HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steveb@tivoli.UUCP (Steve Benz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:48:46 GMT
Reply-To: steveb@tivoli.UUCP (Steve Benz)
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tivoli Systems Inc., Austin, TX

In article <1992Oct7.165036.1065@wixer.cactus.org> purp@wixer.cactus.org (Jim Meyer) writes:
>
>Why? It strikes me that a democratic Congress and a democratic President
>could do amazing things, rather than squabbling as the current
>Legilature and President have.

Perhaps.  Or then, perhaps it's Mr. Carter & the boyz all over again.

Personally, I don't think it's worth spending lots of time figuring out
who gets the blame for whatever happens to be pissing you off at the
moment, since the mere fact that Bush had to veto >32 bills ought to
show you that congress wasn't entirely interested in following the
President's lead.

But I don't see much point in `Throwing the bums out' if you're just
going to elect some joker from the other party -- since the only effective
difference between the two is the suits they wear & the particular brand
of idiocy they're supposedly espousing.

					- Steve
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:51:18 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <6065@news.duke.edu> infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante) writes:
>>
>>Take a San Francisco -- I've heard stats that it's 30% gay, which would be
>                                                    ^^^^^^^
>>ten times the national rate.  Those people are coming from *somewhere*.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>where do you get these stats?
>
>not ten times - *three* times.
>
>the national average hovers around _ten%_.

There's not a single study that says the national average is ten percent.
Even Kinsey's study, which is the one everyone refers to for the 10%
figure, and in which prisoners were grossly overrepresented, and which
only includes men, who are three times more likely to be homosexual than
women, only figured 4%.  
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
From: arianne@bigboy (LeatherKat)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:17:18 EDT
Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa,local

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
: In article <11OCT199212142038@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
: >You are almost exactly right.  The total number of AIDS cases in North Dakota
: >reported to the CDC is 25.  It has the lowest AIDS rate of any state in the
: >U.S.  There were only 5 new cases from July 1990 to June 1991 and only 1
: >new case from July 1991 to June 1992 (0.2 cases per 100,000 population).
: 
: I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it's somewhere in the 200-300 range.
: The figure of 25 isn't currently correct.

Check CDC information.  I'm pretty sure the figure of 25 is correct.
 
: And as far as the failure rate of condoms goes, I stand by my original
: figures of 15-30%.  Maybe all the talk about lower rates is just trying
: to justify placing your life in a piece of rubber.

I'll buy this one when you can quote me a source.  *Every* piece of 
information I have on the subject gives a much lower percentage of failure.
I don't think I've seen anything above 5%. 

arianne
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:21:46 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct8.204759.25725@news.columbia.edu > egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
 >In article <1992Oct8.122145.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
 >>Make that two Simon. No, we are not alone, but these "free speech" liberals
 >>will try and beat you down and make you feel as if your ideas and beliefs are
 >>worthless. Don't back down Simon. _We_ will win in the end. After all,
 >>Conservatives are in the *Right*! :)
 >>Disclaimers. Disclaimers
 >>
 >>
 >>"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
 >> a Fools heart to the Left."
 >
 >Bush, being left-handed, must be just as much a fool :-)

The quote doesn't say anything about handedness.  It is
interesting however that it happens to parallel the difference
between liberals (Left) and conservatives (Right).

   Liberals want foolish changes
   Conservatives want wise changes

David Shackelford
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10533 talk.politics.misc:51886 alt.politics.bush:9235
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:21:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <Bw4Jqt.F6J@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>    That point I am trying to make is this: the official Republican
>    party line has always been that raising taxes takes away incentives
>    to work, and does not raise revenues.  This is patently false, and 
>    they know it: it all depends on what we tax (i.e. they'd rather tax 
>    our paychecks).

>    I'd rather see goverment spending go down, and my taxes along
>    with it, but if we can't cut spending, the next best thing is to make
>    the rich pay their fair share of taxes, by taxing their assets.

	The rich do pay their fair share. The top 10% of income earners
(thats $80000+/yr) pay 53% of the taxes. What more do you want? When you
raise taxes on the rich, you stiffle the economy. When the tax rate was 70%,
it got to a point where it was no longer worth the effort to make more money,
because you only got to keep 30 cents on the dollar. But when the top
bracket was dropped to 28%, the "rich" worked harder, made more, paid more 
(total) in taxes, and created jobs and economic prosperity.

>    Nor do the rich pay 31%, it is more like 24% (current AMT rate).

	Where did you come by this figure?

>    Those are, of course, ballpark numbers.  My point is that under the 
>    current tax code, middle-income wage earners are subject to higher 
>    tax rates than the rich folks.  

	"rich folks" pay the same (or higher depending on the time period
in question) federal income tax rate as middle-income wage earners. If
you have proof to the contrary, please post it.

