HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:14:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.204056.22959@usho93.hou281.chevron.com>
   jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.175515.22478@dbsun.uucp>
>    hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>
>>Gee, what about special interests that have prospered under the Republicans?
>>The defense industry.  The oil companies.  The timber companies.  The
>>S&L bandits.  The corporate raiders.  The health-insurance companies.
>>
>>I'm not anti-business.  I just wanted to state that the Republicans have
>>their own set of special interests, too.
>>
>Sorry, but I beg to differ that the oil companies have prospered under
>Republican rule.  We've basically been crushed.  There seems to be an
>alternating flow of money based on the price of oil.  If oil is
>expensive, more wells and projects are economical, and we produce more
>oil and make a bundle of dough.  The oil producing states in the west
>are flooded with money, and have no trouble balancing their budgets.  
>Meanwhile, the coasts economies are hurt by the high energy prices.
>The reverse happens when the price of oil is low.  The coasts lower
>energy costs allows them to prosper, but the oil producing states (with
>low industrial diversity) are hammered.  In my town, homes that sold for
>$200,000 in 1985 sold for $150,000 in 1987, $130,000 in 1988, and
>$120,000 in 1990.  With continual low prices (good for the rest of
>America's economy) the oil producing states are in rough shape.
>
>Note that I never gave any opinion on whether this was a good thing or
>not.  That is another matter.  But King George has not been good to his
>adopted home state, and he is going to have trouble carrying Texas.  (I
>think he will in the end, but it will be close).
>-- 
>John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
>Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
>Midland TX 

You are right, of course.  I apologize.  I even lived in Dallas in
'87-'88.  I just thoughtlessly lumped them in.

Now that I think about it, one of the most ridiculous criticisms of 
the Gulf War was that we were fighting for the oil companies.  Nonsense.
Higher domestic oil prices would be great for the oil companies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5624 tx.politics:5285
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:11:23 GMT
 <-wiDr*vX0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Sep08.234311.14603@watson.ibm.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep08.234311.14603@watson.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti writes:

> In article <-wiDr*vX0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>  
> |> If Slick Willie can't keep the single most important promise that most people make
> |> (i.e. marriage vows), how in the world do you expect me to trust him?  Are we to
> |> believe that he only lies about the "big" stuff?
> 
> How do you know what promises he made?  Did you attend his wedding?
> Do you have a transcript of his wedding vows?  Or are you just
> imposing YOUR marital expectations on him?  If his alleged
> extramarital affair doesn't bother Hillary, what business is it of
> Jim Pritchett's?

You are being ridiculous!  I'd say that YOU (or SW) should prove that he didn't
promise to be faithful to Hilary.  That is part of marriage - at least to most
Americans.  As far as Hillary goes, if it doesn't bother her, there is definitely
something wrong with her.  Slick Willie wants to be the President of the United
States.  He says he has better character than the President.  That makes it a
public issue.

> |> I don't consider that ridiculous rumor reported indirectly from a dead man (so it
> |> can't be verified) sufficient evidence to accuse President Bush of adultery.  I
> |> don't know about the others (except Kennedy.)
> 
> But you're more than willing to believe a supermarket tabloid that
> paid Gennifer Flowers a six-figure sum to "tell all".  I suppose you
> believe that Elvis is still alive too.

You must have selective memory.  Slick Willie's adulteries are infamous.  Flowers
now says that she has a video in addition to the audio tape of Slick Willie.

> |> I don't do drugs.  I have never even considered doing drugs.  It is a sign of the
> |> lack of intellectual basis for your statements that you would accuse me of such a
> |> thing.
> 
> Interesting.  You've never had a cigarette, or a cup of coffee, or a
> glass of beer, or a chocolate bar? 

So, you admit that you think that a chocolate bar is equivalent to LSD?  You are
very confused!  No wonder you think we should vote for Slick Willie!


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
From: jdhebert@mtu.edu (JEFFREY D. HEBERT)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Followup-To: Clinton's Health Ideas
Keywords: Social Security
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:52:55 GMT


I liked this so much I had to call some atttention to it.


>-- 
>curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
>My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |        Austin, TX



>  Social Security isn't a retirement plan.  It's middle class welfare.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


At least I am not the only one who thinks so.

Thanks Curt.




Me   (Jeff Hebert)			You may think you are unique,
jdhebert@chem9.chem.mtu.edu		But I am the only ME!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:06:56 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
: 
: >	Boy, I've been itching to blast this "Family Values" bullshit.
: >Now, I am married and the father of four children and the primary bread
: >winner, so I am an example of that rare and lauded nuclear family that
: >Bush and Quayle have been blathering about. 
: 
: 	I don't see this has any relevance.

What, the man isn't allowed to provide an introduction to his argument,
or to paint his family as one of those that Bush is supposedly trying
to protect?

: >In fact, they have sold the American
: >People off to the mercy of foreign businesses and invited such interests
: >in with open arms under the guize of "Free Trade".
: 
: 	This country was founded on the idea of free trade. 

No problems here, except I dislike the idea that we are doing so much
trade with countries that are all but closed to U.S. investment.

: Oh, and by the way, you mispelled guise.

And you never made a typo in your life?  Perhaps you should run
a spell-checker on your articles before commenting on others' 
mistakes.  You misspelled 'misspelled'.

: >	I go back to 1978 and California State Proposition #13, the
: >number has proved fateful, which the Regan-Bush stacked Surpreme
: >Court just upheald. That vote said in effect "We do not believe in
: >the future, so screw you next generations. We gray beards will hold
: >onto our property tax rate and soak anyone that has yet to buy in."
: 	
: 	Well, that must be a paraphrase. Why not supply us with some
: actual facts rather than your judgements.

He's entitled to his own opinion.  I wouldn't characterize the vote
in the same manner as he did, but you can't deny all the problems
the California is having because of the limits on taxes in place
in that state.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(Homosexuality is) "more of
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			a choice than a biological
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			situation.  I think it
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		is the wrong choice."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle          

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 11 Sep 1992 04:53:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep10.000602.4023@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.155242.11519@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>Which president in the early '60s cut taxes by $10B and raised revenue
>>>as a direct result $14B?
 
>> Examine the marginal rate of taxation at various incomes then and now,
>> and then tell me that this is even a germane question.  

>	The exact marginal rates don't matter, just that they were in the
>prohibitive zone, and were brought down, increasing economic activity.
>	It will always work that way when tax rates are on the wrong side of
>the Laffer curve.

>> Also, since you seem to have missed them, let me repeat.  What do you
>> want to cut to fix the current deficit?  After that list, tell me what

>	Cutting taxes at this point will not create a deficit.  Revenues will
>increase to make up the "paper shortfall".

Back to the free lunch. Yeah, we cut taxes and the revenues go up.
Notice that McCall already asked how marginal rates compared for
Kennedy's tax cuts and the current cuts, and Ignorant Man just blew on
by. The answer is: marginal rates were over twice as high then, making
it FAR more likely that a tax decrease would, in fact, raise revenue.

Why is it that our conservative governor needed a tax INCREASE to cope
with emergency earthquake damage? By this logic of the free lunch, he
should have asked for a decrease. Maybe all the way to zero! Then we
could really test the Laugher Curve.

Face it, this supply-side stuff is the economic version of Christian
Science.

andy

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 21:21:56 GMT

>> Further do you think it is fair to have 75% income taxes.
>Who suggested this? Nobody I know.

In Europe they have much higher taxes than we do.  For instance, in
Sweeden there is a Value added (Sales tax) tax which is 25%.  Their
income tax structure is progressive with about 50% at top end.  This
is not a worse case scenario.  I'm sure their are higher taxes in other
countries.  It's just that one of my friends from Sweeden is sitting 
next to me now.

If you look at any other countries, their tax rates are outrages when
you compare them to ours.  This drive-up in rates is due primarily
to socialized medicine.

>> If someone wants
>> to see a doctor -- they can.  People from Canada and Europe come over here
>> for superior health care, not to mention availability.
>Both of these statements are wrong also.They have also been refuted on several
>occasions in postings by Canadians and Europeans.

How come I know so so so many people from other countries who come
here for treatment?  And those people echo what I had said above!

>I think you need to go back and look at the facts.

You need to take a little of your own advice.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.thlingon
Subject: Re: Election '92
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 08:03:27 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

> In article <J47mqB4w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> >
> >> In article <1992Sep4.205813.15877@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicag
> >> >
> >> >     Yah? Yah? Well, how do you know Worf won't visit 1920's Earth
> >> >in a future of ST:TNG, like Captain Kirk did in one of the TV
> >> >shows? Huh?  And another thing-I liked the intro the way it used
> >> >to be, 'man,' not 'one.'  Sheesh. Like an alien is not a 'one.'
> >>
> >> Ooh, you forgot the season finale for ST:TNG!  They all travel back
> >> in time to around 1870.  Worf didn't go, I think, but Picard went,
> >> and he knows Klingon.
> >
> >Somehow, I'm trying to come up with a JDQ tie-in for this thread, but it elu
> >me at the moment...
>
> Quayle is actually a member of the Q-Continuum.  He's playing with
> our minds....
>
>
>
> --
> "I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
> "There is . . . just kidding."
>                       -- _Bob Roberts_

Hey, that's not fair!  The Q are immature, self-centered, live-for-the-moment,
egotistical, meglomaniacal, holier-than-thou meddlers.  How can you possibly
compare JDQ to...oh...yeah...ok...never mind...   <g>



|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: hoepfner@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Patrick Hoepfner)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:19:19 GMT

matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:

>LIBERAL == An in-secure person, who is a scared hypocrit, believes in the rich
>	   paying for everything, but for them not to have to do anything, 
>	   and believes homosexuality is normal.

Didn't Quayle refer to himself as a liberal?  I think that matrix is out of 
step with the times.  Liberal was a bad word last election, not this one...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4442 alt.politics.elections:12644 alt.politics.bush:4415
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush Extramarital
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:07:21 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <oefGw7O00UhWQ7SlQQ@andrew.cmu.edu> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Bush's extra-marital fling allegation is unworthy of note.  This whole
>thing started from a footnote in an unimportant book pointing out that
>some dead guy thinks this happened.

	No, it started a long time before that. George & Gennifer have been
in the Washington gossip for almost 15 years, when he was reportedly having
a ball in the far east. As a well connected and powerful politition, the
people who have surrounded him have all been other, well connected and
powerful people who wish to stay that way. Gennifer Fitzgerald makes a lot 
more then the $12K that Jennifer Flowers got for her story, and if Fitzgerald
talked, she would certainly have a bit of trouble keeping her job.

	Still, many people have talked about it: it was in issue in 1980
and 84. Until somebody is willing to sacrafice their career for the story,
though, it will stay a rumor.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4570 alt.politics.bush:4503 talk.politics.misc:44382
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Education and Efficiency (was Re: Efficiency)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:20:42 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep3.215325.27334@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>
>That, finally, is the bottom line difference. Clinton showed his
>willingness to subordinate the needs of the learners in this
>country to the demands of the teaching unions. *Real* education,
>and real progress in improving the level of training of our workforce,
>will suffer under his leadership because of it.
>
Well, in Arkansas, he confronted the teaching community and pushed through
teaching reforms.  I don't have the follow-up on how well it worked out,
that is, was there better education or worse education, but he did NOT
give in to the demands of the teaching unions.  The reforms included
teacher testing, among other things, and they did not like that at all.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:40:12 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

:   Hold it, hold it . . . *I'm* the one around here who usually cites
:   Singapore, et al, as examples of successful Big Government economic
:   policy that most free-market fanatics on the net are blissfully ignorant
:   of.    Just for that, I'm going to mention a strong counterexample:

But do you really _want_ to use Singapore as an example?  You know, that
little country where there is a $500 penalty for not flushing a public
toilet, and where they (are reported to) have installed cameras in, um,
strategic locations to catch offenders.  :)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"C'mon boys, don't bother me.
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			 I'm debating Danny Quayle.
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 The boy's retarded."
Anonymous: wi5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us			-- Sen. Birch Bayh
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: The blame game
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:50:11 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
: >>QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
: >>> Like FDR did when he successfully reduced unemployment.
: > 
: >FDR's policies, channeling private money into government paper doll
: >factories, did no good for the economy.
: 
: This is wrong. Unemployment went down from well over 20% when FDR took over
: to around 9% in 1940 (before WWII had an effect).

Year	Unemployment Rate
----	-----------------
1932		23.6
1933		24.9
1934		21.7
1935		20.1
1936		16.9
1937		14.3
1938		19.0
1939		17.2
1940		14.6

You were saying something about 9% in 1940?  

It does look like FDR's program did have some good in at least getting
people working, up until the economy "re-crashed" in '38.  However,
I think it may be safe to say that it was WWII, not FDR's alphabet
soup programs that ended the Great Depression.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(Homosexuality is) "more of
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			a choice than a biological
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			situation.  I think it
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		is the wrong choice."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle          

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.clinton
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:28:09 GMT

matrix@vaxb.acs.unt.edu writes:

>I'm curious, and want to find out how patriotic people are.  Bill Clinton
>dodge the draft.  I consider him a coward.  I just got out of the Marines and
>spent my time fighting for this country.  Why would I want to vote for a man
>that dodged the draft?

>This is my question, are you really going to vote for this man?  A man that 
>runs from a fight.  What's going to happen if we end up in a war. (Which could
>very well happen with the state the world is in right now.)

Why is this unpatriotic.  He stood up for something he believed is
wrong.  The president is has many responsibilities.  Military issues
are among them.  A very important responsibility is working with
Congress for the betterment of this country.  G.Bush is quite a
coward by not standing up for himself when it comes to dealing with
Congress.  He backs away and then pouts about it and blames the
other guy.  He's running from this fight.

You ask what's going to happen if we end up in war?  I don't think
that standing up for your belief that a war is wrong makes you less
able to make decisions about military issues.

Right now we also need someone who's courageous about domestic
issues and the economy.  G.Bush has already proven his lack of
abilities and that he backs away from it when it's not going his
way.  He admits that he's incapable of working it out and he asks
you to let him back away from it for another four years.  If you
agree, you lack courage in a sense because you're willing to have
our country beat up by itself and its government.

Are you really going to vote for Bush?  A man that runs from a
fight.  What's going to happen if this country ends up with failing
education, denied civil rights, a dwindling economy, lack of
investment in the U.S.?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:56:17 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

: I admit that the "redneck" comment was in somewhat bad taste, but the
: purpose of the comment was not to be "elitist" (as was falsely suggested
: by Al) but to comment on the
: lack of informed voting by a large segment of the population due to
: in-bred biases and irresponsible natures. Until you have lived with it,
: I don't expect you to understand it.

I agree that it is hard to understand the stereotypical "redneck mentality"
'till you've been around people who might qualify.  I'm not sure
that "in-bred biases and irresponsible natures" is a good way to describe
it, but I think it would be safe to describe the outlook as very
provincial, influenced heavily by little snippets of television news
augmented by rumor.

It is really something that you can't quite believe until you've
seen it.  Of course, I could make some comments about the
stereotypical rural person in Illinois, but I doubt that
I would be believed.... ;)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		"I'm Dan Quayle, who are you?"
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu				-- D.Q. at a Hardee's
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			"I'm your Secret Service agent"
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com			-- the answer he got
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     			

Marrou/Lord in '92