HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evasquez@dewey.NMSU.Edu 
Subject: Re: Bush is (or is he?)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 07:05:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.145710.4338@desire.wright.edu>  writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.190304.7059@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM  
(John Palmer) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep21.205400@IASTATE.EDU> jkness@IASTATE.EDU (Joel K Ness)  
> > As for his draft situation: BRAVO BILL!! I like someone who can stand
> > up and say "This is an imperialistic war against an innocent people and
> > I will not go and oppress them nor will I risk my neck to support the
> > imperialist government". Clinton's famous "letter" is a plus for him
> > as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 	What about his letter renouncing his citizenship?

Clinton DID NOT and NEVER renounced his citizenship.  I read the letter's that  
he supposedly did all these nasty little things in and it didn't happen.  Just  
more half truths and lies from the Bush campain.  I was undecided on who to  
vote for but now that I have read up on Clinton and seen the way the Bush camp  
is acting I have one clear choice. CLINTON/GORE"92!

E Vasquez			|4 More Months!!!|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:58:01 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

: >So who's in the lead in terms of number of books sold, current ranking, etc.
: >Ross Perot's Book, Albert Gores, Rush Limbaughs, or Clintons Biography?
: Limbaugh's book is on the top (#1) of the NY Times Bestsellers List, as
: of Sunday.  <head shaking, wondering "Why?">

Winter's coming soon.  People need *something* to burn for heat.  :)

--
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



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8104 alt.politics.bush:7436 alt.politics.marrou:1380
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Improving the nation's infrastructure
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:23:01 GMT

In article <28406@life.ai.mit.edu>, bc151@cleveland.freenet.edu (Ken Fisler) writes:
> 
> A broad spectrum of research, educational and public interest
> organizations support H.R. 2772, including the American Library
> Association, the Association of Research Libraries and the 
> Medical Library Association. Because it will give the general
> public access to a wealth of government information, this bill
> should lead to a more open government and a better informed 
> electorate, aims which, I think we would all agree, are in the
> best interest of this country. I would hope that members of the
> network community will support this important legislation and
> other similar legislation to come by supporting Bill Clinton and
> Al Gore for president and vice-president.
> 
> 	Audio:		Ken Fisler> +----------------------------------------------------------+


Of all the stupid things to assign national importance to. First of al, all the 
organizations that you listed, already have publications for the public to have 
why the fuck should we increase the scope of govenment needlessly? Have you
ever heard of the Congressional Quarterly? Have you ever heard of newspapers?
There is more than enough access to government available... most of which the
taxpayer have already provided for. Maybe if you got off your lazy ass for an
hour and took a trip to the library you would learn about all the wonderful
corruptions that your pathetic party has sponcered in the last few generations.
If you really want some education, look up Gov. Slick's record since 1979. 128
raises in taxes is a pretty incredible accomplishment. It's amazing what
cretins can do when motivated by one professional cocksucker. How about you
direct your useless talents to something a litte more important than a new
department on your usenet to play with, say... the ECONOMY!!!! Gee, Slick wants
to RAISE taxes on people who own businesses. President-elect Bush wants to
decrease taxes, index the capital gains tax, and reduce the size of
governement. Guess which one will work better? Wait.. don't even try to
understand the complexities of common sense. Moron.
			Love & Kisses, 
                     VSG001@acad.drake.edu  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:14:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.235401.2769@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>However, I checked with my parents (who live a similarly SOL as I do,
>so it's a decent reference of comparison) and they pay MUCH MORE taxes
>now than they did before.  This is by % of income.  (no, they haven't
>retired or anything like that which might put a spin on the figures)
>
>Who is the "TAX AND SPEND" president?  I say it was Bush.

That's a useful piece of information only if you think that Clinton
will be LESS of a tax and spend president than Bush was.  According to
the announced plans, Clinton plans to spend more than Bush does.  Are
we really supposed to assume that Clinton is lying, that he'll spend
less than he's promising?  (Note that the announced tax increase and
spending cuts don't come close to covering the new spending, so ....)

