HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:46:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov8.020310.20216@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <1992Nov7.130943.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.155723.20264@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>>
>>> Who's inferring? I've listened to Hillary and have been impressed
>>> by what she had to say, and the way she said it.
> 
>>     It's interesting that *after* the "I'm not just some woman standing 
>>by her man," the "I guess I could stay home and bake cookies," and the 
>>"George Bush has been unfaithful to his wife also" quotes, Ms. Clinton's
>>*public* role in the campaign was relegated to dotingly looking-on while 
>>Gov. Clinton gave his speeches.  (There were some exceptions, of course, 
>>like when she gave Anita Hill an award.)
>                                       
> Why is it interesting?  Whenever someone associated with a campaign
> starts saying things that are perceived to be too controversial, their
> roles are always toned down.

     It is interesting because it refers to the previous poster
being impressed with what Hillary had to say.  (I like how you
cleverly included the word "perceived" in that sentence.)

> Mary Matalin was a lot quieter after her infamous attack-fax about bimbos.

     Mary Matalin was quieted?  Were we following the same campaign?
Moreover, the term "bimbo eruption" was coined by the Clinton
campaign.
 
> Anyway, I don't think your statement is all that accurate.  Hillary went
> around the country giving *lots* of speeches independently of Bill -- it
> was just that she was coached by the campaign to be less controversial,
> so she didn't say much that was noteworthy, so she didn't get as much press.

     (Note that I did say there were exceptions.)  You're saying that
she didn't say much that was noteworthy, and the previous poster was
impressed by what she had to say and how she said it.  You can draw
your own conclusions....

     C. Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: helding@pooh.sdd.trw.com (Steve Helding)
Subject: Re: DEBT PER CAPITA (was Hillary Clinton....President ?)
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 17:32:19 GMT

pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless) writes:


>Note that under the Bush administration ALONE the deficit skyrocketed from
>$1.5 Trillion to $4 Trillion. Yup... that's right! It about tripled in four
>years, or about a 27-28% increase per year! So much for Bush calling Clinton
>a "tax & spend" Democrat!

I believe the national debt was $800 billion when Reagan took office in 1980
and was just shy of $3 trillion when Bush took over.  It "only" increased
by a mere $1 trillion during the Bush administration.

On a related note, I've often wondered how much the increase in spending can
attributed to the executive branch as opposed to Congress.  Anyone with hard
facts and figures on this?  Personally, I believe a good deal of the national
debt can be attributed to the tremendous tax cuts instituted during the
Reagan administration along with the hugh defense outlays.  But then, doesn't
Congress share in this responsibility?
-- 
   ---    ---- /
  /        /
  ---     /
    / /  /
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Mandates & 3-Way Elections
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:39:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <of0JlCa00iV402LuwO@andrew.cmu.edu> Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>I hate to have to keep reminding people this but:
>THIS WAS A FOUR WAY ELECTION!!!!!!
>Please do Andre Marrou, the  fourth candidate* the courtesy  of 
>acknowledging his candidacy.
>-Karin
>        
actually there were over 100 people running but only 4 were on all 50 states
ballots.  but anyway...marrou only got what...300k votes..1/3 of 1%....hardly
seems worth it to mention someone who didn't even come close to getting 1%!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16529 alt.politics.democrats.d:393 alt.politics.elections:23212 talk.politics.misc:59100
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:17:41 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov6.151809.29631@m5.harvard.edu> borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

>Well, either way you want to look at it, forty plus percent in a three way
>race is pretty good.  And it would have been well over fifty percent if
>Perot hadn't come back.

Somebody posted, that based on exit polls of Perot supporters who were
asked their second choices, Clinton would have gotten 51% of the popular
vote had not Perot been in the race.

51% is no mandate, Bush had 53% against Dukakis.  I have seen no breakdown
of how the electoral college might have gone if Perot had stayed out.
I suspect it would not have changed much.  If anything Bush might have
gained, given that Clinton's projected lead shrank from 5 points to 
2 or 3 points.

Secondly, this shows that the 8% that Clinton might have picked up, were
extremely shallow in their support, they wouldn't have switched otherwise.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of Clinton.
Clinton did not win, Bush lost.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16119 alt.politics.elections:22904 talk.politics.misc:58524
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Carter (was: Gov. Clinton Responds to the Internet)
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:21:46 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1992Nov4.152508.8101@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> In article <1992Nov3.104357.1459@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >In article <10206@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> >> In <1992Oct29.122437.21829@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> >> 
> >> |>Wait a minute.  Are you saying that just because Jimmy Carter was in
> >> |>favor of something, that thing is by definition a bad idea?
> >> 
> >> As someone replied to one of my posts.
> >> Its a good operating assumption.
> >
> >Carter cut the top Capital Gains Tax rate (from 49.1% to 28%).
> >Good or bad idea?  (Just checking...)
> 
> Russ' heart is in the right place, but his grasp of history
> is a little off .... this piece of legislation was *not* Carter's
> idea; he initially opposed it. To recap from a post by John Otto,
> reciting a Consumer Reports article:
> 
> * 1978 Revenue Act.  This was actually the turning point in the tax code,
>        which may disappoint those who want to blame everything on Ronald 
>      Reagan... [It] was the 1st supply-side tax cut, enacted by a Dem
>        Congress over Pres. Carter's bitter objections... most regressive
> (Emphasis mine^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)
>       tax bill since the 1920s... The top capital-gains rate was reduced
>        from ~39% to 28%, & the top corp. tax rate dropped... from 48% to46%
>        It also placed the business investment tax credit at 10%, when it
>       had been scheduled to drop to between 4% & 7%.
> 
> Yes, the Cap Gains rate cut was a good idea .... That should
> have tipped you off that Carter do *not* think it up. :-)

