HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Re: Debate 2: "Please state your position on Term Limits..."
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:57:39 GMT

In <Bw89Et.IDv@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

>On the other hand, I don't hear any suggestions from Clinton.
>Does he have any, or is he really just the "status-quo candidate"?

You must not have been watching the debate last night.  Clinton opposed
term limits, claiming that such laws would increase the power of
non-elected officials in Washington, and he went on to propose mandatory
debates like the ones we (some of us anyway) saw last night, strict
financial expenditure laws, limits on franking and other privileges that
make incumbents less vulnerable to losing elections.

You may disagree with what he said. But he did say it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: susanh@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Susan Highlander)
Subject: ALLCU (?)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:04:08 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

Can anyone tell me what the term "ALLCU" is? I have heard it in connection
with Perot, but have no idea what it is. I was told it is pronounced 
"Ashu", so I'm assuming it's not an acronym, but a name or word in another
language. Email me if you have any clues what this means. Thanks.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51196 alt.politics.elections:16312
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:21:16 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

> 
> 
> One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
> economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
> independent of who is President and what he does.  A Clinton/Gore win
> in 1992 will lead to
> 
>      Clinton/Gore in 1996
> 
>      Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)
> 
>      Gore/Braun in 2004
> 
> I think 2008 is still up for grabs.
> 
> -- 
> Bob Munck


Wrong, Bush will get it this year, VERY, VERY close and then Kemp in '96.
Even if Clinton were to get it, with the Demo's in control of the White
House and the House and Senate it will be Carter all over again and it
again will go to Kemp. Kemp is the Republican the Democrates like best. I
forget which Demo. leader said that.

Ken
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> 1-800-FOR-BILL
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:10:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Oct16.200132.19210@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs106406@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs106406) writes:
>An anagram for you:
>
>TUESDAY, NOVEMBER THIRD ==> MANY VOTED, BUSH RETIRED
>
>Things that make you go hmmmm....



Another anagram
Clinton and Gore
Dont Clean Groin

-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:51:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.182411.24227@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.034616.29319@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>    >
>    >How about flat-bottomed paper bags, bullet-proof vests and
>    >Scotchgard? The dishwasher, the fire escape, AZT?
>    >
>    >Of course you can't.
>    >
>    >Why? Because these inventors are women, says historian Anne
>    >Macdonald. That's why they're hard to find in history books.
>    >Or in any books.
>
>Hmm -- I know the story of the invention, development, and marketing
>of the dish washer. And it was NOT by a woman.
>
Strike two!  The flat bottom paper bag was also not invented by a woman.  I
have the book, HOW SIMPLE THINGS ARE MADE, don't know by who, and the chapter
is titled simply, "Paper Bags"

Enjoy.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Remember to vote this election year,       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  you probably won't get another one. 
I don't claim them, they don't	|  
claim me.......			|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50569 ca.politics:8568 ba.politics:5984
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:04:28 GMT
	    <Bvs8IH.2Ks@unix.amherst.edu>
	    <12670@optilink.UUCP>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12670@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <Bvs8IH.2Ks@unix.amherst.edu>,
twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>> If Kinsey had included everyone *inclined* towards homosexuality, but
>> without same-gender sexual experiences, as well as people more towards
>> the "bisexual" areas of the spectrum, I would be surprised if this
>> figure were less than 30%!

>Yeah, right.  At the current rate of homosexual percentage inflation, expect
>any day now to find that I am the last heterosexual on Earth. :-)

From Kinsey 1948: 50% of males in the study expressed at least one homosexual
fantasy in their liftime.
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:41:47 GMT

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes ...
>If this bothers you, however, then chew on this for a moment - society is 
>already allowing hundreds of murders, if not thousands, to take place by
>allowing convicted murderers and other criminals to be paroled. Not all 
>parolees do kill which is why parole is allowed to continue. 

Indeed!  We should do all in our power to prevent all abortions AND
murders!  Throw EVERYONE in jail!  Take away all the coat hangers,
knives, pencils, guns, keys, and similarly nasty sharp and/or hard and
dangerous objects!  Remember that, since most muders are committed by
first-time offenders, EVERYONE is suspect!

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51656 alt.rush-limbaugh:7379 alt.politics.elections:16694 talk.abortion:42593
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: About this New On Tv Thread
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:09:31 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper



Is it just me, or does it seem like the Kiddies
Long for the Good Old Days of Getting Raw Footage
on the TV straight from Vietnam?

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52439 ca.politics:8723 ba.politics:6145
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: THIS ELECTION IS ILLEGIT!
Keywords: Candidates excluded from debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:03:14 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Al Date) writes:
|> 
|>          PROTEST UNFAIR ELECTION PROCESS
|> 
|> The arbitrary exclusion of certain candidates from supposedly objective
|> nonpartisan debates is a disgusting spectacle, and in my opinion,
|> it renders this election illegitimate.  

This is all based upon the incorrect premise that these were
non-partisan debates.  They were clearly bi-partisan debates with
an invitation to Ross Perot to join.

Any two candidates can chose to have a debate among themselves, they
can set the rules, and they can select the locations.  The media will
decide if the debate makes thier cutoff definition of news.
|> 
|> Those excluded include independents, Greens, Libertarians and others,
|> both on the national level, and on the state level.  

They did have a debate last night, but the media did not decide to 
carry it.
|>  
|> The ability of supposedly nonpartisan televised debates to steer
|> public opinion toward a tacit acceptance of the choices
|> presented therein is difficult to dispute.  The inherent unfairness of 
|> excluding a candidate who has equal presence on the
|> ballot is inescapable.  For example, Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
|> (Libertarian) are on the presidential/ vp ballot in all 50 states,
|> but are excluded from ALL public debates with the other three
|> national tickets.  
|> 
|> I call upon all those who care about fairness in the electoral
|> process to protest this "undemocracy" in any available public forum.
|> I also ask them to question, in their own minds, the legitimacy 
|> of this election.
|> 
"Undemocracy" is in the eye of the beholder.

This is an interesting dilemma.  The libertarians want to exclude
government interference, but they need the government to interfere
with the media and make them broadcast items for which they lack interest
or economic incentive.

I can tell you one thing.  If any of these parties puts together a $1
billion dollar war chest, Larry King and other media pimps will sell them
credibility and they will get invited to the next debates.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50525 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6554 alt.politics.elections:15809 talk.abortion:41590 alt.sex:32444 alt.politics.clinton:9352 alt.politics.bush:8374 soc.singles:27366 alt.politics.homosexuality:6391 talk.bizarre:33422
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing Concern
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:08:53 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:

>drieux writes:
>>
>>As has already been clearly Established,
>>If there is NO POTENTIAL FOR GESTATION
>>there can be NO SEX.
>
>I think this is an excellent definition, and I will fight for this to be
>made law.  Homosexuals will never be convicted of sex crimes, since they
>can't actually have sex.  I'll be able to tell my girlfriend's mother that
>we've never had sex, since we've always used condoms.  What's more, I can
>even claim that my girlfriend and I have been perfectly faithful.  Can I
>apply for the priesthood now?

Scott, if you think there's *no* potential for gestation if you
use condoms, you better repeat that sex ed class you slept through
a few years ago.

You would think a NASA person would have heard about "O-ring" failure...

8-)
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Followup-To: alt.test
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:35:47 GMT

Yet Another person writes...

In article <DSTEINBE.92Oct7170409@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <BvnGwt.5LC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>     First of all, no L.P. presidential candidate has ever exceeded 1%
>     of the vote, so even if Marrou/Lord are doing that well this year
>     and Perot is only doing 7% then Perot is still doing *7 times as
>     well* as Marrou/Lord!   I would say that this IS "much better".
>
>     Second, the polls I've seen show Perot to be in the 10-14% range.
>
>
>Coincidently enough, when Perot first re-entered the race, his supoort
>was about 1%.  Yeah, now he's up to 10-14%; maybe it has something to
>do with the hours of free advertising the press has been giving him...