		Bruce
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Best argument for single moderator and stupidity of voters
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:29:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.065213.27946@netcom.com> hrlaser@netcom.com (H.R. Laser) writes:
>When Perot pulled out of the race in July he cited one of his
>main reasons was that he didn't want to see the Presidency decided
>in the House of Reps.
>
>I haven't heard an explanation from him since he re-entered as to
>why he thinks that's no longer a concern. 
>

	Perot spent a good week reminding everyone that he would run
if he was on the ballot in all 50 states. He re-entered the race about
a week after he made the ballot in the 50th state, New York.

	He also said the whole summer that he would sit down with the
other candidates and propose his and the people's concerns. The other
candidates ignored him. He set up a 1-800 number for supporters to call
in and suggest whether he should run or not. He chose to run.

	It is clear to me that unless the earth shakes, the same decision
by the House of Represenatives would also be that of the voters.


	People don't understand what Perot is all about. he wants to break
up the security agencies, such s the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. Bush wants to
consolidate them. Kennedy wanted to break them up. Johnson wanted to
consolidate them. Big businesses and security agencies were afraid they 
would lose their 'power' to Kennedy. Kennedy was shot and killed.

	Some people here believe that if Perot is elected, he's a goner.

	Only Perot can fix this country. George Bush refutes the statement
that America is coming apart at the seems, yet he says that the American 
families are the heart of the nation (ie the seems) and that the families
are broken. Why would he say this? He contradicted himself in an attempt
to say something fatherly; he's such a loser and a whiner. :)

-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Comrade Clinton
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:36:28 GMT

In article <9210081759.AA00276@deepthought.cs.utexas.edu> PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (Peter Laws) writes:
>You Republican Bozoes! It's Komrade Klinton, not Comrade Clinton!

Capitalist Tool!  The correct version is Conrad Hilton.












Larry 

-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10770 talk.politics.misc:52167
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:21:10 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <Bw66D5.FMC@unix.amherst.edu> pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:

>Stupendous Man (demon@desire.wright.edu) wrote:
>: 	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 :).
>: 
>Is this before or after Bush went from pro-choice to pro-life in 1980?

     The fact the one politician is scum does not change or diminish whether
another politician is scum.

     But don't think of it as inconsistancy.  Think of it as "political
evolution."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Gore: did not. Or did he?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:26:00 GMT

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

>	Just so everyone gets the timeline correct:

>	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
>it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can point
>to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that was
>only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did not" vote
>for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.

I guess this points out the skepticism whenever someone says, "So and
so voted for/voted against/vetoed/signed a bill that would do such
and such."

Whenever I hear that, I always ask, "Was it the only thing in
the bill or was it one provision of another bill?"
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
CLINTON/GORE FOR PRESIDENT		DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-24TH)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10959 talk.politics.misc:52415 alt.politics.bush:9472
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:24:33 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <Bw2u6A.832@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>
>    Now, if he offered to increase the personal deduction, I might
>    take it, but he will not, 'cause such a tax cut would not benefit 
>    him, and people like him, personally.

The personal deduction really does need to be raised.  It's way, way, way
too low.  I know people who've gone into debt to pay their taxes, because
marginal tax rates on low-income people (not the very lowest - I mean
in the $7,000 - $16,000 range, roughly) are just sky-high.  You can't save,
at that income level, or only with great difficulty, because of taxes.  I
think we need to set the personal deductions at a realistic level (taking
account of different situations, i.e. single, married with a house, children,
etc.) and then starting from that base (a base which ensures that taxes won't
be an undue burden on anyone), set tax rates on everyone's after deduction
income, taking into account the budget while doing so.

I know what it's like to just barely scrape by for a year and then have the
government take what little you have left and more.  And though that's not
the case for me anymore, I have a great deal of understanding of what these
people are going through, and a great deal of sympathy for those who don't
have the tools to improve their standard of living.  I was suffering as a
student, and knew that it was only temporary.  But I still shouldn't have
suffered quite so much.  We need a realistic personal deduction.

   - Dave Borden
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9690 alt.politics.bush:8619 talk.politics.misc:50883 alt.sex:32651
From: dtiberio@csws20.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:29:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.054903.29070@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:

>I still don't like Perot's positions (yes they'll work in the long run,
>but the short run will be the worst times this country has ever seen),

	I don't want to see any of the nation's problems solved either! I
want to dump all of our mounting problems on my grandkids! YES! 

	Michael Adams FOR PRESIDENT!


-- 
      Amiga Graphics Association BBS (516) 473-6351  24 HRS, 14.4k baud
PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT PEROT
    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:43:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.140502.2668@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.201752.9280@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Ted, unsafe sex is still safer than driving a car to a supermarket.  
>
>Precisely.

Safe for whom?  Hetero men because they are less likely to be infected
by women?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10309 alt.politics.perot:2112 alt.politics.bush:9076 alt.politics.marrou:1607 alt.politics.elections:16669
From: swami1@troy.uucp (22535-swaminathan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:47:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <1992Oct13.073220.15322@sbcs.sunysb.edu> dtiberio@csws18.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>
>	I DON'T HAVE A JOB. My father almost got laid off; his company
>is running at 25% capacity, four days a week, one week off every month.
>My mother's employer filed for chapter 11 and closed 80% of their stores.
>My brother's employer did the same.
>
>	BUSH IS DONE.
>    "I don't have any experience in running up a 4 trillion dollar debt."

, Ya, Ya, and your wife is dying because you have no health
insurance, and your kids are getting poor education, the crime rate
in your neighborhood is way high, and drugs are in every corner of
your town.

But still, for the life of me, I cannot understand how you could
even think of voting for somebody who went to Moscow so soon after
1968:)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Magic Johnson (Was Re: Debates)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:23:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.031444.26715@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <5ondnip@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.060812.7647@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>>>
>>> ... Magic Johnson ... attended one meeting,
>>
>>This is a Bush-invented lie.  Magic Johnson attended twice as many commission
>>meetings as the 3 people Bush appointed to the commission.  This is found in
>>the commission meeting minutes and was reported on NPR yesterday.
>>
>>> then quit without giving details of why.
>>
>>This is another Bush-invented lie.  Magic Johnson quit with giving details of
>>why to the commission, to President Bush, and to the press.  If you were in a
>>country that has newspapers at the time, and had bothered to try to inform
>>yourself instead of believing that The President Said It So It Must Be True,
>>you'd know that.
>>
>>
>>Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
>>|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
>>|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
>>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>You believe NPR?? Radio Socialiste National, National Proletariat Radio??
>Geez, I'd believe anybody before believing NPR.

  Apparently.  You'd even believe Bush before believing NPR.  Only if God can
come and bring the facts to you in front of your eyes you probably will still
deny it because Bush said otherwise. 
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10707 ba.politics:6123 ca.politics:8699
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Decaturville, TN
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:57:54 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Oct15.171153.2019@odin.corp.sgi.com>, zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide) writes:
> I was thrilled to see Al Gore go after Dan Quayle with the issue
> raised in the 60 Minutes report on the USAID agency's efforts to
> move American Corporations to Central America. 

> The amazing thing to me is that Clinton and Gore haven't been hitting
> them harder on this issue. It seems to me that this evidence puts the 
> lie to everything that GB & Co. have said about their "commitment" to 
> keeping decent jobs in this country. I think their commitment is to 
> get as much as they can while it lasts. 
> 
> Which by my calculations is something less than three weeks. 

While I think you are correct in your assessment of the situation, I
have to take exception to mathematics.  GB&Co. have more like 3
months.

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:58:02 GMT

In article <crb2.719107170@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>
>>The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
>>due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
>>of his billions last year. 
>
>>Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!
>
>This is very misleading.  You don't pay taxes on the money you have accrued,
>you pay taxes on the taxable income made THAT YEAR!  All of R. Perot's money
>is relatively old, he hasn't made anything other than interest (and then
>most of it in tax DEFERED anuities) since GM paid him off.  You take the
>little bit of taxable income (proportionally speaking) that he made
>last year, then deduct (a quite proper practice) all the money he GAVE
>AWAY, and he probably did only make $30,000 to the good last year.
>
>You Clinton people need to really try to think about things before
>you just spout them off, but I know that isn't in the agenda...
>
>>-- 
>>Timothy B. Reynolds
>>CLINTON/GORE
>>Election Campaign '92

You got that right, Chad, but given this portion of the .sig, I
would assume truth is entirely secondary to sleazy innuendo.

I suggest that every reader consider just what opinion of your 
intellect the Clinton/Gore campaign must possess, such that it
would allow them to promote such crap.

Even more frightening is the prospect that the Demopublicans
have a perfectly clear conscience after doing so.

Dave
From: jes@storage.tandem.com (Jim Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: On the first debate among the presidential candidates
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:47:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc., Cupertino CA

In article <1992Oct12.021840.3193@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van
Pelt) wrote:
> 
> In article <29153@life.ai.mit.edu> 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President) writes:
> >                   Statement of SEN. AL GORE
> >        On the first debate among the presidential candidates
> 
> Obviously written before the debate even took place.
> 
> He was there.  I saw him in the audience, sitting right next to
> Ross Perot's wife.  Must have had his brain turned off, as usual.
> 

Check again. I think that was one of Ross's sons (not Ross Jr... the
other one). When Ross had his wife and kids on Larry King last week,
Larry mentioned that this one looked like Gore.

> -- 
> Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
> mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
>                                           Zero risk at last.

--
Jim Smith
jes@storage.tandem.com
smith_jim@tandem.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton