HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Schoolchild on Net (was Re: ... Republican Cowardice)
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:53:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.133204.8941@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.164840.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.185141.24932@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.
>edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>> Maybe he'll fall back on the Quayle Defense: "I went to public school."
>>Better yet, I could say that I went to a public school in Arkansas.
>
>Public school in Arkansas was apparently good enough to get into Yale.

But getting far worse under Clinton. Too bad he couldn't affect his
own education rather than being in a position to fuck up millions of others'.

>*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu

	John
	wagner@chaos.uchicago.edu/wag5@midway.uchicago.edu


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10341 alt.rush-limbaugh:7383 or.politics:269
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: Amazing!
XXXDate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:44:11 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A700AD5BC1020642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:55:10 GMT

In article <92286.122240STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> Stan Horwitz, STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
writes:
>You know what's most amazing about this race for Predent? Its the fact that
                                                  ^^^^^^^
>so many American citizens don't have the good sense to come in out of the
>rain or to abandone a sinking ship. Only fools would stay in a burning house.
>Do you see where I'm going with this message?
>
>The condition of our nation with respect to overall quality of life is in many
>ways, horrible and shameful. The fact that health care reform takes such a low
>priority with Bush and his ilk illustrates the fact that most of his friends
>can afford good health care and he cares nothing for those who cannot afford
>health care. Our economy is in a dither thanks to Reagan spending so much and
>Bush following suite. Bush continues to blame the entire situation on
Congress.
>This is foolish. Has he forgotten what his hero Truman once said? Sure, our
>congress isn't perfect, its far from it, but apparantly Bush failed to see
>that his job is to be a leader. His job is to lead our citizens, our
businesses
>and our congress in the proper direction to foster his agenda. Bush says he
>will have a new congress soon. How does he know this? Last election, the Reps
>took a beating in Congress if memory serves so why would this electrion be any
>different. Bush must be psychic. Too bad he can't use his psychic powers in a
>practical way. Oh well, my lunch hour's up and Bush supports will probably
>continue to bury their heads in the ground and ignore the suffering squalid
>conditions all around us. By the way, don't assume I support Clinton or Perot.

I just pointed out one spelling error here. There are several others. This
message points out the sad state of affairs that our workforce is in due to
the public schools system. I take it that since you mention a lunch break
you are either at work or at school. Pretty miserable situation when you
are stuck in an economy where so many can afford to go to school and the
majority of us are working (92.5% at last count)! But of course there are
those who must wallow in negativity.

BTW: it doesn't take a psychic to tell you that Congress will be very
different next year when some 120+ congressmen (and women) are retiring
or quitting this year due to scandals, redistricting and other events. De
pending on how we vote this should be the biggest revamping of Congress
in decades!

Seriously, I don't care who you vote for in the presidential race, but
if you have a chance, vote out an incumbent congresscritter this year!

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:22:39 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 1bam2dINN9v6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, ab269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John  Laws) writes:
> 
> Slick Willie: Why America Cannot Trust Bill Clinton by F. Brown-
> $7.95. Annapolis-Washington Books P.O. Box 2365, Annapolis, Maryland
> 21404.

This wouldn't be Floyd Brown would it?  The man who brought us Willie
Horton?  The man who set up a 900 # to listen to the Flowers tapes?  The
man who tried to get the family of a suicide victim to say that she
killed herself because she had been impregnated by Clinton?  The man
that *even* Bush has tried to stop by every legal means available to
him?


> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Life what a beautiful choice" (Thanks to the Arthur Demoss Foundation)


Yeah, the most beautiful thing about it is the choice......


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
From: watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:07:58 GMT

ds8k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Donpaul C. Stephens) writes:

>As I saw it the following things happened:
>Bush defended his actions and pointed out what a great man Jim Baker is.
>He seemed to push the point that 'when' he gets reelected, Jim Baker will
>move into domestic affairs to do for them what he has done for int'l ones

I think it's kind of sad that Bush has to promise something like

	"If you reelect me, I'll let Baker fix up the economy"

Surely anyone, including Dan Quayle, could run on THAT platform.

So, Bush is a great military leader because he doesn't get in
the way of the generals.

If elected he will be a great domestic leader because he won't
get in the way of Jim Baker.

Why not just turn George Bush out of office, then he won't get in
the way of anyone?

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 14:43:15 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1bk2icINNdmd@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct14.212240.20204@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
|> >In article <Bw2u6A.832@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
|> 
|> >The rich are paid a *larger* share of the income tax total revenue
|> >in 1990 than in 1980.  As Mr Nelson pointed out,
|> 
|> However, the percent of total national income received by the rich went
|> up FASTER than their share of income tax.
|> 
|> Your statistic does not measure tax fairness.
|> 

Perhaps you can give us your definition of 'fairness' so that we can
see how the current tax structure measures up.  I'll give you my
definition, a 'fair' tax system would grant a reasonable exemption
for basic living, say $15-20,000 (maybe higher), and would tax income 
above that point at a flat rate.  This has the benefit of providing
a comfort zone where everyone can use the money they earn to
provide for themselves and their family and prevents one group from
shifting the tax burden to other groups.  I believe any form of
'progressive' taxation is inherently unfair.  If you earn 10 times
what I earn, I see no reason why you should have to pay any more
than 10 times what I pay.  Personally I think we should scrap
the income tax altogether and go with a consumption (not VAT) tax.



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10923 talk.politics.misc:52372
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:10:07 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.152528.11352@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.232645.4817@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
> demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
>>debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of
> change
>>saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.
>>
>>	So much for that "did not" denial :).
> 
> Big deal... George Bush used to be pro-choice making Quayle's waffling
> charge hypocritical.

	Let's see.  Gore denies ever being pro-life.
	Bushhanges from pro-choice to pro-life.
	Thus Quayle is a hypocrite.

	Gotcha.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10171 alt.politics.bush:8972 alt.politics.elections:16532
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush: "steering America"  (NOT)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 19:33:30 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

root@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Super-User) said..
>Bush thinks we should "stay on course"..

Oops -- My apologies folks, I posted this while SU'd so it didn't 
come up with the correct return address for the customary email flamage.  

So now 'ya know.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9816 alt.politics.bush:8697 alt.politics.marrou:1555 alt.politics.correct:5659
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:32:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct09.212637.16930@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.163408.7134@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>| 
>| I maintain that everyone who has AIDS is either someone who engaged 
>| in irresponsible activities or the victim of someone who engaged in 
>| those activities.  The only innocents are those victims.
>
>This is a very silly train of thought.
>
>The only way that this makes any sense is to define as "irresponsible"
>anyone who does not follow the Jehovah's Witness rules of life -- one
>sexual partner, no blood transfusions, etc.
>
>Could you explain to me how non-condom-protected anal sex before, say,
>1983 or so (whan viral transmission of AIDS was firmed up) is defined
>as "irresponsible"?
>
>   Fritz

I didn't say that anal sex was irresponsible.  Read the post.  The source 
of aids in the us (#1 source of spread) was PROMISCIOUS anal sex.  Promiscuity 
is the irresponsible act.  

Not putting words in my post now, are you?

Ted

-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:02:51 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Oct14080719@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>In all honesty, I have found myself confusing the sequence of events
>for even important things in my life... even things that have happened
>only a year or two ago.

Again, that's not the point. If, when the evidence that Clinton organized
protests came out, he said: "Oh, yes I forgot; I did organize protests"
then there still would be no problem.

The problem arrises because the evidence comes out showing Clinton in error
yet he sticks with his lie.

How about Monday? On a radio show Clinton says that Perot is being given a
free ride by the media. An hour of so later a reporter asks Clinton what
he ment by a free ride. Clinton's reply: "I never said Perot was geting a
free ride. You guys are just looking for another story.".

Note the pattern: first lie to cover up unpleasant issues. Then accuse
the questioner of having ulterior motives. Kind of like what Senator
Joe Whats-His-Name did in the 50's.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------193 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10249 alt.politics.bush:9036 alt.politics.marrou:1603 alt.politics.correct:5677
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:09:09 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
> 
> Now, back to the original question -- why would promiscuous, 
> unprotected anal sex, before HIV was identified, be labeled 
> "irresponsible"?

seems to me there are more diseases than AIDS out there & have
been for a long time. moderation in anything is generally a good
idea.

jason

--
"Nine out of ten men, women & children enjoy a cold beverage." - Letterman
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9814 alt.politics.bush:8695
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re:  Debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:08:12 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct12.024849.28435@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>Well, the first debate is history, and it seems to me that Bush made a big
>mistake in agreeing that Perot be on the dias.  The Perot/Clinton
>combination makes a potent case for the failure of the Bush program.

Perot looked like a buffoon, and his presence should matter little.
Those people who want change might move from Clinton to Perot if
he does any better in the next one.


>Bush's response to the AIDS question was typically weak for this issue.
>His comments on the behavioral issue was a veiled plea to homophobia and
>illustrate the problem the Republican party has on this issue:  the need to
>cater to the right wing on this subject.

Bush gave an honest response to the question: "We're doing everything we
can!"  We spent $4.9 BILLION on AIDS research last year.  What else is
there but a plea to the people to modify their behavior?

I liked the portion of his response dealing with Magic Johnson.  Magic
did something which increases one's chances of contracting HIV.  What
he should have done was tell the American people "don't do what I did!"
Instead he attended one meeting, then quit without giving details of why.


>Otherwise, Bush's entire program was "there'll be a new Congress, and I'll
>be able to do something (finally)."  I don't think that is going to sell to
>the public.  Congress does a lot already.  Bush vetos it.  We have too
>much diversity in the vision for the country's future.  Unless, and this
>seems unlikely, the Congress goes to Bush's views, that will continue.
>It's time to put a halt to divided government, give one party
>responsibility, and hold them accountable.

OK, this sounds like a good idea.  Why don't we give the Republicans
control of both Congress and the Presidency (which hasn't happened
in about 40 years)?  We still haven't had a true test of Bush's (and
Reagan's) policies because the Democrats in Congress were too busy
bouncing checks and adding pork to all of the bills they passed.

David Shackelford
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9913 alt.politics.bush:8768 alt.politics.elections:16285
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:05:46
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 18:22:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.112224.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.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.  

What more is there to say?  Do you want Clinton's opinion on whether
Kodachrome 25 or Kodachrome 64 is a better film to use when you're
taking pictures of St. Basil's Cathedral?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11109 alt.politics.bush:9587 alt.politics.elections:17442
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 17 Oct 1992 00:04:21 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
john@anasazi.com writes:
|I detect a whiff of hypocrisy here. In 1988, all we ever heard about
|was how Dan Quayle "dodged the draft", even though he actually served
|his country. Now, the same people are telling us that Clinton's dodging
|the draft, demonstrating against the war, and lying about it are
|not issues. Which is it?

Clinton didn't want to fight in a war he opposed.
Quayle didn't want to fight in a war he supported.

The issue is hypocrisy.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Cows are just plants that happen to move around a bit." 
    -- Thant Tessman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Coup de grace:CLINTON Cowardice
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:55:33 GMT

Laddie, you're starting to rave, and post the same article millions
of times to the alleged "board."

Hell, you're even following yourself up.



--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
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: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:28:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <21496@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <Bw2spB.61L@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>}     Increasing the SS/payroll tax rate (six times!) during the Reagan/Bush 
>}     years did not deter middle-class workers from taking a job,
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>How do you know?  The increassed SS/payroll tax was also a cost imposed
>onto business.  That means less money available as payroll for someone who
>could have otherwise been employed.
>
>}     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.
>
>Uh-huh.  And I'll bet they are real grateful for the fact that they get
>to work a lot more just to maintain a standard of living they otherwise
>would have had, if only government hadn't taken their wealth from them
>in the first place.  Sheesh.

    You missed my point completely, so let me re-iterate it: people do not 
    necessarily stop working when their taxes go up.  If anything, they
    could be forced to take a second job...  The Republicans have known 
    that all along, and that is why they love raising the SS/payrol 
    tax, and chuckle when somebody proposes to cut it.  We could tax
    the rich as effectively by taxing their wealth, and they would
    not stop producing either.

>
>}     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.
>
>United Way says fair share is 1% of gross income.  Some churches claim 10%.
>What, specifically to you think is fair?

    Generally speaking, people who make more than I do should not enjoy
    lower (effective) tax rates.
>
>}     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%.
>
>Where did you get that?  The 46% is probably true when you add federal, state,
>and local income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, gasoline
>taxes, etc.  But when you add all them up, how do you get only 31% for the
>"rich" (whoever they are)?

    I added the marginal income tax rate is 31% to the 15+% SS/Medicare tax.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------