HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: (none)
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:39:32 GMT

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

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



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


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


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

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

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

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

 
 SEND YOUR SUGGESTIONS & COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

 clinton-wins@mail.clinton-gore.org
 


 Clinton/Gore '92
 Volunteer Email Effort
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: KEEP ABORTION AND BANK ROBBERY SAFE AND LEGAL!! (was rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:57:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.024902.23519@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>> Well, for your information, (and I know this might shock you)
>> I am NOT the only person in the world who stands up for the right to
>> live. 

> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.

I stand up for life too.  When I heard that a woman was 
arrested in Greensboro NC for robbing several banks so she 
could buy food and clothing for her children, I stood up 
for legalizing bank robbery.  That woman should not have
had to face the risk of being shot and killed during the 
bank heist.  While bank robbery is immoral, I can't force 
my morals onto bank robbers by making bank robbery illegal.
That's why bank robbery should be made safe and legal,
just like abortion. 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48664 ca.politics:8296 ba.politics:5732
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:05:52 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>And even that makes homosexuals look good compared to soc.motss postings.
>The major news and entertainment media in this country go out of their
>way to present homosexuals in a positive light -- reading soc.motss
>made me realize how different real homosexuals are from the image
>presented on TV.

Examine real life and you will realize how different real life is from the
image presented on TV.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Dial 1-800-HITLER2?
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:58:17 GMT

In article <farenebt.717876806@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:
>
>Perot, on the other hand, is giving everyone a scapegoat instead of 
>properly affixing blame to everyone: Congress, President AND the press
>AND the voters AND especially the non-voters. Perot is saying, "It's
>all Washington's fault! You people don't deserve any blame." He's telling
>people that he can balance w/o breaking a sweat. He's telling them
>what they wnat to hear. Tsongas told people the truth.

You are really ignorant.  Anyone who has read Perot's book knows
that this statement is a complete lie.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why no debate?
Date: 25 Sep 92 18:31:43 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article lc1f3lINNg0v@spim.mti.sgi.com, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>According to an article in this morning's San Jose Mercury News:
>
>"Privately, Republican sources said White House Chied of Staff
>James Baker believes that Bush as a sitting president has little
>to gain and much to lose in debates, which would place Democratic
>nominee Gov. Bill Clinton on the same stage as Bush before a huge
>national audience."

That still doesn't explain it very well.   Bush is the underdog in the
polls.  He's already losing the election.  The conventional wisdom would
be that he has nothing to lose in a debate.  Either Baker doesn't realize
that the public already sees Clinton as presidential, or he thinks that
he can erase that image through negative campaigning.  At this point,
it looks like they are putting all of their strategy on raising Clinton's
negatives to the point where Bush (or Perot) becomes "the least of
two (three) evils."  In an open debate, expectations would be so low
for Bush that he might be able to affect the polls in his favor.  But
maybe Bush is so spooked by Clinton that he just can't bring himself to
do it.

Oh well.  Baker is the one who calls the shots on campaign strategy.  Time 
will tell whether or not he's been overrated.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE GRITZ: Solutions and Hope
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:24:39 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <BERG.92Sep29131215@malice.cass.usu.edu> berg@malice.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg) writes:
:
:It is so interesting to me that the people (like the Supreme Court) who like to
:quote Jefferson on the "wall of separation between Church and State" never
:finish the quotation.  In it, he states that the wall, established by the 1st
:Amendment, goes ONE WAY and should keep government out of religion, but NOT
:religion out of government.  For the record, here's the 1st Amendment:
:
:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
:prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
:of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
:government for a redress of grievances."
:
:The Founding Fathers endeavored to establish a government based on Christian
:principles, and they believed that this system of government would only succeed
:in a nation of Christians (I believe it was Jefferson who said that too).  I'm
:sorry (or at least I should be :-) ) if this offends you.

One point.  The minute you build that Christian Nation it will start 
viloating the very article you posted.  Once Christianity is instilled
in the government, then all freedom ends for all non-Christian people.

Period.

:"We've got one more hill to take... Capitol Hill!" - Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz

Surprize, but there are snipers behind that hill General, and not all of them
are politicians -- some are pagans.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot to be on CNN 9/28 Larry King 9pm, live from Dallas
Date: 26 Sep 1992 13:32:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Peter, your other responses I won't even bother responding to, but:

JD Powers, from what I've read (rec.autos) has stated that the quality "gap"
is almost non-existant, and when you add in value and service charges there
really is no difference. I believe the quality figure was less than 5% on
average, which means most American car owners would probably never see that
5%. There was a big discussion on this on rec.autos a while back. They also
questioned Consumer Report's rating system, which I understand is somewhat
slanted in certain respects (Just off the top- Certain American cars were
rated as "average" for body rust protection, while these cars (trucks?) used
a majority of plastic in the body construction).
-- 
George Bush? He doesn't have a clue anymore. Bill Clinton? A slick smile and
a pandering style. Neither one is being realistic about what it is going to
take. The answer..........? ROSS FOR BOSS! VOTE FOR ROSS PEROT FOR PRESIDENT!
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:55:20 GMT

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>Did you catch CNN today?  Seems Wall Street is finally looking at the
>possibility of Clinton winning, and stocks are dropping?  How can that
>be, if all these CEO's and Wall Street folks support him?