1) Carter's objections (not that I remember them) were not "bitter" enough 
   to prevent him from signing.
2) Picture the *Democratic controlled Congress* pushing for a Capital-gains 
   reduction.  Is this a good idea that Congress thought up?

Sounds like Reagan (in '81) was just following Carter/Congress's tax 
cutting lead. :-)

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:49:32 EST
From: <WCE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: MOBY dicK

Thanks.

Bill Ellis (wce2 @ psuvm.pus.edu)                 Editor, FOAFtale News
Penn State, Hazleton Campus                       Voice: 717-450-3026
Hazleton, PA 18201-1291                           Fax: 717-450-3182

"I now know that thy right worship is defiance. To neither love nor reverence
 wilt thou be kind; and e'en for hate thou canst but kill; and all are killed."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17074 alt.politics.democrats.d:523 alt.politics.elections:23706 ba.politics:7092 co.politics:1954 ne.politics:2961 nj.politics:710 or.politics:621 ny.politics:231 talk.politics.misc:59998
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:07:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bxo9z3.Kzx@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.184033.5936@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>	(deleted)
>>
>>I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
>>of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
>>Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
>>tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
>>any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
>>gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...  
>	(deleted)
>
>	I don't know about your state but for the last six years the state
>employee's of Massachusetts have had no pay raises.  That's no cost of living,
>nothing.  In effect with the current mild inflation rate about a third cut
>in pay.
>	Also,  I notice you state that a public servant,  for which I read
>public employee,  should be willing to accept less of a pay increase than
>the norm.  Why?

    Because they are overpaid for what they do.  Otherwise, they would be able 
    to find a better paying job elsewhere.  I'd keep the freeze in tact
    until there is a shortage of them.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Sorry
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:04:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.114938.5452@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In <1992Nov5.225448.29916@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> > 
> >I am writing this on advice of my lawyer.  After John Moore mentioned
> >possible legal charges I went to my lawyer and explained the entire
> >situation.  I told him that I was allowed on the Bush e-mail organization
> >seeking revenge for Reagan Campaign 1980 stealing of Carter's debate notes
> >(which has brewed hatred in me for 10 years now.)  I explained how
> 
> 	Bob, what you really need to see is a good therapist.

I agree, for a non-partisan consensus.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16036 talk.politics.misc:58431 talk.politics.drugs:7332
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Legalizing drugs
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:44:34 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>The solution is to legalize and tax drugs.  Use the money we've been
>spending on the war on drugs, plus the drug tax revenue, to fund more
>education, advertisement, and rehabilitation programs.  We could also
>spend more money addressing problems that lead to drug abuse such as
>poverty and unemployment.

I fear that the seemingly liberal idea of legalizing all manner of
addictive substances would result eventually in a government that would
use drugs to exploit and control its population. 

Another problem is that the costs to the health system, regardless of
education, might become so enormous as to exhaust the amount of 
taxation that would keep drugs from being sold on the black market.

-------------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16019 talk.politics.misc:58423 bit.listserv.politics:17223
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:35:02 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Rumor has it that Mr. & Mrs. Reagan voted for Ross Perot.

	Given the way President Bush trashed Reagan's economic expansion, I
wouldn't blame them :).

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:27:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
>> Ok, I should have, I suppose, said "bad judgement or bad luck." I
>> don't feel I (directly or theough the government) have an obligation
>> of insure everyone against all forms of misfortune.
>            ^^^^^^^^         ^^^
>Frank, good choice of words there. Can I thus infer that as a member
>of a (large) modern civilization/society that you DO in fact feel
>that you DO have an obligation to insure some people agianst some
>forms of misfortune? 

In general, no. I think it is the responsibility of every individual to 
take care of himself (as opposed to depending on others to take 
care of him.) I do think the government should protect 
people from criminal invasions of their rights, and (I suppose,
although I can't think of an example) this might be considered
protection from misfortune, in some very limited cases.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16079 alt.politics.perot:5235
From: aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Clinton isn't Carter
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:03:28 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology

In article <Nov.5.23.12.10.1992.29424@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>I am only 29, but I do remember the Carter Administration and the
>effects it had on the country, my family, and myself.  It was very
>tough financially for many of us....

I remember Carter too, and my family did very well thanks.
We locked in government securities at mafia rates just in
time for inflation to drop (which was the result of Carter's
policies, by the way -- unpopular policies that ensured
his unelection).

It's possible that Clinton won't be reelected, but that will
be because the mess that Reagan and Bush left (quadrupled
deficit, rusting infrastructure, moribund financial system
tattered cities, burgeoning underclass
-- all direct results of Reagan/Bush policies) require some
tough and unpopular medicine that may not pay off within 4 years.

He won't be unelected because he's like Carter though.
Unlike Carter (and Bush) he has been a very effective arm twister and
deal maker who (I believe) will play hard ball with Congress.
This is one of the reasons people call him slick.  He may
be the most effective executive since LBJ.	-a.
From: Steve Freedkin <sfreedkin@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:56 PST
Subject: Re: Clinton's mailbox is full now!
Nf-ID: #R:1992Nov9.194138.215@hsh.com:907074507:cdp:1588800053:000:327
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!sfreedkin    Nov 10 17:56:00 1992


Jock Gill, who operates Clinton's e-mail address, has sent messages to
those on the e-mail lists to the effect that he will be on vacation,
then relocating the e-mail set-up (to D.C., I presume).  So hold your
horses for awhile.  Meanwhile, U.S. mail to:

Gov. Bill Clinton
Clinton Committee
P.O. Box 615
Little Rock, AR 72203

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16166 alt.politics.democrats.d:343 alt.politics.elections:22944 ba.politics:6843 co.politics:1630 ne.politics:2763 nj.politics:565 or.politics:466 ny.politics:92 talk.politics.misc:58569
From: labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:02:50 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation

rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:

>... Keep going ... Why is it that nobody can get Clinton's numbers to work
>correctly?  The *rest* of the truth is that in order to raise the kind of 
>tax dollars he wants, several analysts have come up with the figure of
>$36,600, NOT $200,000 as Willie wants you to believe.  That *still* doesn't

		And don't forget one thing more - when they deficit spend
 next year, say another 300 Billion dollars, that is a tax ON EVERYBODY!
 It just isn't collected 'till later! That's what Ross was trying to tell us.

	And if you figure 300 bill/100mill working people, thats about
	$3000/person! It is truly criminal.

		George
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16126 alt.politics.democrats.d:337 alt.politics.elections:22907 ba.politics:6830 co.politics:1624 ne.politics:2754 nj.politics:559 or.politics:459 ny.politics:86 talk.politics.misc:58529
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 6 Nov 92 05:24:10 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <1992Nov4.230232.2011@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>: I might add, Ralph, that two years ago Clinton 'promised' the people of 
>: Arkansas that if re-elected as governor he would serve the entire four years.
>: As we saw from the 1988 presidential campaign, what politicians promise 
>: during the campaign, and what the do in practice are often two completely 
>: different things.  In this case, I'll bet my hat (to quote Perot) that Clinton
>: raises taxes on people with incomes far lower than $200,000.
>
>I might add, Rick, that Clinton asked the voters if he should "go" for the
>presidency before he did.  They said yes...

And just how did he do that?  Was there a voter referendum, did he call
them all up, did he ask'em to send in cards and letters?  Just Curious.


Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sorry
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:49:38 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In <1992Nov5.225448.29916@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> In article <1992Nov1.160922.3206@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R.
> Moore) writes:
> > 
> 
> > How much do you want to bet the Bob Hooker's activities violated one of
> > those new, narrow-minded criminal statutes with regard to misuse of
> > computers. Since I missed the start of this, Bob, what exactly did
> > you do to Bush's email?
> 
>I am writing this on advice of my lawyer.  After John Moore mentioned
>possible legal charges I went to my lawyer and explained the entire
>situation.  I told him that I was allowed on the Bush e-mail organization
>seeking revenge for Reagan Campaign 1980 stealing of Carter's debate notes
>(which has brewed hatred in me for 10 years now.)  I explained how

	Bob, what you really need to see is a good therapist.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15883 alt.politics.democrats.d:311 alt.politics.elections:22700 ba.politics:6773 co.politics:1598 ne.politics:2716 nj.politics:536 or.politics:433 ny.politics:63 talk.politics.misc:58282
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:35:40 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

In article <1992Nov05.170225.27320@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.060711.12219@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov04.040747.16409@watson.ibm.com> yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>>>Why don't you complete the truth?  Clinton has promised to raise taxes
>>>on the RICH!($200,000 or more)
>>
>>Is raising their taxes any more acceptable, just because they are
>>a minority of the voters? By this logic, it is also acceptable to
>>tax _any_ minority, if the majority feels like robbing them.
>>
>>                                                Frank Crary
>>                                                CU Boulder
>>
>
>This is another typical tactic: when confronted with indisputable facts,
>change the subject.
>
>-- 
> Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
> From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state



How has he changed the subject at all? He is introducing a comparison.
The quesiton is, is it right to raise the taxes on an arbitrary segment
of the population? He is introducing another arbitrary group, for
whom the question is it right to raise THEIR taxes would mostly
elicit a "no" from most people. I think the comparison is both fair and
enlightening.