Amazing.  All these people the past few days seem to be clever enough to
log in to their systems, they can figure out how to use a newsreader, they
even have opinions, but they can't seem to figure out how to edit the
damned Newsgroups: or Followups: lines...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org (Andrew Rogers)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: HICAM/OSD
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:08:41 GMT

In article <1b37jaINNn1n@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.145350.4639@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>>	Remember, this is military intelligence we're talking about.
>
>It is simply a matter of record that tens of thousands of Americans went
>as tourists to Russia, even in 1969. They were not all KGB recruits, and
>I'll bet plenty of them got sensitive jobs later in life... like the
>Reagan-appointed judge.

ABC Nightline ran some statistics on the number of Americans who visited
the Soviet Union from '69-'71, and it was something like 40-60,000 per
year.  I used to work in a defense plant (GE Ordnance, Pittsfield MA), and
among my co-workers was one who went to the Soviet Union with his college
glee club; he had no problems obtaining a security clearance.

Incidentally, Massachusetts Governor William Weld, who spoke at the 1992
Republican Convention, also visited Moscow during his days as a Rhodes
Scholar (source: WCRB-FM news, 10-9-92).

Andrew Rogers
From: wood@siemens.com. (Jim Wood)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:35:02 GMT

kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes, predicting a Bush victory:

>This is almost too easy. I base the prediction on the past. The polls will
>change dramatically in the last week or two, if you don't believe me, as
>Carter in '80. I think Clinton peaked too soon and Perot will be more of a
>factor then most believe. There have been so many instances of polls being
>wrong in the past, that I can't take them all that seriously. Examples:
>Roosevelt vs. Landon, Truman vs. Dewey, this years elections in England,
>'90 N. Carolina senate race, Ferraro's 20 point lead 2 weeks before the NY
>primary. How many more do you want. It is a fact that people make up there
>minds for good about 1 to 2 weeks before the election!! Also I believe 
>Clintons support is very soft, I remember about 3 to 4 months ago, Ron
>Brown was running through the halls of congress looking for someone to run
>against Clinton. Now the top Demo's have no choice and they are all backing
>Clinton.

You could be right about Bush winning, but I don't see how he can do it
at this point -- if the numerous polls are any indication.  Every single
poll taken since the Democratic convention in July, more than 3 months ago,
predict that Clinton will win with greater than a 10% margin.  In the last
two weeks, his lead has GROWN.

Furthermore, Bush's percentage has fallen steadily from 40 and is now closer
to 30.  It would indeed be a miracle if he managed to climb the necessary
15-20 points in order to win.

What makes a Bush victory even more unlikely is that Bush trails Clinton by
15-20 points in many of the largest states -- California, New York,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Jersey -- and is running even or slightly
behind him in the other ones.  In no large state does Bush have a decisive
lead.  The only one of the 50 states where he has a decisive lead is Utah.

>The bottom line is I maybe wrong about a Bush election (I thing I am right),
>but it certainly will not be a landslide as I have read many times on this
>news group.

It very well could be a Clinton landslide.  My personal guess is that Clinton
will win with 45-50 percent, Bush in second with 35-40 percent, and Perot in
third with 10-20 percent.  In the electoral college, Clinton will have 350-400
and Bush will have the remainder (140-190).

>No matter the result, I only have to wait 4 more years for a Kemp presidency.

That's purely speculative, but Kemp would be far better than Bush.  Perhaps
something might be done with the economy.

--
Jim Wood [jwood@siemens.siemens.com] (609) 734-3643
"Rise up on the wings of eagles, and two step among the stars.
 You are not forgotten.  Your smile will echo forever."
   -- Ryerson Schwark, to our friend Rob Bernardo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: re: A Most Pressing Concern
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:43:33 GMT

drieux writes:
>
>As has already been clearly Established,
>If there is NO POTENTIAL FOR GESTATION
>there can be NO SEX.