As Lou Dobbs explained, the market is taking the possibility of a Clinton
victory very seriously, and is adjusting like they always do to a new
situation. The drop in the *drug* stocks was attributed to recognition
that Clinton's spending-cap proposals might cut into the pharmaceutical
profit stream. So what? That money is probably better spent elsewhere.
Like defense cuts in the public sector.

Was there a general panic at the prospect of President Bill Clinton? No,
other losses are due to current economic news.

On the other hand, the market responded negatively as a whole when Bush
gave his speech at the convention, with promises of tax cuts which in
Wall Street's view (apparently) will worsen the deficit.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Budget Debt/Deficit (Was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:27:07 GMT

In article <barrett.717709261@cc.gatech.edu>,
barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep28.162205.26063@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>>In article <BvAH8F.Fxz@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>|> >Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the
>>>|> >debt from getting bigger.
>>>|>    This isn't true.  Part of the budget is payments on current debt,
>>>|>    so a balanced budget would still be paying down debt, and over time
>>>|>    the national debt would be paid off.    A "balanced budget" simply
>>>|>    means that your revenues match your disbursements.   That some of
>>>|>    those disbursements are for exiting debt is immaterial.
>
>Are you sure?  It seems to me that since paying off old debt does not
>change net worth, it is not an expense and is not included in a
>"balanced budget".  If it were, then we'd always have a balanced budget
>since you'd have to include issuing of new debt as income.

It's my understanding that the budget does not include anything
for debt reduction, only debt service.  When a particular note
expires, it is simply rolled over into new debt.  Stated another
way,  government debt is not amortized over the life of what it is
financing.  This is one of the accounting reforms I will propose if
elected to the U.S. Senate, that all debt we tied to specific
expenditures and that the repayment of that debt be amortized over a
specific period defined in the appropriations bill.

/June
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 02 Oct 92 18:35:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.



(me)
    >Not stupid; illegal. And a violation of civil liberties.

/(phil)
/Oh, it's legality now you want eh? So of course, then you agree and support
/any state which makes, say, homosexual activities illegal. 

Silly child, the order of operation is:  civil liberties first, legality
second.  



(phil)
/And of course
/you seem to want to violate other peoples civil liberties in order to
/get what you (wrongly) consider your "civil liberties".

Actually, Phil, I could turn this around and say the same thing to
you.  

The flaw in your thinking is that you assume a right of free
association.  That right does not exist, either philosophically or
legally.

In private affairs, there is free association.  You pick your friends,
your drinking buddies, your housemates, and your lovers.  In public
affairs, such as renting an apartment or employment, nondiscrimination
kicks in.



/(phil)
/Huh? Please, read the posts. Of course people have the RIGHT to do that.

Fortunately, you are incorrect.



(me)
    >I assume you meant "without". What people do to themselves
    >(even stupid things) is their own business. What they do that
    >affects other people is another matter.

(phil)
/Why yes. Then I glad to see that you agree with me. To force yourself
/on an employer via coercive threats is not a positive (or moral) thing
/to do.

As long as the individual wishes to conduct commerce inside the United
States, that is the way it goes.  

A person does NOT have the inalienable right to be an employer, any more 
than a person has the inalienable right to use the US highway and road 
system.  In the same fashion that the US govt pays for roads and sets 
rules on their use, the US govt sets up the environment for business and 
gives benefits and special considerations to business.  ALL business.  As 
long as that is going on, then the govt has a moral right to have some say 
in how business is conducted.

The fact that nondiscrimination has stood the legal test of time is 
testimony to the fact that it does not hinder business productivity 
(affirmative action is another matter; I am not talking about that). If 
the employer is truly concerned about productivity, then there should be 
no objections.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:28:23 GMT

> = (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] = (Theodore A. Kaldis) offers some priceless irony:


>] Lot then offers his 2 virgin daughters, but the Sodomites
>] would have none of it (presumably like the denizens of the Castro
>] district).  If Lot isn't giving up the 2 men, they're going to take
>] him instead.  So the 2 angels smote the men of the city with blindness
>] and told Lot to get out of the city because God is going to destroy
>] it, and don't even look back.
>] 
>] _THIS_ is what God thinks of homosexuality.  Let's get it right, why
>] don't we?

>trivia question here teddy dearest....
>
>but does this not also mean that giving
>up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
>construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...

Careful.  I get the feeling you've just generated a fantasy hot flash in
this pig.

>Do try to read the trext, and you will note
>that you weak reed has gone wandering through
>your hand again.....

Now, if he could only blow a TUNE on his reed, he'd never leave the
house and we'd be spared his inanities.

Wanna chip in for lessons?



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Oct 15th, 1932
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:19:54 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct4.170945.13361@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>        In the current FORBES (60 years ago today...), there is a passage
>>commenting on the errors of the pro-protectionist movement, and how
>>Smoot-Hawley had reduced trade to foreign nations dramatically.
>>
>>	Let's all fax that to Clinton and Gore.
>
>According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton supports free trade.  What
>would be the point of faxing the above to him?
>
>Are you confusing free trade with NAFTA, by any chance? 

Further, Clinton's advisor Robert Reich talks a great, great deal
about global economies.


--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Effects of U.S. national debt
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:22:13 EST
 <Sep.24.15.34.28.1992.22550@math.rutgers.edu> <hcy-fh+@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: What happened in 1974

In article <hcy-fh+@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> In article <Sep.24.15.34.28.1992.22550@math.rutgers.edu>, cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
> |> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> |> 
> |> > I don't believe so.  I saw a graph recently which tracked both tax
> |> > revenue as a % of GNP and spending as a % of GNP.  There was no
> |> > significant change on the tax side during the Reagan/Bush years but
> |> > spending continually rose.  
> |> 
> |> I assume that the graph of taxation was including the massive increase
> |> in the Social Security tax?
> |> 
> 
> I would assume otherwise, but I don't know for sure.  I recently
> asked for data showing revenue as a percentage of GNP exclusive of
> FICA and Russ Anderson posted some numbers.  I can't verify if 
> FICA revenues were included or not, however.  If FICA was included,
> I would like to see adjusted numbers showing revenues exclusive
> of FICA and expenditures, exclusive of what is covered by FICA
> fees.  FICA is a separate beast and should be treated as such,
> both from a revenue standpoint as well as an expenditure standpoint.

	_The Seven Fat Years_, page 180 has a chart that includes SS.  Current
SS liabilities excede $8 trillion.

	The divergence in spending and taxes can be traced back to 1974.  What
happened in 1974?  Congress won the "impoundment" battle.  Not a constitutional
win, mind you, but a judicial one.  One that has made every president sincethen
unwilling to risk their political future by testing it.

	So, congress continues to spend.  Meanwhile, the president is left with
no practical tool for countering spending.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say Noe" Kramer)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 22:41:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.202914.21507@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.211949.6099@wuecl.wustl.edu> gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon) writes:
>>		(eg. his "you people" comments in July).
>
>  I have argued about this before.  I dont know your ethnicity, but I will 
>  assume you are white for arguments sake.  Your not black.  How can you 

I think you missed Gregs point entirely. It wasn't so much a question of
Perot's understanding of other races and creeds (of which I have severe
reservations about this for a man trying to be the USA's no 1 ambassador),
more of the entire mentality by making a reference to "you people". This just
shows a lack of willingness to try to understand, which again brings up
questions of his balance, ego and all the other issues his supporters try
to patch over. You can make as many smart remarks as you like to cover this 
but Perots' real character still comes through occasionally. If you like
what you see, vote for him. But try to scratch through some of the hype
to see what sort of person he might be. As for all the amateur dramatics,
will or won't he, geeessh, get a life! Remember the last time an actor
made it to the White House?

(-:

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:35:01 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <BvJ1oH.M2q@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> kgivon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (karen lee givon) writes:
>>>>>Arfie lead a crusade for David Duke, who did far worse things than
>>>>>"sleep around". Kindof makes you wonder why Arfie is willing to
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you would like to point out the "far worse things" Duke has 
>>>>done.


>He was a leader of the KKK. That's evil enough for me, thank you.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion but you might want to check that

out with their wives.  They may have a different view.

Having said that, he was the leader of a small local group and not even
the howling savages in the media could come up with a single "evil act"
done by him or it.  As a matter of fact, I don't recall a single evil
act by the Klan in the past twenty years.  This is most embarrassing to
most civil right "leaders" but the howling savages don't let that stop
them.

there is an interesting controversy over a commercial being aired in a
suburb of Chicago that points out that the number one killer of blacks is
other blacks.  they use a graphic that lays out the numbers killed by
blacks, cops and the KKK.  They had to go back 30 years to even find one
victim of the Klan but the number killed by blacks was in 5, 6 or 7 digits, I can;t
recall just now.

I say it is being aired but the last I heard, it was on hold.  It seems that
saving black lives must stop short of blaming blacks for the murders.

js
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49368 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6264 alt.politics.elections:15062 talk.abortion:40395 alt.sex:31823 alt.politics.clinton:8370 alt.politics.bush:7649 soc.singles:26986 alt.politics.homosexuality:6345 talk.bizarre:32707