Come on folks.  Do Clinton supporters think Clinton would not have
signed the 1990 tax/spend agreement?  What?  He would have too?  Then
you don't get to criticize Bush for doing so.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: asper@time.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 18:12:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.173748.17742@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>You said "You can't fight rascism with rascism"--how true!!
>
>Most of the problem today is that there is so much name calling and finger
>pointing going on, no one can talk about real issues.
>
>Recently I got intoi a big arguement ith someone because apparently he
>considered my comments against rap music to be rascist--this guy isn't even
>black and he's suddenly an authority on race relations.  I mean, I'm white
>and I don't profess to understand everyone's problems, but I think there's
>room to discuss ways to solve them that are beneficial to everyone.
>The really funny thing is that alot of the "rascist" accusations being thrown
>at whites are from other whites!! I am not making this up!!
>

Ummmm... do you go to _college_? Or did some goofball trailer-park bucket head
whose mother is his sister get onto Simon E. Booth's unattended terminal?

I realize by your logic that only other morons are allowed to call you a moron,
but I'll risk it.
:-l

Alan

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8256 alt.politics.bush:7558
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Clinton Legacy RE:George "Tax and Spend" Bush
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:05:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

joel@locus.com (Joel Lilienkamp) writes:
$vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
$>True he balanced his budget BUT HE HAD A FUCKING LAW THAT MADE HIM DO SO!!!!!

Whatever. It's written in the state constitution.

$This argument is a canard.  The US had a series of laws to achieve a
$balanced budget.  They were called the Graham-Rudman-Hollings Deficit
$Reduction Act, which mandated reductions in the deficit over a number
$of years, until it was eventually zero.  If Mr. Bush and his predecessor
$were really so interested in really having a balanced budget, maybe
$they could have worked within the framework of those laws and end up
$with a balanced budget, rather than working so earnestly with Congress
$to have them repealed and running up the biggest deficits the country
$has ever seen.

Yeah, and if Congress were so interested in having a balanced budget
maybe I could vote for a Democratic Congressman. I hear a lot about how
it's the President's fault. Well, if you didn't like his balanced
budget, why didn't you <referring to Congress, particularly Democratic
leaders> just pass a balanced budget yourselves, huh???

We've been down this path before. BOTH the executive and legislative
branches are culpable.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7548 alt.politics.homosexuality:6266
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:03:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.225418.7322@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:

>Rap is still very racially motivated.  If a white guy (such as Vanilla
>Ice) wants to "sing" rap songs, he has to make a big deal about his
>whiteness ("Go white boy! Go white boy!", etc).  

I stated that most rap artist are black. But if you think that any form of
entertainment can gain the kind of popularity that rap now has without the
support of a significant % of whites then you need to take a couple of math
courses.

>If rap lyrics against drugs and violence actually had any effect, maybe
>it would be more appealing to me.  As it is, I can only see it as a way
>of defining "cool" black culture which we must all like otherwise we're
>instantly trailer-park bigots.

Now just how the hell can YOU tell if it is having any affect against drugs
or violence? If just one kid stays out of a gang or doesn't smoke that 1st
pipe of crack, then how can you say it isn't having an affect? As far as
"you must like rap to be cool"--The only one[reportly]to say this is some
moron you said you were talking to. HHmmmmm what do we call people that will
believe anything a moron tells them?

>I don't like it.  I also don't like movies with titles like "White men
>can't jump" which we whities are supposed to laugh at (as in: "Oh ha ha!
>Isn't it true!?  Aren't white men the most incoordinated, clumsy pieces of
>outdated machinery that there every was!").  What's with the double 
>standard?  Why can't we have a movie called "Black men can't read"?  Even
>"Black men can't play marbles" would be against the unwritten laws but
>we're supposed to find "White men can't jump" funny?!?!  It's disgusting.
>
>Abolish racism IN ALL IT'S FORMS!

I'm certainly all for it. But let's get real. There are cultural differences
between the races. There are cultural differences between people of similar
races. I say let's not pertend they're not there but instead look closely at 
each one. There's somthing to be learned by all of them. If you really want to 
abolish racism IMHO you should start with the problem you have with your own
color.


Stan Knight
|"Turn that crap down!" ---Just about ever parent in the modern age---|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 19:21:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.161633.15637@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>AIDS research gets MORE money than ANY other disease in america!  You 
>queer crybabies whining about research money are losing the sympathy 
>of normal americans.  What will you do when we finally say "Shut the 
>hell up or we will take all research money away and put it towards 
>finding a cure for `white-male' diseases like heart disease and 
>cancer!"

This appeared in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle in an article by
Marlene Cimons of the LA Times about Magic Johnson quiting the AIDS
commission.

In disputing Johnson's claims of the administration inaction on AIDS,
(Deputy White House press secretary Judy) Smith said that the
administration has proposed spending $4.9 billion on AIDS in fiscal
1993, up from $4.3 billion in fiscal 1992--"and that's more than on
any other disease except for cancer."

It is accurate that only cancer is financed at a higher level than
AIDS.  However, the AIDS numbers used by the administration have
consistently included Medicare and Medicaid payments, which are
typically not taken into account when totaling the figures for other
diseases.

Actual AIDS spending for research, education and treatment is now
about $2 billion.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.145222.18647@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>That was a very good post.  Just when I thought you might be some
>closed-minded jerk, you go and spoil it for me.  I've always defined
>liberal as someone concerned with individual rights, so in many cases I
>find myself defending the label "liberal". 

Yes, the term liberal as in liberty etc.  I too like some aspects of 
classic (non-modern)liberalism involving individual rights.  What I object
to today is the proliferation of a "rights industry" which says that it
is for individual rights yet they only apply rights to certain groups.

>In reality, these labels do
>not effectively describe *my* political views.  I do not believe in the
>Webster's definition of conservative (resisting change) in most cases,
>and believe in the Webster's definition of liberal (nothing about tax
>and spend in there).  Yet, I find myself jumping across the fence on
>most issues, and I assume that most people also feel restricted by these
>labels.
>
>I believe in:	     General Consensus
>Term limits		(cons)

Yup, that's one that came back to bite conservatives - just like the liberals
reliance on judicial review to accomplish their goals, they will one day
find that he who lives by J.R. dies by J.R.

>RTKABA			(cons)

An individual right.

>Waiting period		(lib)

I don't think this unreasonable but I am suspicious of the goals of those
who push these measures into law.

>Welfare reform		(cons)
>Aid to cities		(lib)
>Federal Health care	(lib)
>Family values		(cons)
>Moral obligations	(cons)
>Lowering the deficit	(lib) -- GHWB ignores except during elections

I disagree, both are interested in this but have different approaches to
the solution.  One is to raise taxes and the the other to reduce spending.
It is interesting to note that the revenues to the Treasury doubled during
the period from 1980 to 1990 - the problem is not that the rich got richer
at the expense of the country but rather that the Congress spent to much
money at the expense of the country.

>Gay rights 		(lib) -- the right to be left alone

True to a certain point, but the Gay rights movement extends beyond the
privacy of one's own home and I am not certain that it is as simple as 
some believe.

>First half abortions	(lib) -- legal, but restricted somewhat
>States rights		(both) - abortion (con)  other (lib)
>Peaceful coexist.	(lib) -- see GHWB policy

Inside or outside our borders?

>Environmentism		(lib)

How about, radical environmentalism (lib) and rational env (cons)?
I mean, everyone is for clean water.

>Development		(cons)
>Kemp			(cons)
>Gore			(lib)
>Capital punishment	(cons)
>
>The list goes on.  What party am I supposed to belong to?

You sound like an independent!

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: One of Clinton's 128 "Tax" Increases
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:29:02 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep25.183205.25866@dbsun.uucp>, harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:
> In article <1992Sep24.101249.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> Thanks for pointing out the NY Times list.  You're right -- I
>> do not see the change-of-sex fee on this list.  The media (specifically,
>> the New Republic) displays its "quest for accuracy" once again!
> 
> If you are going to blame TNR for the mistake in your original article,
> please cite the issue and page where the claim was made.  I subscribe
> to TNR and read every issue cover to cover (except the art and book
> reviews).  I read Kinsley's article on the Bush campaign's tax list,
> and he made no reference to a change-of-sex fee.  He did (accurately)
> point out a license fee of $500 for abortion clinics.

     Before you blame me for not providing a citation, read the
original post!  I said it was in the October 5, 1992 issue.
I did not include the page number, so here it is: page 9.
It is in the first column, entitled "128 AND COUNTING."
 
> I've seen no reference to a change-of-sex fee in any other TNR article.
> Perhaps you got your facts confused.  It happens to the best of us, but
> it is unfair to blame the error on TNR.
> 
> -- 
> *realName: Phil Harbison
> *mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
> *phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)

     I'm so sorry for being confused and unfair.  Please forgive me.  
I'll try to do better next time.  Just give me another chance.  
Please oh please oh please...  :-)

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:32:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.145356.22332@cs.wm.edu> jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.181450.27998@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Come on folks.  Do Clinton supporters think Clinton would not have
>>signed the 1990 tax/spend agreement?  What?  He would have too?  Then
>>you don't get to criticize Bush for doing so.
>>
>Sorry Andy, but please recall a famous statement "Read my lips, No New
>Taxes..."

So?  He lied.  Would Clinton have signed too?  Yes?  Then all you get
to complain about is the lie, not the spending.

>At least Clinton doesn't hide the fact that he will probably
>have to raise taxes...

Considering that he's promising even more spending than Bush
has dreamed of....

BTW - The by-Clinton promised taxes don't come close to covering the
promised spending.  What a deal: we get to choose between Clinton
can't do budgeting, he's hiding a lot of taxes too, or he's lying.  So
much for being different than Bush.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:23:29 GMT

In article <qa7evrc@zola.esd.sgi.com> erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune) writes:
>Take a ride on the clue bus, bozos.   
>
>AIDS is now the #1 killer of men and the #5 killer of women age 25-44 
>in the city.

Here's another clue - what do those numbers "mean"?

For example, is being the #5 killer only half as bad as being the #4
killer or 90% as bad?  What?  You can't tell without knowing some
numbers that Fortune left out?

Fine - then let's consider what being the #1 killer means.  Apart
from being worse than the #2 killer, what do we know?  What?  Again
you need to know more numbers that Fortune left out?

It doesn't take much to be a ranked killer of 25-44 year olds.  There
aren't many other diseases that kill people in that age range (they're
too old for children's diseases and too young to die of traditional
chronic diseases) and those people have lived through most of their
accident and violence prone years so there aren't many unnatural
competitors either.

There are good arguments showing that AIDS is important.  Use them
instead of bogus ones, even if you do hear the latter on AM radio.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Making "I've got a bomb in my backpack" jokes
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:20:03 GMT

In article <90800@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) writes:
>costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN) writes:
>>	Really, if you want to do comedy, try stand-up in a nightclub.
>>	When the lives of over 300 people depend on YOU not leting a
>>	maniac with a bomb or what have you on the plane, you take it
>>	seriously when someone announces  that he's carrying a gun in
>>	his luggage. Don't ask me why, it's one of those 'funny' things
>>	of modern life.
>
>Wrong.  Security is perfectly correct to take it seriously but it is a
>violation of my right to free speech to outlaw my joke.  If I make the
>joke, I am guilty of poor taste but not of any reasonable definition
>of a crime.  Such a joke is a crime only because the government has
>defined it to be a crime.  I have, however, given Security due cause
>to search me.
>

As such poor taste can endanger everyone at the airport at the time,
it's logical to treat a threat (even a bluff ... meant to be humorous)
as a criminal act.  Through such a joke you can create panic.  You
force security to search you, thereby reducing the staff that can
check other passengers and thus increasing the odds that a true
terrorist can slip by security.  You create "false alarms" reducing
the seriousness of airport security.  The government defines such
statements as crimes, because they damage society.  

Note:  every crime is a crime because government passes a law defining
it as a crime.  So, I could as easily say, murder is a crime because
government has defined it as a crime.  


John D.