HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: unrzc7@daphne.rrze.uni-erlangen.de (THOMAS LUBANSKI)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Organization: Rechenzentrum Erlangen
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:12:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.034955.11642@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>        I lov it! Once again you Democrats, liberals, basically
>cowardly scum of the Earth once again make a personal attack on
>an opposing viewpoint! What is this, Krystalnacht?  Who are the 
>fascists!  Attack me personally, you damned dogs of scum and cowardice,
>and I will take you ALL to your graves!

Me liberal, you dumb. (Did you get that or was that to complicated for 
what's left of your brain?)
 

>                                        John Peter Wagner
>P.S. Pardon the bellicosity. 

Nope, I don't. 

Thomas

"What would Janna say about it?"


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8028 alt.politics.bush:7376 alt.politics.elections:14819
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: socialism (was B isa MF)
Date: 1 Oct 1992 15:39:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette) says:
>
>I recalled this stuff from a article I read in the LA Times about six
>months ago.  The article was concerned with gov't housing and medical
>care programs in Europe, and how many countries are rethinking them.  I
>screwed up on the country , but I'm pretty sure I remember the figures
>correctly.  Anybody know which country (in Europe) fits?

Maybe you were thinking of someplace like Roumania or Albania. I know _I_ 
always get them mixed up with Sweden.

>
>Matt
>--
>mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov
>
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jbaumgar@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James E Baumgardner)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:10:15 GMT


Guys, please.  This is a political forum, not a forum for "social life 
comparisons."  Insults can be thrown in many other places, not here on 
InterNet.
-- 
"People who live with their head up their a__ see the same s___ every day."
"Wait, isn't this proof obvious?  Of course it is, this is Number Theory!!"

James E. Baumgardner, II               (jbaumgar@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8008 talk.politics.misc:48875
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Build that wall, Bill & Al!  Excellent.   NOT!
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:06:40 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	Clinton and Gore have lined up on the anti-NAFTA side of the coin,
spreading protectionist fear and xenophobic hatred in their wake.

	Smoot-Hawley, anyone?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8024 talk.politics.misc:48896 alt.rush-limbaugh:6312 alt.politics.bush:7372 alt.politics.elections:14816
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:52:22 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Sep29.191810.18502@anasazi.com> you write:
>Individual rights do not supercede the good of society either.  It is the
>question of the private good versus the common good.  That both Conservatives
>and Liberals make this value judgement is inarguable, the question is
>on which side do they most often stand.
>
>  [much intelligent discourse deleted]
>
>Mike Best

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". 

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)
RTKABA			(cons)
Waiting period		(lib)
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
Gay rights 		(lib) -- the right to be left alone
First half abortions	(lib) -- legal, but restricted somewhat
States rights		(both) - abortion (con)  other (lib)
Peaceful coexist.	(lib) -- see GHWB policy
Environmentism		(lib)
Development		(cons)
Kemp			(cons)
Gore			(lib)
Capital punishment	(cons)

The list goes on.  What party am I supposed to belong to?
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: incumbent
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:52:56 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

If you're not voting for Clinton, you're really voting for Bush.

There is only one incumbent.  There are lots of non-incumbent candidates.  But
if the incumbent gets the pluarlity, he stays in office.

Non-votes help the incumbent, too.

If you're not voting for Clinton, you're voting for Bush.










p.s.  If you want Bush, that's your right.  Let's avoid clogging this thread
with defenses of him, though.




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: George "Tax And Spend" Bush
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.181450.27998@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.235401.2769@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

[...stuff deleted...]

>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 ....)
>

They come closer than Bush's plans for increased spending and tax
cuts...

>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..." At least Clinton doesn't hide the fact that he will probably
have to raise taxes...with Bush its more spending and lower
taxes...hmmm just where is this money supposed to come from? If the
past few years are any indication, then he'll just increase the
national debt, and make interest payments on it more than the current
20% of the budget...


>-andy
>--
>UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu


John

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7914 alt.politics.bush:7276
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: <None>
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:44:53 GMT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

In article <1992Sep28.235401.2769@Warren.MENTORG.COM>, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
> You can play with numbers all you want.  "New taxes" can be defined as
> just about anything.  That subject has already been covered here over
> and over.  It seems that most of Clinton's "new taxes" were cases where
> one tax was split into two but the same $$$ was collected.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> I think the real question to ask is, "Am I paying more taxes now then I
> was 12 years ago?"  I can't answer that because 12 years ago I wasn't
> out of college yet.
> 
> 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)
> 
> If you want to look at real dollars (adjusted for inflation) you get
> the same answer.  They were better off THEN.
> 
> Who is the "TAX AND SPEND" president?  I say it was Bush.
> 
> I suggest everyone do the same kind of research.
> 
> Tom
> 
> P.S.  I really wonder what kind of flames this will get.  Unless they
> claim to have broken into my parent's tax records, I'm going to be very
> surprized at their reply.
> 
> -- 
> Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
> "I like Bill Clinton tremendously.  I know him from the governors' conferences.
> The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow.  The country is
> well served by that choice." -Bush's re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
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: Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:13:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.162334.14459@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Please Dave, educate me about the true nature of the problem.  Please 
>include your understanding of the facts that the surest way to avoid 
>AIDS is to avoid promiscuity (esp. gay sex) and needle swapping.
>
>Safe sex is only one thing...sex...it is not safe.

This is not true.  Safe sex can indeed be safe.  Once again, I'll
point out the example of mutual masturbation with many partners.  As
long as there is no exchange of body fluids, there is no possibility
of infection.  There is also digital (using latex gloves) penetration
of the vagina and/or anus, oral sex using condoms and/or dental dams,
etc.  "Safer" sex includes vaginal and/or anal intercourse using
condoms.

This assumption that only drug addicts and promiscuous gay men get
AIDS is wrong and can be deadly.  You only need your one-and-only to
have had sex with one person infected with HIV to be at risk.  Think
about that.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: joel@locus.com (Joel Lilienkamp)
Subject: Re: The Clinton Legacy RE:George "Tax and Spend" Bush
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 20:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.162714.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>True he balanced his budget BUT HE HAD A FUCKING LAW THAT MADE HIM DO SO!!!!!

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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8014 talk.politics.misc:48888
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Build that wall, Bill & Al!  Excellent.   NOT!
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:58:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	Clinton and Gore have lined up on the anti-NAFTA side of the coin,
>spreading protectionist fear and xenophobic hatred in their wake.
>

Interesting that Perot seems to be against NAFTA also. During his press
conference Tuesday, he pointed out that one needs to be careful in
opening up free trade with a country with worker's wages at $1 per hour,
especially considering the current unstable economic and job situation.
Also, he said that free trade with China would be a "one-way street."

NAFTA advocates are fond of stating how many jobs are created by exports.
But what will we be exporting -- products,  or jobs and manufacturing base?

BTW, instead of the assertion that NAFTA opponents are trying to "crawl
into a hole," isn't a better analogy that NAFTA proponents are
advocating crawling *out* of a time-honored hole (when there may be machine
machine guns out there)?

The question is not one of should we erect a wall, but should we tear
one down, and what would be the opportune time to do so.

---
Joe Knapp      jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8053 talk.abortion:39786 alt.politics.elections:14841
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton on 24-Hour Waiting Period
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:37:43 GMT
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Oct1.194726.6978@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     Something from the October 1992 Reader's Digest (page 63):
>>
>>READER'S DIGEST: Do you favor legislation like the Pennsylvania
>>statute that requires a 24-hour waiting period to have an
>>abortion and parental consent for minors?
>>
>>CLINTON: I favor parental notice but not a parental consent
>>requirement.  I have no problem with a 24-hour waiting period,
>>as long as it is not an undue burden on low-income people
>>who travel long distances in states where abortions are
>>performed only in one or two places.
>>
>>I thought Clinton was against the 24-hour waiting period (in
>>theory, of course) based on his reaction to the Supreme
>>Court decision for that statute.  Has this always been his
>>position?  Just wondering...
>>
>>     C. Perttunen
>
>From _Putting People First_, p. 170:
>
>      - Oppose any federal attempt to limit access to abortion 
>        through mandatory waiting periods or parental or spousal
>        consent requirements; support state efforts to require some
>        form of adult counseling or consultation for underage girls
>        who choose to have an abortion -- as long as workable and
>        effective judicial bypass provisions are attached to such laws.
>
>So he seems to make a distinction between federal and state efforts.
>---

	Not necessarily. He may mean a state could have a 24-hour waiting
period as long as there are enough abortion centers to effectively cover
the Rural Areas. This would be possible in many of the states with a large
population or a small size.
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:38:00 GMT

Subject:  AUTOMATED CLINTON/GORE MAIL SERVICE
 
 Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans 
 into the American political process -- for the good of our country.  
 At this critical time in our country's history it is imperative that 
 we all do everything in our power to make our system work.  
 
 We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century 
 democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the 
 internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send 
 your comments and ideas back to us.
 

 To learn more, send mail to the automated Clinton/Gore mail server 
 
    clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org



 RECEIVE THE LATEST SPEECHES:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info speeches" to the mail server, 
 you will receive all the latest Clinton/Gore speeches as soon as 
 they come on-line.


 RECEIVE ALL AVAILABLE POSITION PAPERS:
 
 If you send the Subject line "info all" to the mail server at, 
 you will receive the full set of Clinton/Gore position papers.


