HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: W.J.B. Clinton Anagrams
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:09:19 GMT

In article <Nov.19.19.40.01.1992.26141@cadenza.rutgers.edu> masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes:
>rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
>
>     Is there any particular reason why the media (& many 'liberals') thought
>     it necessary to refer to President Bush as "George Herbert Walker Bush" &
>     V.P. Quayle as "J. Danforth Quayle," yet never referred to Bill Clinton
>     using HIS full name -- William Jefferson Blythe Clinton?
>
>Only because no one had come up with any anagrams for WJBC that were
>as neat as "Insane Anglo Warlord" and "Huge Berserk Rebel Warthog."
>May I be (one of) the first to make an attempt with the following:
>
>	Jennifer wholly moist; FBI can tell.
        ^^^^^^^^

Wrong spelling.  "Gennifer Flowers."  Bush's Jennifer has a "J".



A cartoon found in last week's New Yorker:
Picture: Middle-aged man talking to another middle-aged man in a bar.
Caption: "I just heard that Superman is going to die.  He's the same
	  age I am!"
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:11:06 GMT
 <VEAL.506.722030455@utkvm1.utk.edu> <Bxzupy.E0E@slipknot.rain.com>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <Bxzupy.E0E@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
> In article <VEAL.506.722030455@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> |In article <BxutA9.7t3@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
> 
> |What does trickle-down economics have to do with anything?  If [you're]
> |condemning, as many people do, "Reagonomics" in your bid to portray the 
> |average person as unwilling to give to charity, you're barking up the wrong 
> |tree.  The primary objection to "trickle-down" is that it used money from 
> |the middle class and poor to subsidize the rich.  That would seem to 
> |indicate, then, that it would, by lowering the amount of disposable income 
> |"normal" people had the amount money they have available to give to 
> |charities would also be lower.
> 
> The objection you note was certainly the effect, but part of the promise of
> "trickle-down" was that increasing the profits of the rich, that they could
> afford greater challenges to their charitable natures.  That promise was never
> fulfilled, 

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but the facts are in: charitable giving was UP 
during the 1980s -- according to the charities themselves.  I dunno how it was 
split between private/corporate donations... but I just wanted to interject 
that li'l fact.

------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..."
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Lame humor in the late night talk shows
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:39:34 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov20.083538.9655@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson) writes:
> 
> The 2 step formula of a joke about Clinton on these shows (especially Leno):
> 
> 1. Pick a current event involving Clinton.
> 
> 2. Then compare or involve or draw a connection to the Three Scars 
>    (marital infidelity, draft evasion, inhaling pot).  The jokes about
>    marital infidelity really lack taste.  Like last night's joke by Leno,
>    (paraphrased) "Clinton walked into the hotel in Washington with Hillary,
>    and the hotel workers all said to him, 'say who's the new babe this time'."

	Actually it was "hey, who's the new babe" :).

> Give me a break, I am so god damn sick of this, when are these morons going 
> to get more original humor?  How long are they going to do this same humor?
> A few months? A year? 2 Years? All of Clinton's first 4 years? Even his 
> second 4 years?  Give it a rest people. Jeez.

	After 12 years of Republican jokes the Dems can't stand two weeks
worth?  Pathetic, guys.
:)

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:17325 alt.politics.bush:13932
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Junk Mail
Date: 17 Nov 1992 14:36:36 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Nov16.232545.8503@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
 >Has anyone been receiving automated computer junk mail
 >from a site called 'Campaign92.org'?   I've been trying to
 >contact the sysadmins at that site to stop sending me
 >their crap, but they've ignored me.  I must have gotten on
 >their mailing list through my postings to a.p.c and
 >a.p.b.  Has anyone been able to contact these clowns?  
 
Send a mail message to them, NOT A REPLY, in the subject line 
put:  remove all

That will take care of it.

Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE volunteer
Transition '92
From: zawr02@hou.amoco.com (Andrew W. Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:14:18 GMT
Reply-To: zawr02@hou.amoco.com
Organization: Amoco

In article 12581@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>Finite, but with rapidly increasing limits: Food production is, for
>example, finite. But that limit also increases rapidly with technology
>Overpopulation is only a problem if the population increases _faster_
>that the rate of production.
>

Overpopulation is a problem for more than just food production.  It exerts 
pressure on all manner of resources and causes all manner of social problems,
not just famines.  And while the current food production is basically feeding the
current population, most observers look at the future with fear.  The population
growth is accelerating and there are no guarentees current technology won't meet
some disaster.  It has happened in historical times.

---
Andrew Robinson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are solely my own.
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Robert Bork
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:10:08 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov's message of 23 Nov 92 19:14:41 -0400

In article <1992Nov23.231441.4157@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes, quoting me:
>> And, no, [Bork] did not dismiss the SP at Nixon's behest, request or
>> otherwise.  The AG (Archibald Cox?  I can't remember) resigned in
>> protest rather than fire the SP, and explicitly requested Bork to stay
>> on and carry out the president's instruction.  Bork did the firing,
>> but not for Nixon.
>
>Oooh, I wish I could split hairs like this.

I give lessons.  $15.00/hour.

>He carried out the President's instruction, but at the behest of the
>Attorney General ... have I got it right?  So it was either Cox and
>Nixon working, or Cox and Bork, but not Nixon and Bork?

The man who resigned on principle rather than do the firing
specifically requested that Bork stay on and do so.  He praised him
repeatedly for having done so (most recently and visibly during Bork's
confirmation hearings).  He had a variety of reasons for this, to
which I cannot do justice from memory, so I'll let it go.  The
original point is that it is certainly a distortion and perhaps even a
"lie" to ignore the facts of the matter and simply claim that Bork
stepped in and did what men of principle had refused to do.

(I'm not a big Bork fan; I'm a Scalia man, myself.  I just don't like
to see the kind of nonsense that sparked this.)

>I guess Bork was just following orders.  We all know that makes it
>OK.

Ah, the "Nuremberg offense":  Nazis followed orders, Bork followed
orders, ergo Bork == Eichmann.  If this is the sort of reasoning
practiced by users in the nasa.gov domain, a few things about the
sorry state of our space program are beginning to become clear to 
me. . . .
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17427 alt.politics.democrats.d:629 alt.politics.elections:24109 co.politics:2193 ne.politics:3047 nj.politics:766 ny.politics:287 talk.politics.misc:60793
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:41:59 GMT

In article <Bxqp3x.3Bq@slipknot.rain.com>, robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
} ... Congress has the power to make laws which provide for the general
} welfare of the United States.  Social programs, in that they benefit the poor
} and disadvantaged and thereby mitigate the potential for social unrest, do
} provide for the general welfare.

That, of course, presumes that these social programs do exactly that.  For
evidence to the contrary, I suggest you read _Losing_Ground_ by Charles
Murray.

} ...
} Altruists are in the minority, and our government can legitimately impose fees
} to provide for the general welfare, not as charity, but as a reasonable fee for
} services.  One example clearly demonstrates that.  Surveys have shown that in
} most major markets, only about 10-20% of the viewers/listeners to public
} broadcast stations actually contribute to the support of those stations.

But government has no business collecting the fees for public broadcasting,
because public broadcasting is *not* a government provided service.

Besides, the federal government supplies only about 17% of that funding.
So I seriously doubt that the elimation of it means the elimination of
public broadcasting.
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
 about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
 Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Liberals, Conservatives and PC
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:24:54 GMT

In article <7138@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>C558172@mizzou1.missouri.edu writes:
>>Don't get me wrong -- I am a true liberal who believes ideas should be heard.
>Believe it or not, I am a moderate-conservative who believes all ideas
>should be heard as well. It isn't just a "liberal thang" you know.
>
>>I feel that liberals are often misuderstood by conservatives -- consider
>>G. Bush who has spent plenty of time harping about PC. Remember in 88 when
>>he was attacking Dukakis for being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU"?
>>Gee, this is the same ACLU that has _consistantly_ stood up for freedom of
>>speech every since their inception. The ACLU is currently involved in
>>defending
>>Nazis against "hate-speech" laws. Yes that is the ACLU that has the *guts*
>>that conservatives lack -- to stand up to their own constituency and defend
>>peoples rights -- no matter how scummy those people are.
>>How many conservatives have that kind of tolerance and conviction?
>
>The main reason Bush criticized the ACLU was not because of freedom of
>speech cases but because of criminal cases in which those cases won by
>ACLU advocates hampered the way police can enforce the laws of this
>country, particularly in regards to drugs and homicides. I do respect
>the ACLU for standing up for people who otherwise cannot get any
>support. (That is my understanding of it anyway.) I respect probably as
>much as I do the American Bar Association. Which is not much.

	The tradition of American criminal law is that he benefit of
the doubt is given to the accused.  That means that those enforcing
the laws have to follow some stringent guidelines.  If this means that
criminals get away -- so be it.  Better than locking up someone
who didn't do anything.

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: paulus@owlnet.rice.edu (Paul Nathan Crocker)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:13:32 GMT

In article <7124@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>/	I take it, then, no matter who makes the kids, or how many, we
>/	have to allow it to happen unchecked and all pay for it,
>/	'till we start starving???
>/
>/	Unbelievable! :-(
>
>Just wondering, are you willing to die for your cause? What solutions do
>you propose to ameliorate the situation? Why not just kill people,
>that'll be the way to "decrease the surplus population." Why not just
>kill yourself and your entire family? Forced abortions like China? I'm
>interested to know how the solutions you propose will ameliorate the
>crisis.

Very nice.  I suppose that if you had read the previous post you might realize
that this is just the attitude that it attacked.  Just because there is
no "simple" solutions to the problems of the world that will eventually kill
us all does not mean that we should all resign ourselves to death.  Perhaps
rather than wasting post space, you yourself might come up with something
original to help the problem rather than merely to insult those who ARE
trying to help.  One does not have to look far beyond our borders to see
the environmental damage and destruction to quality of life that overpopulation
causes.  Just because the United States and Canada have the necessary wealth
of resources to shield ourselves from the problem does not mean
1. we will be able to do this forever
2. we should not aid those who are not as lucky

Paul


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17640 alt.president.clinton:635 talk.politics.misc:61321
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK C
From: sl1yn@petersboro.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry)
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:10:28 MDT
Reply-To: sl1yn@petersboro.delab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry)
 <Bxz4oG.IAz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <farenebt.722383390@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Clinton Haters of America

In article <farenebt.722383390@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>, farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:

|>>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
|>
|>I believe that is between Bill and Hillary.
|>
|>

  Don't you mean that is between Bill and Gennifer.



Larry Denys
sl1yn@providence.declab.usu.edu

  Iceberg at twelve O'clock.
  The PCers/Democrats/liberals have given the orders: straight ahead.
  "I'm givin' 'er full power, Captain,"  Ted Kennedy.
  "I don't think she can take much more,"  H. Ross Perot.
  "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," Ron Brown.
  Collision imminent.
  The 43% of the crew elect the professional politician/liar/pot-smoker/draft-
        dodger/bimbo-chaser/chameleon Clinton to the helm.
  All intelligent rats prepare to abandon ship.
  CRASH  BIFF  KAPOW KARUMBA RIP  POUND  KRIICK  GROING  SHRED  AURGH
  SOS
  We're going down...
  help...anybody...
       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: wr001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (William E. Raftery Jr.)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:11:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.211332.2873@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <treilly.722130963@vincent2.iastate.edu> treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
>>In <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
>>
>>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>>>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>>>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>>>Appealing to your subconcious.
>>
>>
>>     Well, there's a good way to get the secret service mointoring the
>>network.  So thoughful of you.  hope you get a visit from them.
>>
>For the record, I didn't vote for Clinton, but I still want this idiot arrested
>for posting this trash.  And I hope no one thinks all Republicans think this
>way.  Heck, I'd be the first one to report him if I could!

	Report him? Nahh, lets try something a little more down to earth.
How about trying to have his cookies tossed off this net.
	Now I was a Reagan-Bush supporter, but above it all I am a supporter
of the law. Whoever this guy is, he's obviously immature, and more than
likely a felon or soon to be after making a statement like that. I am not
Bill Clinton's biggest supporter, far from it. but I am at least going to
wait until he gets into office and see what he does there before critizing him
to bits or maybe even supporting him. Mr. "Kill Kill Kill", I would love to
hear from others out there as to how he could be dealt with. Getting him off
the net would actually be a good start.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:21:16 GMT

In <1992Nov22.135437.22012@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes

>All he did was say, very inelegantly, "I would be a happier
>person if someone killed Bill Clinton."
>Unlike some people on the net (and, possibly, federal law), I see that
>not as a criminal act but as a legitimate exercise of the right of
>freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.  It isn't
>speech that I like very much, but hey, that's what the First Amendment
>is all about, after all.  (See my sig, below.)
>-- 
>William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

     William-
      I do not think we are looking at the issue the same way.  I agree
that what was said it protected under first amendmant.  However,
assuming government agencies follow the letter and the spirit of the
bill of rights is likely a naive assumption.  Sure, you can get out of
prosectuion in a court of law judged by rational peers, but that does
not repair the greater damage already done by inviting a govt agency to
monitor what is said on the net.  We should also be free of being
watched, and such a post endangers that.
     There have been posters on other political newsgroups who claim
they were visited by the secret service after posting things that could
be interpreted as a threat to officials.  I cannot gurantee the
integrity of these postings, as I do not know the people beyond their
posts.
     I know an artist in Boston who, while in college, published a
cartoon depicting harm being done to Bush in his college newspaper.  He
spent hours in intense, grilling interviews with the SS.  On the issue
of agencies honoring free speech, you may also want to an article titled
"The prisoner and the politician" in the October 5 issueof the New Yorker".
     Though not a direct threat to anyone, mr. Hunt's post implies that
this is a free forum for discussing threats.  The government then has
reason to watch, in the interest of seeing someone go the next step and
discuss threats.
     


      















Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17629 alt.president.clinton:633 talk.politics.misc:61293
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:37:50 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


I'm against any form of censorship, and perhaps I jumped the gun in saying
that the guy that posted the "kill Clinton" message should be arrested.

I have no problem with intelligent comments, even when I disagree with them.
What irks me is people using the first amendment as a sheild against the
consequences of their own obnoxious actions.  They offend everyone, then
try to weasel out of it by saying "oh-I was only kidding".

We don't have the right to censor anyone on the net, but at least we should
be able to express our disgust with users who post trash like that.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17285 alt.politics.democrats.d:588 alt.politics.elections:23958 ba.politics:7171 co.politics:2093 ne.politics:3011 nj.politics:743 or.politics:654 ny.politics:263 talk.politics.misc:60453
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
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: Call for Radical Tax Simplification
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:54:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <1992Nov13.203228.11559@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>In article <jbone.721499722@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>>
>>(some text deleted)...
>>has become.  Sure, you can hire somebody --- but that is symptomatic of
>>the problem at hand!  I certainly don't mind paying taxes (much), but I
>>mind the headache and inconvenience considerably!
>>
>>(some text deleted)...
>
>>Use your voice - call your senator/rep:  radical tax simplification and
>>reform is needed NOW.
>>
>>
>>My $0.02,
>>
>I agree whole-heartedly with radical tax simplification and reform
>NOW!  I think the Libertarian Party has the ultimate answer to this:
>get rid of the IRS.  You know, the IRS, they make money the old-
>fashioned way... they steal it!
>
>My $0.02.  Hey, that's $0.04 already, this could develop into
>something big.

... Not after the IRS gets their share of it ...




-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |