HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:20:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.210232.27262@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>From article <1992Oct12.201231.13585@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao):
>> In article <1992Oct12.184202.25368@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>
>[...]
>>>Did he participate in any demonstrations in the US?  If not, its somewhat
>>>like smiling to someones face, but talking behind their back.  
>>>
>>>'I'll do my demonstrating over hear in England where no one will see, and it 
>>>won't damage my political viabiltity.'
>>>
>>>SEH
>> 
>>   No son, you don't do your "demonstrating" where no one will see. You do
>> things like masturbating where no one will see.   *-)
>>   
>>   Frankly, I don't understand it either why one can not demonstrate in 
>> England when in England. Do you suggest that to be correct one has to 
>> come back to US to demonstrate here first then go there to demonstrate ?
>> Well, at least you are a little less rigid than the Bush campaign's 
>> understanding of the consititution. Thanks for giving us that revised 
>> freedom of speech . I hope you don't too much more of Bush's idea later.
                                      GET 
>> 
>
>Okay pops.  Just tell me where I said anything about what should be
>legal.  And while you're at it, explain what the hell your last sentence
>means.
 
  Okay son, where did I ask you about what is legal ? :-) 
  You have learned too much from the Bush Campaign. They start some smear
or innuendo, and then say, "we didn't say that".
  So, SEH, did you say the following ?

>>>Did he participate in any demonstrations in the US?  If not, its somewhat
>>>like smiling to someones face, but talking behind their back.  
>>>
>>>'I'll do my demonstrating over hear in England where no one will see, and it 
>>>won't damage my political viabiltity.'
>>>
>>>SEH

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Tax Numbers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:32:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.164709.12355@ll.mit.edu> ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba) writes:

>|> below Clinton's 200,000). Applying Clinton's tax plan to the top 5%
>|> will only yeild $21 billion in new taxes.

>   $21 billion/year * 5 years = $105 billion.  

And over ten years it is $210 billion. So what?

>Plus, he expects to get a
>similar amount, if not much more, from making foreign corporations pay up
>their due, and close some other glaring loopholes.  

He is overstating the amounts but fine, toss it in as well. It is still
far far short of his promise.

>The $150 billion in
>new spending and tax incentives (like *targeted* capital-gains cuts) are
>for 5 years (or maybe four).  

This is incorrect. Clinton is promising new spending of $150 billion per
year. In addition, he is promissing to cut the deficit in half. Doing
this will cost another $150 billion per year. Even using Clinton's
rosy numbers on foreign companies and assuming he breaks his promise
and taxes the top 5% instead of 2%, he is still a quarter trillion
$$ short. Where does the rest of it come from?

But please remember that the figures are annual figures, not figures
over 5 years. 

This estimate also ignores the fact that for every $1 in new taxes
collected over the past 12 years, Congress spends an additional $1.25 
so Clinton's tax plan will add another $50 billion to the deficit.

Using higher taxes to reduce the deficit is like using gasoline to put out
a fire.

>The numbers are a tad optimistic overall,

Come on now, they're freaking impossible.

>on the whole the plan is by far the best shot.

Bush's proposed federal freeze in our best shot. If government spent no
more today than it did in 1986, there would be no deficit today. If we
simply freeze total spending today, we will have a balanced budget
in 5-8 years.

Bush's proposed 10% box on your income tax form is another way. The WSJ
has reported that if everybody checked that box every year, the budget
will be balanced in 7 years.

>   Hell, even my father-in-law, who hasn't voted Democratic since Kennedy,
>is voting for Clinton.  

Ask him to do the math and see if it still looks like a good idea. I wonder
how he will feel when he sees his higher taxes going to pork for somebody's
district with no reduction in the deficit?

>He wants his daughter to be able to get a job once she finishes college

I think he is in for a rude suprise.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: BRAVES WIN!!! (oh yeah, Bush stuff too)
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:32:26 GMT

In article <casey.719241678@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu> casey@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Kenneth H Casey) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu!casey
>From: casey@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Kenneth H Casey)
>Subject: Re: BRAVES WIN!!! (oh yeah, Bush stuff too)
>Message-ID: <casey.719241678@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu>
>Sender: news@noose.ecn.purdue.edu (USENET news)
>Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
>References: <1992Oct14.235717.4819@desire.wright.edu> <casey.719166307@snail.ecn.purdue.edu> <PA146008.388.719177782@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Date: 16 Oct 92 13:21:18 GMT
>Lines: 9
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>>     What a novel concept.
>
>>     Does this mean that if the economy helps Clinton get elected when can
>>blame him for it?
>
>The economy and George Bush is helping Clinton get elected.
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^
 
     So we can blame Clinton for George Bush, too?  :-)

  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10603 talk.politics.misc:51970
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: BRAVES WIN!!! (oh yeah, Bush stuff too)
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:57:16 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	If <1992Oct14.173311.4899@msi.com>, rme@msi.com (Richard M. Emberson)
is the typical Clintonite, then we are in deep trouble:

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Exploit Racism.
>
>Re-elect George Horton Willie Bush.

	Al "did not" Gore was first to bring up dear old Willie, during the
primaries.  George never referred to Willie by name, nor did he use Willie's
picture.  If you are looking for racism, look no further than Al "did not"
Gore.

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1980's, the largest transfer of wealth from the middle and lower class to the upper class in the US
>this century.

	Another lie.  Check the "Derailing" series for more info.

	Geeze, they're coming out of the woodwork.

	NEWSFLASH!  BRAVES WIN!  BRAVES WIN!

	THE NEXT WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS: BRAVES!!

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Gore in the year 2000?
Date: 16 Oct 1992 21:20:46 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct14.201839.2532@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing) writes:
>Al Gore president in the year 2000 ?
>
>A very nice thought in a way, of course.  But the default assumption that it
>will be or even could be a male will seem, by the year 2000, as outrageous
>and embarrassingly outmoded a notion as, say, use of the term "Negro" seems
>now.  
>
>To his credit, Vice-President Gore himself will perhaps have been to some
>small degree a contributor to that change.  But let's be realistic -- and
>honor in advance what's surely coming.
>
>And [here visualise Gore saying this]:  "We can hardly wait."
>
>Ken Willing   <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
>Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia

Barbara Boxer in the year 2000!

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:21:37 GMT

In article <Bw458J.M7y@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.065620.27314@Princeton.EDU> David Marc Nieporent writes:

>>The Presidency is *not* an on-the-job learning experience.

>>Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   

>Anyone else notice this contradiction?  

>If you really mean what you say here, you have no choice but to vote 
>for Bush (or Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon).

No.  Whether or not you like Clinton's proposals, you can't call him
inexperienced.  He has been an executive for 12 years, including the
last 10 in a row.  He has the longest tenure of any current governor.
He was voted the nation's most effective governor by the other 49
governors.

>Or did you mean that Clinton won't learn anything while in office?
>(that must be it!)

Unlike George Bush or Ross Perot, Bill Clinton already *knows* what he
wants to do.  

Ross Perot is out there saying "we're going to develop plans."  He published 
a book saying "we're going to cut health care costs by this amount 
($170 billion, I believe).  But then later in the book it turns out he
says "we'll consult with experts about a health care plan."  If he
hasn't got the plan yet, how does he know how much money he can save?

George Bush is saying "I'm not going to send ground forces to Bosnia
without knowing what their mission is." Aside from the fact that this is a 
straw man -- Bill Clinton suggested bombing, not invading -- we have to 
wonder what George Bush is waiting for.  Why hasn't *he* come up with the 
objective for the mission?  Does he think it's supposed to drop from the sky 
into his lap?   It's only been going on for half a year.  I guess we
can't expect him to figure it out, yet.

Only Bill Clinton actually gets around to thinking about these things.
Bush is so embarrassed, he has to send his spin doctors out there to
criticize Clinton for having 4 or 5 point plans for everything. Isn't
that a *good* thing?
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:28:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.184649.21229@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>By itself, a trip to Moscow is no problem.  Set against the context of
>Clinton's various mis-statements and bouts of selective memory, I'd 
>say that his failure to "remember" what he did there is somewhat telling.
>In general, I'd like to know what specific principles guided Clinton in
>his opposition to the Vietnam war during that period, and how he feels 
>about those principles today.  A lot of the anti-war movement centered
>on the idea that Communism was a legitimate expression of popular will
>among the people of southeast Asia.

*oh no not again!*  I actually knew a few people in the anti-war
movement who believed this; I even knew one anti-war protester
who (I learned later) was being paid by a front agency for
Soviet intelligence.  The OVERWHELMING majority of protesters
I knew was "centered" on the idea that the Vietnam War was
an ill-conceived (i.e., stupid) policy of the US Government.

>Did Clinton believe this?  How does 
>he feel today?  I guess I'd say that the Moscow trip (and his failure
>to come clean about what he did there) symbolizes the doubts of many
>people about being able to trust Clinton, and about his capacity to act
>effectively as commander in chief.

>
>Notice how he waffled on the Iraq war.  Does he have what it takes to stand
>up to world tyrants?

waffle (v):  to sell arms to a tyrant one day, and fight a 
war against him the next day.

>What would his reaction be to, say for example, Chinese
>military pressure against Taiwan?  

Something stronger than the Bushman's reaction to
the suppression of democracy in China, I imagine.

>I guess in a nutshell, I don't think I know what principles guide this man
>when it comes to making tough foreign policy decisions.  He sometimes _talks_
>a good game, but many of his actions, statements, and mis-statements lead me
>to doubt the value of his word.

I can understand (sorta) when someone supports GHWB because of
a belief that his policies are better for the USA than
those of Clinton, Perot, Merrou, et al.  It totally baffles
me when someone supports GHWB (with over twenty years
of deceit and evasions on his public record) because
of Clinton's weak "character".

>Roger Shouse
>The University of Chicago


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: sunder@sor.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Date: 14 Oct 1992 20:31:10 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sor.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1bhsilINNous@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
|> The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
|> due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
|> of his billions last year. 
|> 
|> Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!

Nope, not an insider. Just a smart investor. Just wait until rates go up again
with Clinton/Gore and watch the money flowing into every tax-shelter that there
is. 

Tax AVOIDANCE is different from tax EVASION. One is a sign of a bent tax code,
the other of a bent mind.


|> Timothy B. Reynolds


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:25:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.204759.25725@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.122145.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>Make that two Simon. No, we are not alone, but these "free speech" liberals
>>will try and beat you down and make you feel as if your ideas and beliefs are
>>worthless. Don't back down Simon. _We_ will win in the end. After all,
>>Conservatives are in the *Right*! :)
>>Disclaimers. Disclaimers
>>
>>
>>"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
>> a Fools heart to the Left."
>
>Bush, being left-handed, must be just as much a fool :-)
>
>Are British and Japanese drivers foolish?
>
>Dick Schofield is a wiser hitter than Ted Williams?
>
>
>--
>"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."

Ah, but Clinton and Perot are also left-handed.

On a related note, I mentioned to a co-worker a few weeks ago that
the next president would be left-handed as Bush, Clinton, and even
Perot were lefties.
He responded, "Are you sure about that?  {pause}  What about Quayle?"
A look of terror passed over my face and a silent scream was running
through my mind.  After about a minute I regained my composure and
said, "Don't do that to me!!!"


patricia


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:31:44 GMT

skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:

>The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
>due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
>of his billions last year. 
>Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!

I don't suppose you know why?  Of course not.  You just know how to 
complain.  If you are too ignorant or lazy to do enough homework on 
Perot to know why he paid that much in taxes, they lay off.  There
is a LOT of information on Perot out there - including DETAILED info
on his wealth.  Go look it up.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mister rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Bill
X-Xxdate: Thu, 8 Oct 92 23:33:20 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:33:20 GMT

In article <7OCT199215035365@gergo.tamu.edu> Dave Martin,
dave@gergo.tamu.edu writes:
>}I'm willing to bet anyone who wants to that my rates will increase
>}for the same service now that the gov'ment has their fingers in it.
>} 
>}Any takers?
>
>No, I don't believe the rates will increase because of the government.
>Now, they probably WILL increase in many areas before the regulation goes
>into effect -- here in Bryan/College Station, TCA Cable (the ones who
made
>national news by dropping MTV without asking the subscribers for opinions
>just to inform the subscribers that MTV could be blocked) just sent out a
>letter to all subscribers stating that they were raising the monthly cost

[diatribe about TX aggie cable raising rates and not even asking the
aggies what stations (like cartoon network) they REALLY want]

>complain to the bcast stations. 


my heart bleeds ( <--sarcasm )
try turning off the tube and studying.

consider the cost of cable TV service. (provider established)
consider the value of cable TV service. (customer defined criteria)
if (value >= cost)
  pay for service
  receive service
  don't bitch
elseif (your criteria here = .true.)
  pay for service
  receive service
  bitch and cancel if poor quality continues
elseif (your criteria here = .false.)                   ; my favourite
  don't pay for service
  don't receive service
  bitch (say you'll hook up when (value >= cost))
else                                                    ; my second
favourite
  don't pay for service
  don't receive service
  don't bitch
end

at the risk of boring the intellectual aggie by repeating myself
>we have no right to good tv service. we have no right to 
>good tv. we have no right to tv. if you don't want the 
>particular cable company that your area provides to service 
>your home, no one makes you pay for it. if you don't like 
>what's on, turn it off.

if you can't justify paying $19.50/mo when you don't even get
the cartoon channel, cancel service.

-------------
mister rogers
-------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: blood
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:36:15 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
: How much blood do I have in my body? Lots?
: 	Take a little. There. It's only a mosquito bite. It will grow back.
: You need it. It's ok.
: 	Why are you still drinking? Have I not given you blood to solve
: your problem?
: 	What? Your friend wants a drink? Well...Ok. Only another mosquito
: bite...
[...]

I think that our friend has finally begun to lose it....

: 	Drive a stake through the hearts of the vampires; eliminate
: the leeching Democrat party.

I must admit.  This is the most creative senseless bashing I've seen
in a long time, and one of the few articles that have come across these
groups that really takes thought to understand.

I don't like the message, but I have to give it a 9.7 (out of 10) for
presentation.  :-)
--
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