HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomster@wpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:42:26
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
Distribution: na
	<BD.92Sep11075850@fluent.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU's message of 11 Sep 92 11:58:50 GMT

In article <BD.92Sep11075850@fluent.UUCP> bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:


   For instance, if over the course of a year I wrote ten checks, each
   for ten thousand dollars, and each of which bounced, it would appear that
   I owed the bank $100,000.  But, if each time I wrote the checks I had
   $9,999.99 in the bank, then I would actually owe the bank a dime, not
   $100,000!

   Hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.
   -- 
      Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
			    bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
		I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
				 DoD # 0698

I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your math here.  Seems to me you would
owe more on the order of $90,000.01.  Much more than a dime, you must admit.

Given, I can assume you meant that you had $99,999.90 in the bank.  Why, then
would those ten checks have bounced?  Bad banking system?

I agree with many of your points, and most of your logic seems founded,
but your choice of example leaves much to be desired.

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu

--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:37:33 GMT

In article <5708@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.180045.20296@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Wowsers!  Branley thinks that Bush is aimlessly wandering around on
>>the edge of a cliff, but prefers Clinton, who's promised to run off
>>that cliff.
>
>When did Clinton actually promise to run off of any kind of cliff?

When he proposed a WILD version of the 1990 tax increase and the
enacted spending plan.  Remember the cliff we fell off with that one?
Clinton's version is more extreme.

>And what makes you think that Bush hasn't fallen off the cliff?

He did, but we've recovered some since then.  He says he doesn't want
to do it again.  Clinton promises to.

-andy



--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Sep3.222632.2793@gtephx.UUCP> <axtnckr.gstory@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:30:51 GMT

In article <axtnckr.gstory@netcom.com> gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story) writes:

   In article <1992Sep3.222632.2793@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

   [Previous dialog and ad hominem rebuttal deleted.]

   >
   >If the thought he [Bush] was above the law, he'd have said "Piss on this
   >stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts 
   >himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
   >the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the 
   >results of due process.)

   Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?

Sure, the checks and affirmative action.

   [One paragraph deleted]
   >
   >Try for a *real* example now: you know, one where he totally
   >ignores the law and does whatever the hell he wants anyway.
   >
   I agree with you criteria, and invite you to apply them to Congress.  
   Let me add that when Congress passes a law which excludes them from its
   provisions, I consider it sneaky and reprehensible, but not "above the law."

Clever, just like the congress.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5001 alt.politics.clinton:5264 alt.politics.perot:1467 rec.humor:28572 talk.bizarre:30020
From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Congress above the law (Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:50:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BuKp7H.6JG
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:

: It's easy to play by the rules, when you make the rules. :)

Seems to me that that qualifies as Congress putting itself above the
law rather than breaking it.... ;)

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher) 		(Homosexuality is) "more of
Internet:  StarWatcher@uiuc.edu			a choice than a biological
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			situation.  I think it
Anonymous: apb.3995@n7kbt.rain.com		is the wrong choice."
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarWatcher     	-- Dan Quayle          

Marrou/Lord in '92
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4126 alt.politics.clinton:4097 talk.politics.misc:43841
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:11:52 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Fred Seals misstates:
|> The truth is:
|> 
|>   Democrats will raise your taxes, spend more on social programs, increase the size
|>   of government, restrict your ability to succeed, punish you if you do succeed and
|>   blame you for hurting those who do not succeed.
|> 
|>   Republicans will raise your taxes less, spend less on social programs, increase the
|>   size of government slower,  encourage you to succeed, try to reward your success
|>   and try to provide a handup not a handout for those who do not succeed.
|> 
|> That it and thats that.
|> 
|> fred
|> 
|> ##############################################################################
|> He did inhale.  He lied about the draft.  He did sleep with Flowers. 
|> He did cheat on his wife.  He will raise taxes.  He will put people out of
|> work.  He is LIBERAL.
|> 
|> You can not be one kind of man and another kind of President.
|> 
|> Bush/Quale 92
|> Fred Seals
|> ##############################################################################

Please provide *data* to back up the assertions in both your response and
you .sig.  You present you opinions as facts rather than as opinions (which
you certainly have a right to -- even if wrong).

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush/Florida/Hurricane Andrew
Date: 6 Sep 92 07:08:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <q8RmqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>,
elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) wrote:

> Sure, disaster relief is difficult.  But this is an election year, and if Bush
> can't deliver when he's in 'campaign mode,' then it's something that's
> definitely out of his ability when he's in dormant mode.