I think this is an excellent definition, and I will fight for this to be
made law.  Homosexuals will never be convicted of sex crimes, since they
can't actually have sex.  I'll be able to tell my girlfriend's mother that
we've never had sex, since we've always used condoms.  What's more, I can
even claim that my girlfriend and I have been perfectly faithful.  Can I
apply for the priesthood now?
--scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Priorities (III)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:12:01 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <9210070400.AA03118@tba.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
> The Decline of America: Priorities (III)
> 
> "In a Time/CNN poll 2 weeks ago, 3/4 of Americans said they favored an
> increase in the income tax rate of the wealthiest in America...

	It's not news that 75% of the people favor taxes on the other 25%, nor
is it surprising that someone who advocates "fairness" trumpets such
statistics.
	After all, I'm sure three wolves can decide that the sheep should be
invited over for dinner.

> similar percentages were opposed to a freeze in Social Security
> benefits or to increasing the gas tax"

	Yup.  More "tax the other guy", and keep my benefits coming!

> Non Social Security domestic spending, as a percentage of GNP,
> declined during the Reagan years from 9.8% to 7.3%

	Too bad we couldn't decrease it more.

	H*r*l, did you see H. Ross Perot trot out a lot of the same statistics
that you have been using?  Will you support him? :).  Did you notice (contrary
to your own chart) that defense has increased the least in the past few years,
while social spending has exploded?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50873 soc.culture.canada:7367
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
In-reply-to: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu's message of Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:05:00 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<CB.92Oct7124527@tamarack13.timbuk> <7OCT199217052351@utarlg.uta.edu>
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:01:26 CDT

Stephen Tice writes:

   And you Mr. Brewster -- lets step back just to the known and "admitted"
   facts. BRAVE BILL was on VACATION in the Soviet Union while others of
   his generation DIED.

I can think of quite a few other people who probably took vacations in
the years 1965-75: Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, people like that.  I
sincerely regret the 50,000 American deaths in Vietnam, especially since
these men didn't, and couldn't, accomplish anything through their
bravery--the cause never made sense.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Does the IRS cost more than they bring in?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 05:15:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.021559.9422@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <csc4213.718853512@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> csc4213@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (I don't know man, he was just here) writes:
>>I have heard claims that the cost of running the IRS is greater than
>>the income that they bring in. I would be greatly appreciative of an
>>answer-finding debate to determine the legitimacy of these claims.

The answer had BETTER be that the cost is less than the income;
otherwise, it implies that it actually costs more to COLLECT taxes
than the taxes are worth.  (If the assertion were true, it would imply
that we're looking at the REALLY high end of the "Laffer Curve".)

I would STRONGLY doubt that this could be the case.  It would be easy
to check for someone that's actually in the USA.  Being Canadian, I
have better access to the equivalent Canadian numbers.  Better still,
or worse, depending on one's point of view, I've known a lot of people
from Revenue Canada, our equivalent to the IRS.  (Does the IRS deal
with sales taxes?  RevCan does...)

If it cost more to collect the taxes than they're worth, this would be
a good argument for eliminating income taxes.  And I'm sure that this
argument would have come up already.

The numbers would be easy to verify (assuming that the government
reporting is anywhere near accurate):

Just take Income Taxes collected (it's GOT to be in the budget) and
compare to the cost of running the IRS (which should be a line item in
the budget).  I cannot see the numbers being anywhere NEAR equal.

With the number of computers doing parts of the auditing work
automagically, it doesn't cost $1000 to verify a tax return for an
individual earning $8000.  It certainly doesn't cost a hundred million
dollars to check Perot's tax return, since much of the data could be
checked against other information that's in the IRS computers.  They
could send a veritable army of auditors after Perot, and still have a
"profit".  A hundred million dollars can pay for a LOT of green eye
shades and red pencils (and auditors earning $40,000 a year).  

For instance, at $40K per auditor, $100M pays for 2500 auditors for a
whole year.  That $100M gets you a LOT of taxpayer fear!  Probably a
whole lot more than $100M worth of taxpayer fear (in terms of taxes
dealt with).

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre