HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:08:07 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <MATT.92Oct9115022@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.140841.27556@osf.org> rogers@rosencrantz.osf.org (Andrew Rogers) writes:
>
>> ABC Nightline ran some statistics on the number of Americans who visited
>> the Soviet Union from '69-'71, and it was something like 40-60,000 per
>> year.
>
>And they're all communists, I'm sure---every last one of them.
>

	No, only those who disagree with your politics are commies.
	Or is it that they're insane?  Oh well, same diff.

			Judy


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Does the IRS cost more than they bring in?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:15:59 GMT

In article <csc4213.718853512@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> csc4213@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (I don't know man, he was just here) writes:
>I have heard claims that the cost of running the IRS is greater than
>the income that they bring in. I would be greatly appreciative of an
>answer-finding debate to determine the legitimacy of these claims.

Depends on how you define "bring in."  The threat of an audit, I suspect,
brings in far more money than the actual audits.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52145 ca.politics:8709 ba.politics:6131
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: THIS ELECTION IS ILLEGIT!
Keywords: Candidates excluded from debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:54:11 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA



         PROTEST UNFAIR ELECTION PROCESS

The arbitrary exclusion of certain candidates from supposedly objective
nonpartisan debates is a disgusting spectacle, and in my opinion,
it renders this election illegitimate.  

Those excluded include independents, Greens, Libertarians and others,
both on the national level, and on the state level.  
 
The ability of supposedly nonpartisan televised debates to steer
public opinion toward a tacit acceptance of the choices
presented therein is difficult to dispute.  The inherent unfairness of 
excluding a candidate who has equal presence on the
ballot is inescapable.  For example, Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
(Libertarian) are on the presidential/ vp ballot in all 50 states,
but are excluded from ALL public debates with the other three
national tickets.  

I call upon all those who care about fairness in the electoral
process to protest this "undemocracy" in any available public forum.
I also ask them to question, in their own minds, the legitimacy 
of this election.


Thank you.


--Al Date
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush & Clinton Numbers Don't Add Up!!!
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:37:46
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 14 Oct 1992 12:55:27 GMT

In article <1bh5bvINNq07@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:

>    I saw a CNN special last night in which they took both Bush's and
> Clinton's plans to address the debt and investigated them. Both
> plans did not do anything to kill our nation's debt. The "experts"
> they had there said that Perot's plan was the only realistic one
> that would erase the debt. 

Actually, I agree with that---at least if you add one word.  I agree
that Perot's plan---or some similar plan---is the only realistic way
to erase the debt quickly.  Clinton's plan would reduce the deficit
over a number of years, but it certainly won't begin to reduce the
debt for quite a long time.

Nonetheless, I am not going to vote for Perot.

Why?  Well, it depends on your premises.  I agree with Perot that the
budget deficit is so large now that it is a serious threat to our
economy; I do not, however, accept his premise that the deficit is the
only serious threat that we have to worry about.  Our economy is in
deep trouble in a great many ways, and the debt is only one of the
causes.  If we notice one problem to the exclusion of all others, we
are in danger of solving that one problem while making all of the
others worse.

Perot's focus on the debt is, in my opinion, excessively narrow, and
his plan is an expression of that overly narrow focus.  His plan would
indeed reduce the debt, but at a terrible cost; his plan would be the
equivalent of destroying a village in order to save it.

--
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!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: What does Perot/Stockdale stand for?
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:12:11 GMT

In article <farenebt.719030130@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>In Sunday's prez debate, Perot insisted that what Clinton did
>20 years ago was much less significance than what Bush has(n't)
>done in the last 4/12 years. His campaign has been based on
>the "issues are the most important thing". But in the veep debate,
>Stockdale basically contradicted his running mate. He said that
>character was more important than the issues and used the
>analogy to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. What does the ticket
>really believe?

Fair question Bri, I wasn't sure what Stockdale was talking about.
Another thing I'm not quite sure of, but wasn't the question 
phrased along the lines of "What importance do YOU attach..."

I hope that this was the case and that Stockdale took the 
question literally.  If so, this could possibly explain his
response.  It seemed to me, however, that Stockdale was just
to nervous to do anything right.

Perot, while striving to avoid attacks on individual's character, 
has emphasized the notion that people who hold office in this 
country should consider themselves SERVANTS of the people -- 
I consider possession or lack thereof of this attitude to be 
the most important "character" issue when measuring candidates.

Dave
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50295 ca.politics:8543 ba.politics:5955 alt.flame:13381
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:17:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct8.164807.681@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <Bvs8IH.2Ks@unix.amherst.edu>
twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

>>If Kinsey had included everyone *inclined* towards
>>homosexuality, [...] I would be surprised if this figure
>>were less than 30%!

>Dream on.

Kinsey reported that 50% of the over 5,000 men in his study had at least
one homosexual fantasy in their lifetime.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52176 sci.environment:12019 talk.environment:4227
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:12:35 GMT

In article <Oct09.003616.54386@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
 
>In article <1687A9093.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
>>sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>>
>>>        BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions.
>>
>>Steve....exactly *HOW* is rape a consistent exception?  If abortion is
>>truly the murder of an innocent child, why is a child conceived by a
>>rape any less innocent?  It bears no responsibility for its father's
>>crime.
>>
>>Please explain....no one else has been able to do so.
>
>Before I do, I wanna tuck in this DISCLAIMER:  This is how the argument works.
>I'm not saying whether I believe in it or not.  drieux, lay off with the
>hurricanes.
>
>By having sex, a woman has "signed" a virtual "consent form" that reads
>more or less "God forbid we actually concieve, I will carry this child to
>term, 'less my life is in danger" So on so forth.
>
Where in the world is a copy of this "virtual form?"  I have never seen
one, nor do I recall ever having agreed to its terms.  In computer
lingo, virtual means "imaginary" or "not really there".  This certainly
seems to describe your consent form!
 
>When she is raped, she did not consent to carry the child to term, and so can
>do with it what she wants.
>
Then you are saying that the fetus does *not* have an absolute right to
life?  In some cases, the woman can decide on an abortion?  Then you
are really saying that *you* get to decide under what circumstances she
gets to make that decision, and in all other cases you will decide for
you?  Thank you for stating the right-to-lifers' real argument.
 
>I know this argument has pokable holes, do me a favor and don't flame me,
>I just work here.
>
I see no reason to flame you.  Your argument is certainly weak, though.
Would you care to try to close some of the holes you admit to seeing?
 
>Big Al.  Who REALLY believes that the great pumpkin will descend next thanks-
>giving and destroy us all.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50306 alt.politics.clinton:9089
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 8 Oct 1992 18:58:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct7.002935.4596@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Actually, it is a likely scenario for a potential spy.  If Clinton, as
>John Doe, applies for a security clearance with such a background it would be
>denied.

Let's get this straight: Clinton (and a bunch of other Oxford students)
go to Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia for Christmas
break. Now they can't get a security clearance? Do you have a security
clearance, Stupendous? I'd be worried if someone s obviously paranoid
could get one.

Today's NY Times reports that one of Clinton's classmates on the trip is
now a judge and worked nine years in the Reagan-Bush Justice Department.
He can't figure out what the hell is going on. (He doesn't seem to have
had much security clearance trouble, eh?) Incidentally, the same
classmate also protested against the war in Vietnam.

The Bush campaign refers to this as Red Willie. They don't think Clinton
is really a KGB agent; they just keep on searching for that magic bullet
that will stop Clinton.

andy

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50381 sci.skeptic:17685 alt.conspiracy:11085 alt.politics.elections:15693
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Summary: Bill Clinton= Anti-Christ
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:30:39 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct8.203748.6703@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)   writes...
>In article <56.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
>>followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
>>Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
>>demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
>>of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
>>come clean with the American people?"
> 
>Wow!  Good question!  Come to think of it:  Bill Clinton,
>where were you on July 30, 1976, the day my stereo 
>was stolen?  Come Clean!!
> 
I think we're on to something here. Could it be that Bill Clinton is 
really the anit-christ (or a liberal, the same thing).

>| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
> 
-Garrett
From: lbrother@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Larry Brothers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Perot a Ferengi?
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:50:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM


Think about it:

1) He has big ears.

2) He is short.

3) He is a 'businessman'.

Yes, folks, it's true:  Ross Perot is a Ferengi!  They came to Earth during
the Depression, leaving their unholy seed in Texarkana, TX (among other places,
no doubt) and split, unaware of the consequences of their lusty actions.

Now, Perot the technocrat stands a better-than-outside chance of actually being
elected president of the United States of America, pioneers of outer space.
Following a big R&D push, some bright boy or girl in diapers today invents the
warp drive, and the rest is future history.  

Maybe this will teach those little weasels a lesson.

Larry
From: drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton won't put ASS on the line.    (Lead or Leave)
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:48:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <16OCT199212005952@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes...
>In article <1992Oct16.073927.8153@Princeton.EDU>, 
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes...
>>
> 
>>In article <15OCT199222074314@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>>
> 
>>>Why won't Clinton take the Pledge to Lead or Leave?
>> 
>>Because he believes in democracy?  Let the people decide.
> 
>It's not democracy, and the people have been ignored. The Democrats
>represent less than 20% of the populace. Probably more like 10%
>judging from local elections. 
> 
>I'm happy to let the people decide. A driver's license or state 
>id card is sufficient registration, and mail-in votes can be
>issued so as to be easily verified. By all means, let the people
>decide. But fat chance the Democrats would agree -- they don't
>believe in democracy -- they believe is socialism.


HUH?  The democrats TRIED to put legislation through allowing
a driver's licence to be sufficient for voting, but Bush 
VETOED it.  

I agree that the democrats have lower % perticipation in 
elections (I have no facts as to why, only  guesses, so
I will not expouse them here).  But 20% of the population?
get real!  Most people in this country are so disgusted with
government they refer to themselves as "uncommitted" when
approached by the media.

> 
>Most folks wouldn't buy a car without a contract, so there's no 
>reason to buy more of the "Trust-Me with your money" Democratic 
>scamming. Year after year we get taken for a ride -- and the 
>Republicans are no better.
> 
>The proof is the new FY'93 Federal Budget -- no cuts in spending
>and no cuts in borrowing.


DEMOCRATS : tax & spend
REPUBLICANS : borrow & spend

Personally, I like the democratic plan.  Immediate feedback.  
People parade through the streets with torches when tax rates
get too high, but big debt sneaks up on you and by the time you
feel it, it's too late!

     first to go will be University grants. Then government contracts.
>Then cut backs overseas. All because "Trust-Me" government is nothing
>but a scam. 
>     right, Democrat.
>    
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49963 misc.legal:18228 alt.politics.usa.misc:113 alt.politics.usa.constitution:571
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:34:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: utkvm1.PA146008.359.718475651
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1992Oct6.223832.16058@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>In article <farenebt.718340867@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>>pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>>>George Will's new book _Restoration_ discusses the Constitutionality
>>>>issue in some detail, including some references to the fact that the
>>>>original Articles of Confederation had a term-limits provision. Will
>>>>uses this fact to help support the idea that the framers were, at the
>>>>very least, not *opposed* to term limits.
>>
>>First off, were the framers of the Articles the same as the framers
>>of the Constitution? Secondly, if they weren't opposed to term limits,
>>why did they vote unanimously not to include them in the Constit.?
>>Finally, I'd like to remind you about how stable and long-lived
>>the nation was under the Articles.
>
>Perhaps I missed a fundamental question in this argument but if the
>Founders were against term limits then why do we consider the XXII
>amendment to be a good idea?  If term limits are good enough for the
>presidency then why not the legislature?

     Because "we" are used to the idea of having a President limited to
two terms.  This doesn't make it a good idea or a bad idea, but just one
everybody is comfortable with.
     Some people don't like it because it gives the President a term where
he doesn't "have" to worry about the "will of the people."  Others like it
for exactly the same reason.
     When it boils down to it, most people have never even considered the
subject.  They're just used to the idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Deja Vu all over again
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:36:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:


>	Will you Clinton people get a clue and stop posting everything to
>Usenet 3-4-5 times?

>	And the people following up a 200 line message, including all text and
>saying "yeah!", well, please stop.

>	We don't need a preview of Clinton inefficiency


Yeah!   






-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!^H^H^H^H^Hbit inventive!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:49:12 GMT

In <1992Oct14.205446.4810@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	CNN isn't really correct either.  The page is 403.  What Quayl
>referred to is the "environmental marshall plan" that Gore proposes.  Since
>Gore doesn't say how much it would cost, the Reps used today's cost of the
>actual Marshal Plan: 200 Billion.

>The Reps are calling the Dems to task for playing fast and loose with
>funding numbers, and exposing them for the protectionists they are.

    I contend that it is STUPENDOUS MAN who plays fast and loose with
the facts.   
     In his book "Earth in the Balance" Gore writes that the Marshall
plan cost 2% of the GNP, and in today's terms that amounts to 100
billion (not 200 billion) dollars.  He then said that an environmental
plan of that magnitude (world wide) is needed, and that cost should not
be bourne by the U.S. alone.  Quayle said, incorrectly that Gore wanted
us to pay 100 billion for cleaning up other country's environmental
problems.  He was wrong.  And by now, most of the listeners of the
debate know that (Public television had a commentator on the air with
Gore's book in hand immdieately after the debate, not to mention news
coverage).  
     The page number refered to by Quayle was 304, not 403 as stupendous
man states.

    Do your research before you make your half-assed claims. And attack
public figures when you have the ammunition to do so.  Your twisting of
the information in Gore's amounts to third hand knowledge which would
not pass evidence tests in a freshman argument class.
  
    And before you waste your time attacking me, look up the information.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:12:10 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.175345.7955@oracle.us.oracle.com>, 
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) said:

> Do you really think that calling the war to liberate Kuwait a War
> for Oil was going to raise the morale of our soldiers?
>
> What about the letters the anti-war protesters urged people to send
> to soldiers?  What was the purpose if not to lower their morale?

Maybe, just maybe, there are some things that are more important 
than supporting the morale of the troops who are fighting a war.

Indeed, maybe, just maybe, there are some things that are more
important than winning a war.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:10:54 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

[Talk.abortion, alt.sex, soc.singles, alt.politics.homosexuality, and 
 talk.bizzarre removed from the Newsgroups: line.  I know I have
 created some large Newsgroups: lines in the past, but this one
 was ridiculous!]

shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford) whines:

: What is the business supposed to do with the work that needs
: doing during these 3 months?  Just let it pile up?  Pay
: for somebody to be trained, only to be laid off before being fully
: qualified?  Hire more people than necessary and endure the
: overhead all the time?

Hire temps, or temporarily re-hire people who retired from the company.
This would handle most of the cases.  I'm not positive, but I heard
rumors that "key person" positions [Vice-President, etc.] were exempted
from family leave protection.

: SOME employers are creeps and are gouging
: their employees.  In SOME cases, giving an employee leave could
: seriously damage the company.  We need a GUIDELINE, not a LAW!

True.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre