HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: Re: I hope you lemmings are happy!
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:13:53 GMT

In article <145620008@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, mort@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Mortensen) writes:
|> 			The end is near!!!!!!!!!!
|> 
|> 	For those of you who voted for Mr. I did not inhale Clinton
|> 	I can only thank you for starting the end of the USA as we
|> 	know it.  The decline started with Reagan, got this bad with
|> 	Bush, and will be finished off by you stupid lemming liberals. 
|> 
|> 	I hope your happy, and I hope your family feels the full sting
|> 	of this losers ideas and lies................................
|> 
|>                               
|> Too bad!!!
|> 
|> Morty

   Just what I love to see: a man generous in victory, and graceful
in defeat. NOT!!!
			- Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16265 alt.politics.elections:23016 talk.politics.misc:58693
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Clinton: Why Should I Be Elected President?
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:04:35 GMT

In article <92308.131415U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>, U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
}            WHY SHOULD I BE ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
}                         Governor Bill Clinton
} 
}       The best reason I can give you to vote for me on November 3 is
}  this: November 4.
} 
}       On November 4, we're all going to wake up with the election
}  behind us.  There will be no more charges to answer, nobody to accuse
}  and counter-accuse.

Does Clinton really believe that on Nov 4 and beyond he will be shielded
from all that?

}  All we'll have before us is our future.  A
}  future you will choose.

As long as Clinton appoves of the choices you make, of course.

}       I'll start by putting America back to work.  I have a plan to
}  create eight million new jobs and rebuild our roads and highways,

<sniff>  Anybody besides me smell the distinct scent of pork?

}       I'm going to change the way the tax burden has been dumped on
}  the shoulders of the middle class.  And I'll ask the very wealthy to
}  pay their fair share for a change.

"Ask"?  Clinton's plan uses the words "force, make, and require" in the
same context.  Doesn't he know the difference?

}       I'm going to hold down health care costs, before they bankrupt
}  our families, our businesses, and our state and federal governments.

Uh-huh.  Remember Nixon's wage and price controls -- shortages and long
lines?  I wonder if Clinton will pass out buttons like Nixon's WIN buttons.

}  I'll make health care a right, not a privilege, for every man, woman,
}  and child in America.

Health care is very important, but it is not a right, because it is not
free; it must come at someone's expense.  Either doctors and nurses must
provide this care for no pay, or someone must foot the bill.  Something
cannot be a human right, if it comes at the expense of a human being.  
--
David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
"I will not raise taxes on the middle class. ... I disagree with Mr. Perot
 on how MUCH to increase taxes on the middle class."  -- Bill Clinton, 3rd
 Presidential debate
From: mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and a Security Clearance
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:50:30 GMT
Organization: Odesta Corporation

>In article <1d92jbINN9s9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bg086@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brad C. Wallet) writes:
>|> 
>|> I think the ironic part of the whole election is that given Gov.
>|> Clinton's past record, he would not ordinarily be able to get a
>|> security clearance.  That's no security clearance.  Not even a
>|> Secret clearance.  Are the security checks too tight?  Well, to
>|> make it so that he would have been, they would have to eliminate
>|> almost all the requirements.  If anyone cares to dispute this,
>|> I can state direct references to the laws.  I realize that this
>|> character issue has been beat to death, but man is he scary.
>|> 

Given the number of Americans who protested the Vietnam War in the 60s and
70s, did you ever wonder what justifies all that security aparatus BS?  Put
another way, who gets to define what is good behavior?  Well, surprise, the
people who get to define it define good behavior as the way THEY behave.
A Congressional staffer trying to get signatures on an antiwar petition in
the sixties encountered resistance from some of his fellow staffers concerned
over the damage they might do to their careers by speaking out against the
war.  He had a very pointed reply: "I figure it's a risk either way.  If
there's another McCarthy Era, I loose.  But if there's another Nuremburg (sp?),
you loose."   Unfortunately, we never had our Nuremburg for Vietnam.

Who are they really keeping the information FROM?  For example, why are
the directions sent to Ambassador April Glaspie in Iraq prior to the invasion
still secret?  Iraq knows what she said.  The only people who don't know
what she was told to say are the American people.  And this, I would claim,
is the real reason for a lot of security in the government.  It has nothing
to do with hiding information from foreign governments; they already know
most of it.  It has to do with hiding information from the people who are
a real threat to the national security state bureaucrats -- the American voters.

Perhaps Bill Clinton will change that.  Perhaps it's time to reconsider
this whole silly security aparatus and fire a bunch of people.

David Evans, a Chicago Tribune columnist and former Marine officer, suggested
this morning that Clinton have the entire Pentagon bureaucracy parade
past his reviewing stand on inauguration day to get a sense of just how
big it is.  His estimate is that, four abreast, the column would be 27.5
miles long and take eight hours to pass the stand.

Let's fire some of THOSE bureaucrats who contribute absolutely nothing to
the national good.
-- 
--
Mike Kelly               Odesta Corporation, Northbrook, Illinois, USA
...!clout!odgate!mike    - Until odesta.com is registered.
odgate!mike@clout.uucp   - From the Internet.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: About this "No Mandate" Garbage
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:37:02 GMT

In article <10305@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Nov6.062458.26454@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>
>>Dream on, people!  The Republican Party got trounced. Clinton has a
>>mandate.
>
>Dream on yourself.  Clinton only got 43% of the vote.  In the Senate the
>Democrats will either stay the same or gain one seat depending on how
>Fowler does in his run-off.  In the House they lost a dozen seats.
>
>In 1980 Reagan got about 52% of the vote even though Anderson siphoned off
>about 7% of the vote.  The Republicans gained 4 or 5 senate seats, enough
>to control that body for the first time in nearly 30 years, they also picked
>up 15 to 20 house seats.
>
>There is no comparison.
>
>Clinton did not win this election,  Bush lost it.

  How interesting. The last time I looked they had the same effect.
Oh well, feel free to use that to consol (sp?) yourself the next 4 years.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:40:30 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Inheritances (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
 <30109@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>

In article <30109@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, msnyder@uchost.UUCP (Michael
Snyder,000,0000,0000000) says:
>
>From article <JTURNER.92Nov5105241@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, by
>jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner):
>> To say that an inheritance tax, which only taxes the unearned gains
>> of the heirs, is a disincentive to anything - or that it is unfair -
>> is, IMO, pure selfish nonsense of the kind which put the economy in its
>> present condition.
>>
>>                                       --Jeff Turner

Just a quick comment.  I saw a recent article on the effects of inheritance
on work.  The study showed that $1 of inheritance reduces labor hours
far more than $1 of welfare.  In the interests of supply-side economics
I think we should heavily tax inheritances to erase this massive work
disincentive. :)



>
>Where do you think inheritances come from?  Someone down the line had to
>work hard, budget, invest, and PAY TAXES on income.  Then that income
>that is left over is further invested, budgeted, and the income made off
>that is TAXED... and so on.  Every cent of an inheritance has been
>rightfully taxed once already.
>
>SOMEBODY EARNED THAT MONEY!
>
>And don't start talking about tax-free investments - they're tax-free as
>an incentive to invest and are usually undesirable without the incentive.
>Who's made money off of TF municipal bonds for NY, LA, or any other large
>city?  Would you have made money on the return if the return was taxed?
>
>But, according to the text above, inheritances are more the government's
>than the person who accumulated the inheritance?  Okay, let's tax all
>inheritances at 100%.  I mean, shit, you're dead; why would your heirs be
>more entitled to the result of your life than the government?
>
>And no runarounds.  Take your peak net worth during life, subtract what
>it cost to live from that point until your death, and write the government
>a check with your dying breath.  Hold on...
>
>... good God, would there be a Kennedy in two generations with the
>resources to be as influential as they are now?
>
>Maybe we should consider this more...
>
>Michael Snyder
>
><< I'm paid for my work, not my opinions.  Those are mine, all mine. >>
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: fredrick@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Timothy Fredrick)
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:09:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.230818.14351@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:
>In article <1j==Zm=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>In article <JTURNER.92Nov5105638@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:

>>|> > I
>>|> >  agree with other posters that we should overhaul the tax system entirely
>>|> >  and tax consumption, not income.

      [stuff deleted for brevity ]

>Excellently said.  Currently, the IRS is able to follow our incomes
>fairly (or unfairly :-) ) well.  Many people receive W-2 forms and
>this represents the majority of their income.  I am not sure how the
>feds could track our expenditures in the current setup.  How many people
>would accurately fill out their tax forms declaring all *purchases*
>during the year?  How many people keep this information?  There would
>clearly have to be a large change in what records are kept.
>
>Perhaps a poor attempt at a consumption tax was the proposal to tax
>yachts and other "luxury" items.  Taxing in proportion to the cost
>of the item makes only little sense.  In the case where parts can
>be bought and then assembled, one quickly sees the difficulty of such
>an approach.

Parts which are obviously designed to be used as building material for
expensive items (hard disk drives or "yacht sterns") could be taxed at a
higher rate than sewing supplies or balsa wood. :-)

>  Several possible tweaks to a sales tax scheme could be
>tried such as taxing proportional to carbon content (save the trees and
>decrease global warming), or proportional to energy content, or
>proportional to recyclability.  This last tweak seems particularly
>apt when one comes upon the Campbells Soup packaged with seven separate
>layers of disposable plastic/metal/paper.

How about recyclability and "durability".  Perhaps there would be consumer
pressure to purchase automobiles designed to last 200K miles rather than 
<100K as a result.  Planned obsolescence (sp?) seems as bad a crime as
Campbell's Soup packages when it comes to a waste of energy and landfill
space.  I especially see a lot of this in the computer industry (A PC/XT
or old laser printer is easier to "throw away" than to upgrade -- these
machines manufactured in 1985-87 may have little or no use today).

I would personally love to see a "toxicity tax" -- exponentially so on products
that we ban in the US but export to developing nations (such as DDT or
dangerous pharmeceuticals (sp?)).

--Tim Fredrick

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16312 talk.politics.misc:58746 bit.listserv.politics:17399
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Who gained what in the 1980s
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:12:48 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.162946.12103@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, awells@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Andrew V. Wells) writes:
...
> Well, just who is robbing whom?  Take any notice of income
> redistribution figures (upward) for the last 12 years?

		Who gained what in the 1980s

	Income		Gain	
	< $25k          19%
	25-50k		39%
	50-100k		25%
	>100k		23%

	Change in average net worth, 1983-1989, in real 1989 dollars.

	(Forbes 400 issue, 10/19/92, page 78.)

	Forbes is using data from the Federal Reserve.  Data does not include
pension plan holdings or retirement benefits (Fed doesn't include them yet).

	So.  Next time someone says "rich got richer..." everyone can chime in
"and so did the poor".

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: McAldon International Inc. <mcaldon@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:37 PST
Subject: Re: PROVE IT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Nov10.172843.5518@desire.wri:-1276271100:cdp:1588800054:000:870
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mcaldon    Nov 11 19:37:00 1992


|    1) Reagan created 18 million new jobs.
          
Even you could create millions of jobs by spending billions of borrowed bucks.
Did I say billions?  I meant TRILLIONS!
       
|    2) Bush didn't even come close to following supply-side economics.

Whatever it was, I sure hope Clinton doesn't try the same system.

|   3) We are dealing with it.  We're prepping for higher inflation.
|Brett

Good.  Maybe you can help pay off the monstrous debt your boys built 
up.  We need all the help we can get.  DMcKenzie
            
|                        |        definitions-->DEMOCRACY        |
|                        |        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        |    
|    mcaldon@igc.org     |   A temporary condition, teetering    |
|                        |  between anarchy and a police state   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: bondc@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Clay M. Bond)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:35:57 GMT

In article <22319@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

>If it is no longer mine, then whose is it?  

Whoever owns my tax money -- and when I can ensure that not one
cent of my tax money goes to the military or to any program that
gives any priveleged status to married couples, or any other
thing I do not approve of, then and *only* then can you specify
that your money not fund abortions.

-- 
"There is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon
 the freedom of my mind."
			   -- Virginia Woolf
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BUSH vs Clinton: one on one
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:56:31 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <92308.134945MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>You did a pretty good job listing the issues, but I believe you got two
>of Clinton's positions wrong.
>   It is my understanding that Clinton is for the line item veto, (some
>one who knows for sure, please let me know)

True.

>  Clinton is for Capital Gains tax cuts IF the recipient reinvests the
>money in venture which help the US economy or gives jobs to Americans

If I read it right, what he supports is a capital gains tax cut on invest-
ments at least 5 years old.  Pity the poor unfortunate real estate "develop-
ers" selling decrepit apartment houses to each other to collect capital gains
every year (a well-known scam in the Sta. Barbara, CA, area in the mid-1970's).


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|		"Life is uncertain.  Eat dessert first."  - Anon. 	   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Subject: Re: The Popular Vote - Mandate or No Mandate?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:02:49 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov10.172113.2964@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>I'm not going to argue this largely semantic question; I would just like to
>point something out to all you people who are having fun pointing out that
>almost sixty percent of voters voted for someone other than Bill Clinton:
>_more_ than sixty percent of voters voted for someone other than George Bush,
>and _eighty_ percent of voters voted for someone other than Ross Perot.
>So there.  What's the big deal?

No one is arguing that Clinton didn't *WIN*.  Of *course* he got more
votes than Bush or Perot.  Give us all a break, *PLEASE*!

Now pay attention:

Winning the election is not equivalent to a mandate.

Clinton barely won.  He won, and he will be the President, but the
only mandate he has is from the special interests, the liberal media,
and the Democratic congress.  These people expect Clinton to shove
their unwanted agenda down the throats of the majority of Americans,
for our own good, or so they imagine.  But it is definitely unwanted
by the majority of Americans.  That is no mandate.
-- 
            _.
--Steve   ._||__    Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
  Warren   v\ *|    -----------------------------------------------
             V
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: To all of the alt.politics.* people
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:33:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.172435.15286@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.230445.17678@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Simon E. Booth,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
>>This is not a retreat from my beliefs, but a gesture of good faith to all
>>interneters.
>>
>>So, let's keep the friendly talk oing.  I'll post more (poliite) stuff
>later
>>on.
>
>Good show Simon....I'm proud of you.
>
>Norman
>
Thank you.  Some of the the fallout from the election is already starting
to settle.  I've gotten some friendly e-mail so far, so I am hope the flaming
might finally cool off.  he only real problem I've had is when I fell for
the stupid "flamebait test message" joke someone posted.  Other than a few
people gloating things have been ok.

Simon

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: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:08:06 GMT

>In article <1992Nov5.222007.29060@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.175312.26874@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>>>
>>>>The question, then, becomes which if any of a,b, and c are true.  I
>>>>personally feel that a (for example, how much more does it cost to insure
>>>>a $1,000,000 deposit than a $1,000 in an FSLIC bank) and b (this argument
>>>>is why sales tax is considered regressive, for example) are true, if not c.
>>>
>>>Spoken like a true social engineer.
>>>
>>>If your FSLIC example is the best you can offer (it's wrong by the way
>>>as insurance only goes up to $100,000 deposits) then forget a).
>>
>>Wrong.  FSLIC goes up to $100,000 _per_account_.  You can have $1,000,000
>>divided up into ten different accounts, and it's all insured.  You can have
>>$100,000,000 deposited in a thousand different accounts, and it's all insured.
While it is true that the limit is $100,000 per account, I am under the
impression that you can't just open a thousand different accounts with
the same bank.  You could diversify and open up an account with a thousand
different banks (in which case the diversification gives you an increased
level of security even without the FSLIC), and you can have a few accounts
at the same bank by having one in your name, one a joint account, maybe
some in the names of your children, etc....

Jens
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: To-All_You-Republicans
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:49:24 EST
Summary: (Former) Republican, does that count?
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.174452.20864@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, sarala@pyuxf.uucp (25348-bhatt) writes:
> 
>  I can't believe all the garbage I am reading about how Pres. Clinton will be
> like Pres. Carter. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that all democratic and
> republican presidents have some stereo-typed behavior and they always follow
> their so-called party platforms to the line.  If that is the case, any future

	This is weak after 12 months of Reagan/Bush/Quayle linkage attempts.

> reason not to elect any REPUBLICAN in future !!!!. You republican supporters
> have such an double standards!

	Indeed.  Pot N Kettle.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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