 QUERY THE CANIDATES -- INTERNET POLL:
 
 If you have a question for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 question to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "question propose".  

 Send the Subject line "question get" to get the current numbered 
 list of questions.  

 Send the Subject line "question vote <X Y>" to vote for questions 
 number <X> and <Y>.  For example, you would send the SUBJECT line 
 "question vote 3" to vote for question number 3.

 Each week the questions with the most votes will be forwarded to 
 Little Rock.

 
 SEND YOUR SUGGESTIONS & COMMENTS

 If you have a suggestion for Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then send your
 suggestion to the mail server ("clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org")
 with the Subject line "suggest propose".  

 Send the Subject line "suggest get" to get the current numbered 
 list of suggestions.  

 Send the Subject line "suggest vote <a b c>" to vote for suggestions 
 number <a>, <b>, and <c>.  For example, you would send the Subject 
 line "suggest vote 18 4" to vote for suggestions 18 and 4.
 

 The questions, suggestions, and the campaign's responses will be 
 posted to the network.  You can help redistribute this and other 
 information by sending the Subject line "volunteer email distr" 
 to the mail server at

 clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org
 


 Clinton/Gore '92
 Volunteer Email Effort
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Economics: Clinton camp: 0
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:05:08 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	Well, I see that no one has responded to the 'Derailing the Reagan
Revolution' series (at least from this group :).

	Confirming previous hypothesis that Clinton supporters, by definition,
know nothing about economics.

:) That should trigger a response

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7259 talk.politics.misc:47948 alt.rush-limbaugh:5882 alt.politics.bush:6719
From: bunt0003@student.tc.umn.edu (Monthian Buntan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 26 Sep 92 07:08:56 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

I have one more point about Iraq.
The Bush administration failed to tell the whole
truth to the American people why they went to war with Iraq.
The whole truth that started from 1890 until Sadam invaded
what used to be part of Iraq but taken away by greedy western emperialist.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 29 Sep 1992 03:14:10 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

I used to think I knew my poltical leanings.

After reading this thread for awhile I am totally confused. I think
I could be labeled anything from reactionary to radical.

Perhaps it doesn't matter. I have no trouble deciding which posts I agree
with and which I don't. 

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:26:27 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep27.222558.17094@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> I can afford bus fare, no proble there, but I don't know how muc longer
|> I can afford the physical stress of just trying to get around.  I can't
|> stand for more than a few minutes ata tme, and yet I routinely have to stand
|> at the bus stops and on the buses when the seats are full.  That, combined
|> with the long walks involved, mean that I'm exhausted by the time I arrive
|> at school in the morning, and then when I repeat all this on the way home
|> my back is still hurting hours aftr I've gotten home.  WThere's this attitude
|> held by alot of people that those who gripe about public transit are just lazy
|> slobs.  Well, last time I checked my back problem was very real, usually though
|> I keep quiet about it, despite the difficulties.

Is there some kind of program in San Antonio for picking up disabled
people?  Maybe you would qualify for something like that?

-- 
John Iacoletti       IBM AWD Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"It takes a big man to cry.  And it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
                                                              -- Jack Handey
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7397 tx.politics:5697
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 28 Sep 1992 01:22:02 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <19spqdINNfd2@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <21618@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

#down until they reach upper middle class.  That's if you take INCOME.  Why
#don't we look at what the poor give if you include GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS.  The
#government gives the average family $5,000 per year - rich or poor.

>This $5000 average has never been explained or justified in a posting.
>Even supposing that it is  correct as an average, where is the evidence
>that it is uniform?

I figured out the $5000. It's the total Federal budget (1+ Tril)
divided by the population. So we find another "Haugh-arithmetic"
meaningless number. Why should the money spent on (say) defense, someone
else's pension, or Dan Quayle's salary be charged as a charity benefit to
the poor? No reason, really.

Incidentally, there's no reason to think that each family benefits
equally out of this $5000. Sure, some families benefit more from the
food stamp part, but other families benefit more from the FBI part.

andy

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: KILL THE RICH!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:25:58 GMT


I can afford bus fare, no proble there, but I don't know how muc longer
I can afford the physical stress of just trying to get around.  I can't
stand for more than a few minutes ata tme, and yet I routinely have to stand
at the bus stops and on the buses when the seats are full.  That, combined
with the long walks involved, mean that I'm exhausted by the time I arrive
at school in the morning, and then when I repeat all this on the way home
my back is still hurting hours aftr I've gotten home.  WThere's this attitude
held by alot of people that those who gripe about public transit are just lazy
slobs.  Well, last time I checked my back problem was very real, usually though
I keep quiet about it, despite the difficulties.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8504 alt.politics.bush:7739 alt.politics.marrou:1426 alt.politics.correct:5603