You've been proven wrong and you're STILL bitching here about this?  Read
again, dude:

From Newsweek (Sept 7, 1992):

"During the Miami stop the president offered Chiles federal troops several
times.  The governor, sensistive to old-fashioned political ideas like not
truckling to Washington, and still out of touch with the full scope of the
hurricane's damage, turned him down."  (pg. 27)"

--
Rick Eames                               My Opinions Are My Own (not
Apple's)
athos@apple.com

HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to Barbara Boxer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Have you heard of the Religious Left?
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 22:48:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BuL2Gs.G6H@encore.com> rcollins@1.com writes:
>Seeing liberals preach about how immoral conservatives are for not
>wanting to soak the working folks to provide well meaning, but
>disastrous, hand-outs to the poor makes me wonder how come I've
>never heard the term religious left?

Good question.  They're certainly around -- Rev. William Sloan Coffin,
Rev. Jesse Jackson, etc.  They don't get a media sound-bite tag, though.
Funniest thing...

-- 
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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5256 alt.politics.clinton:5590 talk.abortion:36661
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life (was Controlling Women, etc.)
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:32:29 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Sep15.161756.26529@u.washington.edu> cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.002526.19597@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ 	And may I ask why the only three champions of FFL here,
@ namely, Martin Guerrero, Ron Graham, and Stephen Chaney, are male? As
@ one pro-choice chant goes:
@ 
@ 	4-6-8-10, why are all your leaders men?
@ 
@ 
@ 	Well, the numbers are clear. Of those who post in
@ talk.abortion, there is a sizable fraction of women, while there is
@ only one woman on the other side with any longevity, our good friend
@ Suzanne Forgach. So there go the "Feminists for Life". They do not
@ represent the interests of any significant group of professional
@ women. I wonder why they call themselves that. Do they just like the
@ sound of the word?

>Thank God we have real MEN out there to tell us poor, brainwashed,
>uneducated women what a REAL feminist would think.  Loren could you please
>send me an outline of the views a real woman should have.  

	I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.

	And if you want to know what a "real woman" should think, ask
the numerous pro-choice women in this newsgroup about that subject.

>As for not representing the views of a significant group of
>professional women (oh only professionals count now...)  WAKE UP!!  Just
>'cause it's not on the net, doesn't mean it aint so.

	Then where are these "professional women" concentrated?

	I did not want to seem like a "professionalism chauvinist",
but Kristin Luker's _Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood_
discovered that the majority of female pro-choice activists were
professional women, while the majority of anti-abortion activists were
housewives.

>My feminist friends and I are tired of you portraying pregnancy as a
>weekness and liabilities that should be disposed of.  You and others like
>you have made us ashamed of our pregnancies in the past.  You have made us
>have to choose between children and career or education.  We are tired of it!

	Well, that's a strange kind of "feminism", since one big
feminist theme is that children and a career should not _have_ to
conflict.

>And by the way, the reason you don't see more of us in talk.abortion, is
>because we are tired of you men bickering back and forth about an issue
>which none of you really has any understanding.

	Suzzy, you've got company!!! :-)

	And have you noticed how many women there are in this
newsgroup? Or have you skipped over all the pro-choice ones?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: cbergren@comm.mot.com (Craig Bergren)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:09:56 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <BuDMDr.Bx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
|> gstory@netcom.com (Glenn Story) writes:
|> : forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
|> 
|> : >stupid law --- cut the whole fucking forest down!"  (IE: he puts 
|> : >himself above the law by ignoring it as he pleases [like most of
|> : >the democratic Congress does] NOT by submitting himself to the 
|> : 
|> : Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
|> 
|> Um, aren't there laws in most states making it a felony to knowingly
|> write bad checks?
|> 

 Um, they aren't bad if the bank covers them. Most banks have automatic
 overdraft allowances at a price. The congressional bank just had a more
 liberal policy than most banks.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
   The opinions I hold are not mine nor are they those of my employer.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nfs@dynastar (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:12:12 GMT

In article <Sep.9.11.01.15.1992.14284@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>
>The only restriction that Clinton is in favor of is parental notification.
>The teenager can have another responsible adult stand in for the parent
>with the permission of the court, if the teen doesn't feel comfortable
>telling her parents.
>
>This the law in Arkansas right now, I think.  Clinton's main concern
>is that someone is there for the teen.  That the teen doesn't have to
>go through it alone.

Random adult notification isn't a restriction at all; what prevents
abortion clinics from providing an adult to perform this function,
simply in order to satisfy the letter of the law?

I stand by my original statement: that Clinton was willing to sign
FOCA before any parental notification amendments were made.  He made
the point particularly, at the convention, in order to distinguish
himself from George Bush.  I believe that he is for abortion on demand,
but has the political sense to realize that such a thing cannot pass.
I believe the refusal to allow Casey on the platform at the convention
is an indication of what he really believes, if not what he believes
possible.

