HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:14:24 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply
>that you don't live on the same planet as *I* do? Hardly.
>Your situation is the same as mine is the same as everyone elses.
>There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
>is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
>can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
>argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!
>

Don't waste time worrying about such trivial matters.  You say the earth is
over populated... so what?  How much longer do you think life on this earth,
as we know it today, is going to last?  Remember, there WAS a beginning to
time, and there *WILL* be an end to it also.  The same God who created this 
earth is also going to destroy it.  Nothing you or I can do, can stop that!
You would be better off investing your time in your eternal future, rather
than worrying about such trivial matters as overpopulation.  People are 
constantly projecting population figures far into the future.  The assumption
being made, that the earth will still exist then.  What happens if it doesn't?
Why do we so casually assume that there *will* be a tomorrow, just because
today came after yesterday?  Just as the world began, it will also end.  Don't
worry about the population, worry about where YOU will be when the world ends.

... ponder that!
-- 
| 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.   |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: PKD's Time out of Joint **Spoilers!!** Re: Science Fiction?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:44:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.181549.27961@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.230426.15962@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.185107.6145@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>
>>>What I really want is a HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile.  It's
>>>used to blow up enemy radar sets.) set-up for my car.  Those pesky
>>>cops with their radar guns....
>>>
>>Geez, no one has repsect for the police these days!
>
>My diet has too many Schwarzenneger films....
>
>>
>>What we need is to keep building the stealth aircraft, in case another
>>Iraq-type country threatnes the world.  And then GM culd adopt the same
>>technology for its newest sports cars
>>(Unless we can't drive cars because after Clinton's environmental policies
>>are enacted).   :-)
>
>Stealth cars may prove too difficult to find in those mall parking lots.
>Chaos would ensue.
>
>>
>>Now the Democrats have perfected virtual reality--remember the late 70's??
>>-)    (our enemies are really nice people-yeah right!!)
>
>"Morning In America" was pretty virtual, if I recall.  Reagan creating
>a virtual America that might have existed around the turn of the
>century and so on :-)
>
For a good look at life under a Clinton administartion, check out the
1980 film "The Last Chase".  :-)

"Morning In America"?  I don't think I know that one.

Simon

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17283 alt.politics.democrats.d:586 alt.politics.elections:23956 ba.politics:7169 co.politics:2091 ne.politics:3009 nj.politics:741 or.politics:652 ny.politics:261 talk.politics.misc:60451
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: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:33:36 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <hines.721690637@cgl.ucsf.edu> hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:
>rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>>>In article <1992Nov11.201147.12975@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
>
>
>>I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
>>of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
>>Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
>>tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
>>any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
>>gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...  How
>
>Yeah, other people should be willing to accept less.  What a sleazy thing
>to suggest that people who you want to call by the name "public servant"
>should work for less.  It doesn't seem that you have choosen this path.  

I'm too honest, I wouldn't fit in.

>  You went on to suggest that we should
>elect leaders who will tax us as we want to be taxed.  Guess what?  "We"
>have and if you don't like it, then leave.

... hate to shed too much light on the subject, as I fear harming the seemingly
little vision that you have remaining ...

But, I'll do it anyway (what's one more blind person for the state to take 
care of?).  If we were to take a vote here, I think that you would find very
few people happy with the way they are being taxed. If you are still of 
college age, I can excuse your ignorance, because you won't even know 
what taxes are until you try to buy a house and raise a family!  

ron
-- 
| 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.   |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17454 alt.president.clinton:542
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:39:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.144549.14983@sbctri.sbc.com> asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.173318.20580@leela.cs.orst.edu> casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass) writes:
>>>
>>If these letters are to be believed then the Democrates and Bill Clinton
>>are personally responsible for every disaster since the War of 1812.
>>
>It's true. I have evidence that they were involved in the bloody TaiPing
>rebellion in the 1870's. Don't tell me the liberal media doesn't know
>about this.
>
They probably don't, 'cause the TaiPing rebellion against the Qing Dynasty
in China happened during the 1850s and 1860s.  

>Alan
>


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17372 alt.politics.democrats.d:619 alt.politics.elections:24061 ba.politics:7215 co.politics:2154 ne.politics:3039 nj.politics:761 or.politics:674 ny.politics:281 talk.politics.misc:60621
From: wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: 22 Nov 1992 10:10:15 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <cubsfan.722154042@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>The average Republican once again astounds the world with intellignt,
>thoughful political discourse.

As if we have never seen t-shorts with similar epithets directed at Bush.

And if the Democrats really respected intelligence, Robert Bork would have
been confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1987.

William F. Tell
UC Berkeley

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: zawr02@hou.amoco.com (Andrew W. Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:19:33 GMT
Reply-To: zawr02@hou.amoco.com
Organization: Amoco

In article AHr@eis.calstate.edu, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>
>I'm considerably less than impressed with Clinton's non-existant
>understanding of economics; his "plans" to eliminate the deficit and
>revitalize America's economy strike me as on a par with Nixon's "plan" to
>end the war in Viet Nam. That is to say, pure campaign rhetoric, wholely
>lacking in substance. 
>
Gotta disagree with you on this point.  Clinton does have a plan. He has even
published it. Given your comments, you will probably disagree with the 
effectiveness, but his plan for the economy is a whole lot more substantial
Nixon's vague promise of *peace with honor* (and I'm a republican).
---
Andrew Robinson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are solely my own.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17407 alt.politics.democrats.d:626 or.politics:680 talk.politics.misc:60732
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,or.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re:income vs. consumption
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:42:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa

In article <kbanaian.22.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu>, kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
> 
> "Trickle down", dear readers, was first used by William Grieder in the 
> infamous interview with the traitorous Stockman in the Atlantic, August 
> 1981.  ...
> 
Is this "traitorous" Stockman the same one who after runnng the numbers,
said that Reagan couldn't have both his tax cuts and his defense spending
without running ruinous deficits?  And was ignored?  And was right?

Just checking. :-)
> 
> 
> Not so, my friend.  From the days of Ricardo we know that taxes and deficits 
> get you approximately the same result in the market place.  The thing that 
> drives it all is government spending. 
> >
Please elaborate.  I am interested in this thread and would like to see it
discussed by someone trained in the subject. Speak more, please.

steve soar
(My cute quote got laid off...)


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17337 alt.politics.democrats.d:601 alt.politics.elections:24018 ba.politics:7182 co.politics:2131 ne.politics:3021 nj.politics:749 or.politics:661 ny.politics:269 talk.politics.misc:60554
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: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:19:53 GMT
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation

In article <Bxo9z3.Kzx@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.184033.5936@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>	(deleted)
>>
>>I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
>>of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
>>Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
>>tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
>>any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
>>gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...  
>	(deleted)
>
>	I don't know about your state but for the last six years the state
>employee's of Massachusetts have had no pay raises.  That's no cost of living,
>nothing.  In effect with the current mild inflation rate about a third cut
>in pay.
>	Also,  I notice you state that a public servant,  for which I read
>public employee,  should be willing to accept less of a pay increase than
>the norm.  Why?

Public employee isn't what I meant.  They DESERVE to get raises approximately
equal to their private business counterparts.  The problem here is that while
the "little people" didn't get raises, congress was busy voting themselves
big fat raises, at the expense of the "little people".
  
I purposely did not lump all public employees into this category.  What I meant
to include here was public service jobs such as legislators, senators, 
presidents and vice presidents, etc.  

Take for instance our NYS legislators who are concerned only about themselves. 
They are drafting a pay raise bill for themselves.  That is SELF-SERVICE,
not public service!  Why is it that the highest paid legislators in the
nation want a bigger piece of the pie?  They certainly did not EARN it, as 
NY state is in DEEP financial POOP!!  It was my impression that when someone
sought a public office, they were doing so because they thought their policy
would better serve the public.  

Public employees who do not have the power to control their own pay raises do
not fit the group I referred to in the earlier post.

ron
-- 
| 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.   |
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
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
X-Xxdate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 08:50:04 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:53:29 GMT

In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg> Ed Ipser,
ipser@solomon.technet.sg writes:
>There is no overpopulation problem.

Wrong. Check out recent studies which talk about overpopulation in and
around Mexico city and the massive infrastructure problems and
environmental
disater which is caused by it.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: W.J.~B. Clinton Anagrams
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:52:54 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

jsl7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Shawn Landres) writes:

>So sorry to disappoint you . . . BC's full name is William Jefferson Clinton.

Picky, picky... alright, have it your way.

		      William Jefferson Clinton

			       becomes

		    Law'll sniff one-joint crime.


No Gennifer vs. Jennifer vs. Ghoti, either. Now, dispute that, if you will!

- Stephen P. "Telepathic Sampson" Masticola.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:30:22 GMT

belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell) writes:

>tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:


>>I don't want to hear  about non-gay people getting AIDS, either. I know that everyone
>>could get AIDS in some way, but it is mainly determined by your lifestyle and your 
>>spouses.   What are the odds of a heterosexual w/ 1 mate who doesn't sleep around
>>(same w/ spouse) or use drugs as compared to a gay?  NOT EVEN CLOSE.

>By the way, the odds of a homosexual w/ 1 mate who doesn't sleep around
>(same w/ spouse) or use drugs contracting AIDS is about the same as for your
>hypothetical hetero.  Obviously more state and city governments need to 
>recognize same sex marriages to encourage safe behavior.

Dave, I am NOT defending or rejecting the idea of "more gays in the military =
higher healthcare costs", but I would like to correct you on one point.

You have twisted around what Tim said.  Look carefully at the portion of his
post that I left above.  If you take his words at face value, what he said
is compare two people:  Person X is a HETEROsexual in a MONOgamous relationship 
who DOESN'T use drugs.  Person Y is a HOMOsexual.  That's it.  Tim did NOT
say that Person Y has multiple sexual partners or uses drugs.  Then again,
he DIDN'T rule out the possibility.

All the current research says that Person Y is at a much HIGHER risk
of getting AIDS than Person X.

If a problem exists in Tim's argument is lies within the reasoning, NOT
the FACTS.  Dave, please do not try to deny the fact that your average
homosexual is MORE likely to get AIDS than your average monogamous,
drug-free, heterosexual.


*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* DISCLAIMER:  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of CCSO or the    *
*              University of Illinois.					      *
*******************************************************************************
From: bondc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Clay M. Bond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:23:53 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <Ef3JSde00iV286IYx8@andrew.cmu.edu> Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>I had heard some information on one of the network news shows that call
>me to question the wisdom of Bill Clinton's decision to overturn the ban
>on homosexual's in the military.

[Various lame excuses deleted]

>While I'm on the subject...  Why hasn't Bill mentioned the Female
>Airforce Pilots who are angry because they aren't allowed in combat?  
>[ . . . ]
>It seems like this is the issue that is ready to be addressed.

Ah, I see.

We are not important, but you are.

The only issue here to be addressed is the location of your head.



-- 
"There is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon
 the freedom of my mind."
			   -- Virginia Woolf
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17494 alt.politics.correct:5853 rec.humor:34381
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,rec.humor
Subject: W.J.B. Clinton Anagrams
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:40:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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.


- Stephen P. "Telepathic Sampson" Masticola.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17357 alt.politics.democrats.d:614 alt.politics.elections:24039 ba.politics:7211 co.politics:2150 ne.politics:3035 nj.politics:759 or.politics:672 ny.politics:279 talk.politics.misc:60599
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
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: Inheritance taxes
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:53:55 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov13.185129.4500@tvnews.tv.tek.com> stever@crosstalk.tv.tek.com (Steven E. Rice  P.E.) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.012419.13792@tvnews.tv.tek.com>, I wrote:

>Andrew J. Lazarus (lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu) didn't like that at all!  In
>article <1dvbqnINN10a@agate.berkeley.edu>, he wrote:

>> What definition are you using? The US Estate Tax does not kick in until
>2-bedroom house with a handkerchief-sized yard.  While talking about
>houses, my in-laws mentioned that their house was valued at $53,000!
...
>and lawyers on the string to exploit all these helpful dodges.  Five of
>every six American adults don't even have wills -- how many do you
>think have ILITs??

Life insurance generally
does NOT count towards the 600K limit. Check out Nolo
Press's write-your-own-will book.

It's true, if you don't plan too well you can over-pay in estate tax.
Butif you use a modicum of planning, you can run your exemption
way up. For example, through trusts.

Why don't you post some figures on how many estates pay tax? I'll try to
find them myself, but I would think that the burden is on you...
andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Prayers in school (Was: What is a Conservative?)
In-reply-to: wglee@eceris.ece.ncsu.edu's message of Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:08:00 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Nov10.230134.26099@Cadence.COM> <BxKCIz.C1C@ns1.nodak.edu>
	<1992Nov13.040800.7656@ncsu.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:08:34

What I want to see is the toleration from all those parents who think
a little nondenominational prayer from the valedictorian is not a
problem for anyone when it comes from a Buddhist Vietnamese immigrant.
I suspect that they won't be quite so complacent.  I know, it hasn't
happened yet, and it's just my paranoid fantasy leading me to believe
this, but I still want to see it.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17409 soc.culture.asian.american:10138
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton....1st Women President ?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:23:32 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

Edith Wilson pretty much ran the White House after Woodrow's stroke.
andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17691 alt.president.clinton:655 talk.politics.misc:61431