
during the Black Hawk wars.  He did not see combat; infact the only blood
shed was to mosquitos.  Which I am sure is Lincoln humor not Clinton's.
Meaning that Clinton or some able staff member read a source on Lincoln.
                                    Melissa Brown
From: skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: George on rebuilding FL
Date: 2 Sep 1992 17:26:41 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute

In article <1992Sep02.170747.16345@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>
 >>Ol George just locked up southern Calif. for Bill Clinton. I would
 >>think the people of south central LA might be just a little ticked off 
 > >that GHWB goes on national TV to call fo supplies and cash to rebuild
 >>Homested FL, not that I complain about that but the majority of people
 >>in SC LA that lost their neighborhoods to fire we inocent victims also.
 >
 >In case you didn't realize it, the hurricane which destroyed Homestead
 >was an act of nature.
 >
 >The hurricane which destroyed south central LA was an act of savages.

Try READING the posting I did earlier, not cutting it up and 
re-posting it without the line about nature vs a act by humans.
Besides, most of the people that suffered had nothing to do with the
arson, so what are you saying ? if people are victimized by nature they are 
in some way more of a victim ?

tim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Bush's Vanishing Bounce
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:59:23 GMT

In article <lkpykga@rpi.edu> jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>In article <16375@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:
>
>>Also, this week's Newsweek, which I consider overall to be a
>>politically moderate publication (certainly not Liberal), just
>             ^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA
> HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA
> HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA
> HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA  HA
>
>Yeah, and Pat Buchannan is a transvestite feminist baby-killing witch.

Er, well, Newsweek has the reputation of being to the left of, say,
Time, but do you remember their Gulf War coverage?  Lots of soldiers
holding their thumbs up, lots of hawkish sentiment.  If you want to
label the left as McGovernites, then Newsweek does NOT fit the bill.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: CREATION OF ALT.POLITICS.CLINTON
Keywords: in bed
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:47:56 GMT

In article <l6f7loINNifk@mizar.usc.edu>, adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
|> 
|> In article <q-amm_l.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) opines:
|> 
|> | A few years ago a senate staffer had to remind their boss (I don't remember
|> | whether he was a Jackass or an Elephant) of this simple fact when he was
|> | trying to introduce a bill that would result in a tax being levied. 
|> 
|> Whose boss was it that the senate staffer (who was either a Jackass or
|> an Elephant) had to give a civics lesson to when he, the senate staffer, 
|> was trying to introduce a bill?
|> 

|> | So you should not feel too bad, even the Senators get confused. And that is
|> | the point: it seems that the basics and fundamentals are truly lost in
|> | this country today: even the simple things like grammar and spelling have
|> | been thrown out the window. 
|> 
|> Yes, it is a pity that people no longer pay any attention to simple
|> things like grammar.

And punctuation.
From: VIGNESWA@ecs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Democratic Controlled Congress:  Who should be blamed?
Date: 31 Aug 1992 15:08:14 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Alex [alex@engr3.umbc.edu] writes: >>
>>     A strong president can keep congress in line, look at Ronald Reagans
>> first term. Bush just doesn't have any direction, so congress does 
>> whatever the hell they want.
>> During Reagan's first term, the Senate was a republican majority.

Larry Cunningham [larry@psl.nmsu.edu] writes: >
>   Only for the first two years.  And the House hasn't been in GOP hands
>   in almost forty.
>   Right. So don't blame the Repubs!!
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine,....

Do I miss something here?

After two years of Reagan rule,in 1982, PEOPLE went to voting booths and 
sent a Democratic controlled Senate.  In 1984 PEOPLE voted again for Ron
Reagan, this time with a very  strong majority (electoral college 525:13,
states 49:2, popular vote 58.8%:40.6%).  Then  PEOPLE  voted again for a
Democratic controlled Senate.  PEOPLE keep voting for a democratic house
for last 38 years.  It is not Democrats control the Congress, but PEOPLE
send them to Washington.  Even a stupid can conclude that people approve
whatever their  Congressperson did for them by  voting for him/her again.  
Larry Cunningham tells the  readers not to blame Repubs.  Maybe with his
CORRECT opinion, he wants to imply that "Blame the people".

I happened to listen to Cokie Robert in C-SPAN.  She was a member of the 
panel  which discussed with the  Asian-American Journalists' Association.
According to her, people apparently think that Congress is bad, but their
Congressperson is good.  Also she referred to  the Wall Street Journal's 
regular poll on divided government.  Cokie thinks  that Congress bashing
would work (or is working?) against Mr Bush.

I agree with Alex.  A strong President must be able to convince Congress
to support his plans.  President George Bush, who claims to have grouped
the world under him to fight Sadam, could not be able to convince his own
Congress?  Mr Bush  appeared on TV and requested  people to pray for the
brave soldiers who went to Gulf.  Why didn't he  appear in TV to explain
his plans to  improve America and to request people to press their local
Congressperson(s) to support those plans?

Vicky:
UMass, Aug 31
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton