HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:41:24 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct12130546@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>> No to both of the questions. The problem is the same old thing, character,
>> or lack of it. Why is Clinton not answering questions about Moscow honestly.

>What questions are there to answer?  Clinton went sightseeing in
>Europe during his Christmas vacation, and one of the places his tour
>went to was Moscow.  

Well there is a bit more to it than that. Several independant and very
liberal people (hardly Bush supporters) say that Clinton organized anti-
US protests there.

That also is not such a big thing. But what is a big thing is that
Clinton continues to deny organizing anything even in the face of
overwehelming contrary evidence.

Yesterday NBC News played a tape of Clinton making a negative remark
about perot followed immediately by another tape where hours later
he denied making the statement.

THIS is the character issue. Clinton's first impulse isn't to come clean
but to lie and then call the accuser names. The worse thing is that he
seems to get away with it. This was the personality flaw which got Nixon
into trouble.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------194 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Sunday, 11 Oct 1992 22:19:15 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: ==> Gore Statement On The First Political Debate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
 OCTOBER 11, 1992


                   Statement of SEN. AL GORE
        On the first debate among the presidential candidates

 George Bush finished fourth -- behind Bill Clinton, who was the clear
 winner, in expressing a plan for economic recovery, behind Ross Perot
 in an understanding of why the economy is in trouble, and even behind
 Jim Lehrer, the debate's moderator, in an ability to present a plan
 for America's future.

 If anyone doubted it before, they can't any longer: it's time for
 change and it's time for George Bush and Dan Quayle to go. America
 needs the leadership, ideas, energy, and courage Bill Clinton offered
 during tonight's debate and offers America in this election.

 With the attention of the nation focused on him, George Bush failed
 to provide the American people with a single reason to re- elect him
 or a single idea to get our economy moving again and create jobs.
 George Bush offered more of the same: the same stale, tired policies
 that have brought us recession and cost us jobs.

 George Bush kept the American people waiting for nothing. Anyone who
 hoped this debate would give them a reason to vote for Bush and
 Quayle is going to sleep tonight planning to vote for Bill Clinton
 and Al Gore. And, for good reason. Bill Clinton reached out to the
 American people with a plan for change and economic recovery, with a
 reason for hope and a genuine commitment to putting people first.
From: aaron@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Everyone in a room with Perot
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:45:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I'm getting pretty interested about what's going to happen when
Perot gets ``everyone together in a room'' and they all
``work it out.''

How big will the room be?  I keep imagining a walk in closet with
the lights out.

Will they need any materials?  Mazola corn oil?  Saran wrap?
Without more specifics he sure leaves a lot to the imagination!  -a
From: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu (Cheryl Stewart)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:49:39 GMT
Reply-To: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu
Organization: Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University

Mark Wilson says, concerning the family leave act:

>I consider it morally wrong to use the power of government to extort
>from somebody, something that that somebody is not willing to give up
>voluntarily.

>Mob rule does not become acceptable merely because the mob now calls itself
>a government.

Well, I consider it morally wrong for people in the workplace to 
use the power of gossip and undermining-the-absent-person to make
sure a woman or man who needs to take time out for their family 
doesn't have a job when they come back to work.  

And I consider it morally wrong for employers to use the fact
that people need to take time off for their families as a 
mechanism to insure high turnover, all the better to exploit,
nay, terrorize their empoyees.

If a person in a position earns the right to continue in that 
position by dint of their actual performance, then it's morally
wrong for the employer to take away that position, that salary,
that hard-earned reputation, that credit rating, that house, 
that health coverage, that retirement benefit, that car, that 
self-respect -- just because the person happens to have FAMILY 
VALUES that include actually doing things to take care of their 
families.


What you seem to be missing is that when a person works,
maintains a household, builds a life, contributes to the
community in a positive way, they deserve some credit and 
stability for it.   Not to be shuffled from low-paying
job to low-paying job just because the employers KNOW
they can get away with underpaying people because people
are scared shitless of asking for what they actually 
deserve.

Get a clue.

Cheryl
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10274 tx.politics:6035
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:13:06 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct13.152023.1550@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>Thanks John, I'm well aware of the financial calculations.  What you don't
>note is that the longer the period to maturity, the less sensitive the
>bond is to interest rate changes.  Short term bonds would crater, but 30
>year bonds wouldn't.  To claim that short and long term bond react the
>same belies the facts.  Sometimes short term bonds have higher interest
>rates than long term, sometimes long term bonds have higher interest
>rates.  The whole key is what the market expects in the future from
>interest rates.  Rational expectations theory and all that jazz.

Good, then you'll understand that if the best estimatation of future
interest rates is 18 to 20 percent and inflation is up there too, my
calculations will be correct.

Rational expectations theory and all that jazz.

If Clinton sends the deficit ballastic, current bond prices will have
no choice but to fall.  They won't nose dive today or tomorrow, but
over a period of weeks and months.  As people see interest rates climb
higher and higher, and NOT come back down, the best guess anyone will
have is that the next <X> years are going to see high interest rates
and high inflation.

The problem with the current national debt is that it is so high that
a rise in interest rates to Carter levels will make the interest
payments so large that the deficit will skyrocket out of control.  We
can't afford Bill Clinton pretending he is Jimmy Carter and Lyndon
Johnson all at the same time.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10038 tx.politics:6009 austin.politics:199 austin.talk:252 austin.general:3186
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:30:33 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Oct12.134333.15318@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Yes, and 9 Nobel Laureates and some 500 other economists have stated
>that Clinton's plan of selective and targetted cuts would be better
>for the economy than Bush's proposal to simply let the rich reap more
>profits. 

There is an old saying, it goes something like "If you lined up all
the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn't reach a
conclusion."

Just to burst your bubble, but there are economists who practice
partisan politics.  There is, so far as I know, no CPA who has ever
been made a saint for being pure and chaste in his (or her) pursuit
of numerical purity.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:09:44 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Not telling kids about condoms because they might then go out and
have sex, makes as much sense as not telling them about seat belts
because they might then go out and drive.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at leas
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:20:45 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <84iesB1w165w@kunikpok.UUCP> richard@kunikpok.UUCP (Richard Hasting) writes:
>purp@wixer.cactus.org (Jim Meyer) writes:
>
>> 
>will be well paved with good intentions.  A productive and useful session 
>of congress should have each and everyone of us that munches at the 
>federal trough, screaming bloody murder.  It will hurt, but the country 
>will live through it a be much stronger for it in the future.  We would 
>be able to compete economically and socially with other nations.  As it 
>stands, Congress hates wealth, and its creation.  As Paul TaxOnGas 
>stated, you cannot be pro growth without being pro business.  


 Every 
>economist that has ever gone in front of the economic develoment 
>committees in Congress say that Cap Gains tax cuts would increase the 
>overall savings rates.  Yet, those who would save most would be the 
>people with large assets.  So, instead of helping the economy, Congress 
>says, "Can't help the rich, I would lose votes!"  even if it would be a 
>positive influence on the overall economy, benefitting all of us as a 
>whole.  
>
>Ah.. Vote the bums out.
>
>Richard
>
>Richard Hasting, Computer Literacy 2000 Project Office

	Ah, Richard, I'm probably offbase, but is "Computer Literacy
	2000 Project" some gov't sponsored thing?  If not, it sure 
	it sure sounds like one. Oh well, when pork stops coming out
	of DC, "it will hurt, but [you] will live through it and be
	much stronger for it. . .

		Love ya, Babe.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:55:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct13.003125.16298@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
...
>Remember, when we cut the tax rate on the wealthy in the 1980s, their
>share of taxes increased.  Clinton wants to reverse this virtuous
>cycle of tax reduction ...

    Why not?  I want to pay Donald Trump's share of taxes, and I would 
    not mind him paying mine in exchange.

and increased welath creation by increasing
>tax rates again. When he does, the rich will hide their taxable wealth
>back in tax shelters and marginally-productive investments, and hide
>their slaries in perqs and benefits, and their share of taxable income
>will fall. Along with it, revenues will fall.

    The secret of any successfull revenue-raising measure is taxing
    the necessities, as opposed to luxuries, of life.

    Increasing the SS/payroll tax rate (six times!) during the Reagan/Bush 
    years did not deter middle-class workers from taking a job, for
    they still had to pay for shelter, food, clothing, etc.  If anything,
    those tax increases, combined with overall decline in hourly wages,
    forced more people, women in particular, to enter the job market
    to maintain their standard of living.  On the other hand, the "luxury" 
    tax on furs, yachts, expensive jewelry failed to raise any money and 
    is being repealed.

    The rich can postpone purchases of luxury items, and they can defer
    and/or shelter their income while waiting for more favorable tax rates, 
    but there is one thing they could not live without - their wealth.
    By taxing wealth instead of income, we can make the rich pay their
    fair share.  Right now, we have the marginal income tax rate peaking 
    up at ~46% for families making ~$55,000 a year, while the rich pay only 
    ~31%.  In addition, we have all kinds of regressive taxes/"user fees" 
    that disproportionately affect people at the lower end.  The federal 
    budget deficit has the net effect of a tax on interest, therefore it 
    affects borrowers more than lenders.

    This unfair tax curve needs to be flattened, but George Bush is dead
    against any reform.  Under the cover of his broken pledge "no new taxes 
    [for the rich]", Bush has vetoed every bill that attempted to deal
    with the issue.  At least, Clinton promises to correct some inequities
    in the tax code.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10709 talk.politics.misc:52100
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Over 500 Economists Endorse Clinton (I)
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:43:58 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <92286.152132U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
>is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
>further information.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> List of over 500 economists endorsing Governor Bill Clinton.

...

> ALAN BLINDER Princeton Univ.

...

Having gone to Princeton myself, I can tell you Professor Blinder is very well
respected by people with all different views.  He wrote a very good article
that was printed in the Princeton Alumni Weekly, entitled "Hard Heads, Soft
Hearts".  "Soft Hearts" means that our goals are compassionate ones; "Hard
Heads" means we need to use our brains, too.  One program that he lauded was
the Head Start program, which he justified on the basis of both humane
compassion and economic hard-headedness.  It works societally and economically.
He called for full funding of the program.  He also talked about the difference
between how American workers are treated and how Japanese workers are treated.
Though they of course have their problems too, the workers are treated better
in a lot of ways.  Is it a surprise that they're doing so much better than
we are?  Anyway, I looked for Blinder's name on the list and was not surprised
to find it.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (David G Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Red Willie??
Date: 9 Oct 1992 17:02:55 GMT
Organization: UW-Milwaukee Math Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:
 
: I know that being a lawyer and Rhodes scholar, Slick would 
: not have made as simple a mistake as poorly wording his 
: sentences, therefore there must be something else.  
: On the other hand, after the Democaratic Convention where
: he made the statement:  "Give Al Gore and I a chance to run
: the country." (or something close to this).  It makes you
: wonder?

Hmm, very interesting.  Clinton obviously meant "Give Al Gore
and me a chance to run the country."  Obviously, a lawyer and
Rhodes scholar would not make such a simple mistake, so there
must be a sinister conspiracy behind it.  I wonder what his
hidden agenda is?

Oh yeah.  :-)
 
: Oh well, das vadanya, Comrade Clintonovitch.
: 
: ----------------------

Oh, you speak Russian?  Isn't it interesting that you never mentioned
this to us before. Are you trying to hide something?

--
David Radcliffe                                
radcliff@csd4.csd.uwm.edu            
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:38:01 GMT

chey@novell.com (Cindy Hey) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.054903.29070@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> 
>  StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>>Also, CBS "lost" IMO by deciding that a baseball game was more important
>>than the joint appearance.  I really thought they'd be more responsible
>>than that.
>
>So did I!  I even counted on it.  I wasn't able to watch the debate live,
>so I set my VCR to record it.  I can't tell you how dissappointed I was
>to discover 90 minutes of baseball on my tape rather than the debate :-(
>Luckily for me, C-SPAN repeated the debate, in its entirety, several times
>throughout the night.  Thank you, C-SPAN!

CBS is contracturally obligated to carry the playoff and World Series
games.  My advice would be to tape/watch C-SPAN in the first place, since
it affords somewhat of a "behind the scenes" look at the debates.  I was
especially amused at the minute or two of silence just before the debate---
after the candidates took the stage and were introduced to the local 
audience---during which the networks were running their glitzy opening 
titles with patriotic theme music, well-groomed hosts welcoming the viewers,
etc.  No frills, but no BS.

						-- dave


-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:35:17 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct13130304@physics3.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>> Several biographies written by major anti-war figures identify Clinton
>> as an organizer.

>*Not* an organizer of anti-American protests.  Anti-war protests.  See
>the difference?

Completely and utterly irrelevant. I don't care what Clinton did back
then.

The issue here is why did Clinton lie about his involvement? There is a
pattern here of him lying about every negative report that comes out.

So forget what he did and ask yourself why he lied about it.

>My impression is that Clinton's "organizing" was on the level of
>envelope-stuffing and phone-calling.  

That's not what CLINTON says. But I don't buy that anyway. For these
biographers to specifically remember Clinton out of the hundreds of
people involved enough to mention him by name years later, Clinton
must have had a far larger role.

But remember, hem and haw all you want. The issue isn't what he did
but rather why he lied about it.

>He was on the right side---

So he should have been proud of his actions. Yet he lies.

>unfortunately, he wasn't terribly active in the anti-war movement.

That's not what the biographys of several anti-war activists say. But
so what? Why does Clinton lie by reflex whenever negative issues about
him come up?

I hope people will quit saying 'he didn't do anything wrong 20 years
ago'. I agree with that. Please answer the real question: why does
Clinton lie about all these stories? Not just his anti-war activities
but all of them from drug use to Jennifer Flowers.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------194 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: johnchad@triton.unm.edu (jchadwic)
Subject: Randall Terry and the Death of the Republican Party
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 14:18:02 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: alt.politics.clinton

	Well, this may be flame bait, but what the heck. Up until this morning
there was still an outside chance I could change my mind and vote for George,
but the proverbial nail was installed courtesy of (G)od's (O)wn (P)oliceman,
Randall Terry. I have had the attitude for a long time that whatever Randall
Terry and Pat Robertson are against, I am in favor of it (okay, knee jerk
reaction I admit). Randall Terry is calling a vote for Bill Clinton a sin and
has accused Clinton of actively urging people to violate all of the 10
commandments. I know I have been busy with work, have I missed something?
Probably not. Randall Terry has set new levels for knee-jerk reactionary
behavior. But, the worst of this is that George and the campaign have failed
to discourage the hate tactics of Terry. This sell out of the Republican party
must have Abe Lincoln rolling over in his grave.

Speaking of Abe Lincoln and the former greatness of the Republican party, in
today's Albuquerque Journal there was an article (I think from either AP or
NYT News Service) regarding their base of support. Pat Robertson was quoted as
saying that his goal, and the goal of the Christian Coalition, is to gain a
working control of the party in each state. The article then cited states where
this has already happened. While the process of change is not easy, I mourn the
death of a once great party. If the CC takes over the party in New Mexico I
will have a hard time supporting Senator Pete Domenici and Rep. Steve Schiff,
both fine men who I have supported because of their moderate stance and their
willingness to rise above partisan politics.

Lincoln refused church membership (as did the mojority of the presidents before
him) to avoid the appearance of encouraging or endorsing a state-sponsored
religion. I do not have my book of quotes in front of me, but I remember
Lincoln making some unflattering statements regarding organized religions.

So, I mourn the death of the Republican party and I will try to remember
the good that has come from that party. 

john chadwick                         johnchad@triton.unm.edu
Voting for Clinton/Gore
Anyone But Bush in 1992