>>is, of course, that everyone is going to be rich when Clinton is in
>>office, at least for tax purposes.
>
>Clinton said that "Rich = 200K+ per year, per household".  Everybody?
>I think not.

Clinton hasn't said this.  Clinton has said "top 2%", which translates
to about 75K+ per year, per household.  Are households with $75K
incomes "rich"?  I don't think so, and neither do most people in this
country.

Even if the 200K threshhold applies, it is going to have to be
explained how massive revenues can be generated by jacking up their
taxes a few points (or even 20 points).  If you raise tax brackets by
10% on people making over $200K (i.e. 31% -> 41%), and assume that
this has no macroeconomic effect whatsoever (i.e. we don't go into a
worse recession as a result), the total amount raised is less than $50
billion a year.  Will that fund Bill Clinton's fever dreams?

(All my Clinton bashing aside, don't imagine that I'm a Republican.)

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: Tree huggers, Bud-chugging-hairy-backed-red-necked-conservatives
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:25:23 GMT

swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:

>I know a girl with the attitude.  She has been in and out of a mental
>home for attempted suicide.  She always talks of how she wants a baby
>to give her a reason to live.  I don't think you can blame George for
>her, or the school system.  Her problems stem from her mother.  Both
                                                        ^^^^^^
>from a lack of positive value enforcement and from down right psychological
>abuse.


Hey, where was her *father* while all this was going on?  How come 
none of this is *his* fault?

						--  Michal

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:43:45 GMT

In article <Sep.7.12.04.01.1992.8034@math.rutgers.edu>
cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
 
>
>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>> The fact that the trial lawyers are overwhelming supporting Clinton
>> and putting huge amounts of money into his campaign.
>
>It seems to me like the last time I saw actual numbers on this, Bush
>led Clinton in number of dollars raised from trial lawyers.  Of
>course, that report was about a month ago and may be out of date.
>Does anyone have more recent numbers to back up or refute this claim?
 
We might also look at the relative policies of the two regarding trial
lawyers. Bush is pushing tort reform, something Clinton is trying to kill.
According to a mailing from the president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers
Ass'n printed in last week's WSJ, Clinton was ready to sign a "Good Samaritan"
bill protecting providers of emergency medcical care from liability- when
the trial lawyers were mobilized. CLinton vetoed the bill.
 
Even William Greider, who is an unreconstructed Democrat (read his fawning
questioning of Clinton in the Rolling Stone interview) contended in his
PBS piece that the modern Democratic party is very much the party of
lawyer's interests.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5205 alt.rush-limbaugh:4893 alt.politics.clinton:5518
From: JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:19:31 GMT
 <1992Sep14.033239.8769@nuscc.nus.sg>
 <1992Sep14.150552.22552@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <1992Sep14.235138.3613@anasazi.com>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Sep14.235138.3613@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
says:
>In article <1992Sep14.150552.22552@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>]Under Bush, the percentage of federal spending as a percentage of GDP
>]is larger than under any president in recent history...
>
>This can be put more accurately as:
>
>Under the democratic party controlled congress, the percentage of federal
>spending as a percentage of GDP is larger than under any president in recent
>history...
>

"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 10:22:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.213829.14701@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>
>                                             In the meantime, we should make
>sure that each and every child receives adequate sex education--just the
>facts, no moralizing.
>
Sure!  And while we're at it, let's teach children about guns the same way -
just the facts about how to use them, no moralizing about where to point them
and when to pull the trigger.
-- 
The Democrat U.S. Congress - Evil Empire II (TM)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: ujwb@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Jeff Beer)
Subject: Re: Family Leave (was Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:58:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.203232.5464@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>The family leave bill is going to help rich yuppies have children,
>and that's about all.  A company will likely fire any poor, working
>class individual who takes advantage of the 12 week unpaid leave
>authorized by the bill.  Companies know they can easily replace
>untrained, unskilled workers, and they won't be happy about a
>worker who takes temporary leave -- it costs them money to find
>a temporary replacement.  It'd be cheaper to fire them, and replace
>them with a new worker.  
>
>And in those situations where the worker doesn't get fired, the costs 
>of finding and training a temporary replacement will hurt American
>businesses, and possibly cost other people their jobs.  A President
>who is concerned about "family values" will veto this bill, because
>it will ultimately cost American jobs and hurt U.S. competitiveness.  

And such is an example of the shortsightedness of American business.
They view their workforce as reusable, replaceable, and ultimately
meaningless entities, merely chess pieces in the equation producing the
Almighty bottom line.

Jeff
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections