HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:16:27 GMT
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

In article <Bx5oLD.3yn@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>
jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken) writes:
> If you think selling drugs is such a harmless event, take a visit
> to your nearest large city police department, ...
> I think you'll come to realize that those who sell drugs are
> responsible for a lot of the " ... real crime ..." you mention.

Most drug-related crime is motivated by greed for profits from the sale
of drugs, or the need of money to buy drugs.  Interdiction reduces the
supply of drugs without reducing the demand.  Therefore, the price of
drugs goes up, providing more encouragement to dealers and smugglers.
Poor drug addicts are driven to commit more crime to obtain the money
to feed their habit.  The reduction in supply is temporary, but the
price increase lingers.  Criminals get rich from the sale of drugs and
use that money to support other criminal activities (like bribing our
public officials).

The solution is to legalize and tax drugs.  Use the money we've been
spending on the war on drugs, plus the drug tax revenue, to fund more
education, advertisement, and rehabilitation programs.  We could also
spend more money addressing problems that lead to drug abuse such as
poverty and unemployment.

Ask yourself why you abstain from using drugs.  Is it because they are
illegal, or because you know it is harmful to your mind and body?  I
abstain because, thanks to education, I am aware of the harmful side
effects of drug usage.  If crack were made legal tomorrow, I would not
suddenly start smoking large amounts of crack.  Education is effective
in reducing the demand for drugs.

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16114 talk.politics.misc:58518 bit.listserv.politics:17252
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:53:18 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1992Nov5.143502.5432@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> 	Rumor has it that Mr. & Mrs. Reagan voted for Ross Perot.
|> 
|> 	Given the way President Bush trashed Reagan's economic expansion, I
|> wouldn't blame them :).
|> 
|> Brett

  Interesting Rumor. However, according to the 11/5 New York Times Election
Special, Reagan was upset and angry that Bush didn't use Reagan as a
campaigner until late october. Reagan was also upset that Buchanan's speech
went overtime and pushed Reagan's more moderate speech out of the prime
time.
  I personally don't think Reagan would secretly turn his back on the
republican party in the privacy of the voting booth. That's not his style.
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Kosher Kitchen in the White House
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:36:04 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>>I heard a report that Clinton promised a group of New York Jews that
>>he would establish a Kosher Kitchen in the White House.  

>To poison all the homophobic Jews.

>Oh, don't worry -- you'll be on the first invitation list.

Forewarned is forearmed!

-----------------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
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: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 11:03:31 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

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:
|> >|> In article <1992Nov4.192104.8209@ncar.ucar.edu> pack@acd.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> > I
|> >|> >  agree with other posters that we should overhaul the tax system entirely
|> >|> >  and tax consumption, not income.
|> >|> 
|> >|> 	Great, a truly regressive tax scheme.  Why don't we just take
|> >|> Jonathan Swift's advice and eat the poor.  Thank goodness Clinton won
|> >|> on the strength of people who oppose just such me-ism.
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >I think I can safely call this a knee-jerk reaction.  It is entirely
|> >feasible to design a consumption based tax which excludes a certain
|> >level of consumption.  Poor people would pay no taxes.  Only those
|> >who could afford to reach the exemption threshold would pay taxes.
|> >Beyond that point, the more you spent, the more you paid.
|> >There was a brief description of such a plan in the WSJ a couple
|> >of weeks ago.  Such a plan properly rewards saving and investment
|> >and still prevents the regressive nature of a simple consumption
|> >tax that most people would be against.
|> 
|> 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.
|> 

Not necessarily so.  You could simply track the amount of investment, which
is already done, and deduct it from income.  The remainder would represent
consumption.  Give people personal exemptions and you eliminate the
most regressive nature.  The WSJ column has a better explanation about
how the current tax system and method of reporting could be converted
into a consumption based system.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15984 soc.culture.asian.american:9965
From: liang@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Chuck Liang)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton....1st Women President ?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:19:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Bx93p1.6It@wilber.rich.nt.com> zing@wilber.rich.nt.com (Leon Z. Lee) writes:
>This by no means is an attempt to undermine Pres.-elected Clinton's support,
>However, many Asian-American colleagues point out the demeanor and status
>of Hillary Clinton and that she will not be a wife that simply gives advise
>to the President...but rather, she will actually be drafting many of the
>legislations yet to come before the Congress.


  Why don't you, and your colleagues, examine the role Hillary Clinton
played while her husband was governor of Arkansas.  She was active in
helping him to push through some programs, particularly in educational
reform.  What's wrong with that?  There was nothing to suggest that
she was ruling behind the scenes.  And what reasons are there to believe
he role would be much different as first lady?  If anything her role
would probably DECREASE simply because people like you - and there are
many - would be constantly and irresponsibly screaming Dowager Empress.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: Re: The Clinton Revolution
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:26:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.120813.5428@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov4.140305.28033@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
|> >    I remember when the Reagan Revolution started. Reagan told us
|> > how easy it would be: he would cut taxes, the ecomomy would grow
|> > itself, the deficit would close, and all the while, "Happy Days"
|> > blared in the background. As we all know, the economy did grow,
|> > but the deficit grew faster and it has caught up with us. The
|> 
|> 	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.

   Technically correct, but highly misleading. First of all, I'm talking
debt here: the accumulated total owed. You are talking deficit: the amount
added to the debt each year. If you graph debt/GNP vs year, you'll see
that the curve had a gentle negative slope during part of the second Reagan
term, but it had such a fierce positive slope during the first Reagan term
that we never had *less* debt as a percentage of GNP than Carter left us with.
Another interesting thing to graph: cost of carrying the debt as percentage
of the federal budget vs year.

   Finally, the greatest economic shame of the Reagan years is this: the
Treasury can (and did) borrow money from the Social Security Administration
i.e. Soc. Sec. invested in Treasury bonds. This does *not* show up in the
deficit! It's a little accounting sleight of hand that allowed the Reagan
administration to *hide* an extra $50 billion or so deficit some years.
This may or may not be a good investment for Soc. Sec.; I'm not arguing
that, but it ought to be included in the deficit calculations, and, shame-
fully, wasn't. Brett, when you post your FAQ on Reaganomics, I hope you'll
include that borrowing in your deficit figures or else explain why Treasury
doesn't need to pay it.
				- Lee Campbell  <elwin@media.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16244 alt.politics.democrats.d:353 alt.politics.elections:22999 ba.politics:6858 co.politics:1639 ne.politics:2774 nj.politics:574 or.politics:476 ny.politics:101 talk.politics.misc:58665
From: joel@locus.com (Joel Lilienkamp)
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: 6 Nov 92 17:04:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <Bx96p8.AKL@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>As far as Social Security goes, it is merely a pyramid scheme which ...

The correct term is a Ponzi scheme, which in the vernacular translates
to "rob Peter to pay Paul".  A pyramid scheme would be like a chain letter.
If the workforce continued to grow at a geometric rate, then it could be
argued that SS was a Pyramid scheme, but that growth in the US has levelled
off somewhat and is predicted to fall in the '90s.  Hence the tremendous
increases in SS and SE taxes in the '80s.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16823 alt.politics.bush:13741 alt.politics.elections:23458
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 11 Nov 1992 16:32:32 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov11.005956.23879@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.210356.11971@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
>>>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>>>	income have 3 kids????
>
>>Could be because they want them!  
>
>Fine: Why should they be made immune from the consequences of this
>choice? If they want to have more kids than they can afford, that's
>fine. But they should live with the result: Poverty. We are under
>no obligation to save them from their own bad judgement.
>
Wonderful Idea!!!! Lets make it a law!!! lets see, anyone who can't 
*afford* to have kids should be prohibited from having them...Okay
considering the *total* cost of raising a kid, I would say that
anyone making less than $50,000 per year should be required
to undergo mandetory sterilization...hey, that way we could
eliminate poverty in just a couple of generations and *everybody*
would have a high paying job...

Didn't Hitler have a similar plan regarding the Jews?

>
>The discussion is why such a family should be given a tax credit, to
>protect them from the results of their choice. I see no reason 
>why they should be.
>
>                                     Frank Crary
>                                     CU Boulder



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16739 alt.politics.democrats.d:426 alt.politics.elections:23382 ba.politics:6967 co.politics:1760 ne.politics:2860 nj.politics:642 or.politics:553 ny.politics:165 talk.politics.misc:59416
From: rgordon@convex.COM (Rob Gordon)
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: 10 Nov 92 22:15:20 GMT
Reply-To: rgordon@convex.COM (Rob Gordon)
Organization: CONVEX Colorado Springs, CO
Originator: rgordon@cvxcs.cs.convex.com
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 <BxIGM4.1p3@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
:rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
:
:>To who?  You?  Picture this: Take a single earner family with three pre-school
:>children (doesn't pay for wife to work), making around 30K/yr.  Keeping a 
:>home, and food on the table is a balancing act in this scenario.  Even when
:>you get rid of such un-necessary bills such as a second car, cable TV, etc.  
:>*ANY* increase in taxes (above the normal cost of living wage increase) topples
:>the whole apple cart.  What we have to do is get control of GOV'T SPENDING !!!
:>Getting control of Joe Public's wallet has never, and will never, solve the
:>tax problems which we are facing.
:
:	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
:	income have 3 kids????

Some people value children over material items. 

:
:	People have to be held responsible for their actions - until they
:	are held accountable for generating mouths to feed, I can't
:	see subsidizing it!

What do you suggest as the ratio of income to children? What should
be the limit on the number of children I can have?

:
:	Let's get control (how I don't know) of the baby factories.
:

Why not? Let's totally take away people's freedom.  Let's see: we need
smaller gov't so we have to pay less taxes, but we are going to have
a gov't that "controls" how many children a family can have. I suppose
this is ok as long as it is only the blacks and hispanics whose
family sizes are governmentally contolled.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17076 alt.politics.democrats.d:525 alt.politics.elections:23708 ba.politics:7094 co.politics:1956 ne.politics:2962 nj.politics:711 or.politics:622 ny.politics:232 talk.politics.misc:60000
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
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: 13 Nov 92 22:31:57 GMT
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO

In article <1992Nov12.082806.15389@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>  We
>  are a society of people who are supposed to care about our fellow
>  man

If we care about our fellow man (and I agree that as a rule, we do), then
why do you feel that it is necessary to use force to obtain this care?
Do you believe that people wouldn't voluntarily help each other in their
hour of need? If you do, how do you reconcile that with caring about
one's fellow man?

--Greg
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15741 alt.politics.bush:13117
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: UH OH.........
Date: 5 Nov 1992 13:03:45 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov4.174539.176@hsh.com> lee@hsh.com (Lee Havemann) writes:
>
>
>
>Are you ready for........  WILLIEnomics?????? (or CLINTONomics?)
>
>Just remember - he only got 43% of the popular vote, and that means 57%
>of the people don't want him.....
>
And 62% didn't want Bush and 81% didn't want Perot...perhaps we should
have elected someone that EVEN FEWER PEOPLE WANTED??

>
>
>-- 
>
> Lee Havemann, Sys_op       HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 
> Internet: lee@hsh.com    Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
> "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of anyone else, 
>  including myself."                     


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16571 alt.politics.bush:13608
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: America, love it or LEAVE IT
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:04:05 EST

In article <sulkanen.721326058@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> 
>>Conservative dorks, if you don't like way the system works, GET THE HELL
>>OUT OF THE COUNTRY!!! Remember? America, love it or leave.
> 
>>For twelve years I had to put up with Republiclan bullshit being shoved
>>down my throat, and now you lost. So shut the fuck up and put up just like
>>I had to do for twelve yours. Your icons ruined our economy. Thanks alot
>>assholes.
> 
>>If you don't like it, LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WE DON'T NEED YOU NOW, OK????
> 
>>Jeez...
> 
>>-Garrett
> 
> Darn, Bush should have deported *you* when he had the chance!
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 

Heh. Now you know what it sounds like. I was being sarcastic.

WHat I was trying to do was imitate rabid-Reaganites of '80s.

-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Subject: Re: What's to become of the Space Program?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:38:52 GMT

In article <MDL.92Nov5144420@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>In article <rabjab.201.720915937@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>   Ok, Clintonites, what is to become of the space program?
>
>Dan Quayle will get the fuck out of it and maybe they'll let
>Richard Truly (a great American) run it like he's paid to do.

Ummm, excuse me, but Richard Truly was eased out of the NASA Administrator
post last April.  The new Administrator, Mr. Goldin, formerly of TRW, might
stay under a Clinton Administration, as I believe he is a Democrat, and is
liked by Al Gore.  (flame me if I'm wrong).
 
No argument about Adm. Truly's character, but please - it hurts more than 
helps if it looks like you're out of touch.  Look what it did for 
Mr. Quayle ...
-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:15724 alt.politics.democrats.d:295 alt.politics.elections:22555 ba.politics:6728 co.politics:1575 ne.politics:2686 nj.politics:520 or.politics:416 ny.politics:48 talk.politics.misc:58082
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Moby dick
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:07:22 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


       "One of the wild suggestings referred to, as at last coming
        to be linked with the White Whale in the minds of the
        superstitiously inclined, was the unearthly conceit that
        Moby Dick was ubiquitous; that he had actually been
        encountered in opposite latitudes at one and the same
        instant of time."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16261 alt.politics.elections:23011 talk.politics.misc:58688
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: About this "No Mandate" Garbage
Date: 7 Nov 92 02:12:48 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

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.

-- 
Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
Sometimes they don't even reflect the views of the author.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush and Demos
Date: 4 Nov 92 22:56:04 GMT
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

> = jeff@jlk.b11.ingr.com writes:

>  What can I say?  Clinton deserves a congratulations, he was a gracious winner,
>President Bush and V.P. Quayle were gracious in defeat.  

Bush and Clinton were; Quayle was obviously shooting for '96.  His
"concession" didn't carry much conviction.

>Mr. Gore couldn't seem to resist taking a final shot.

Mr. Gore was pretty sick of B&Q's constant shrieking lies about Clinton for
four months.

>I'll never understand how a 'womanizer' got turned down for a cabinent
>spot,...

If you mean John Tower, he was additionally a quite dangerous, out of
control alcoholic.  Oops!  There's those nasty facts again.

>and a person who smoked pot got turned down for Supreme Court,...

Get the facts, or sound silly.  Reagan and his gang of far-right hypocrites
REMOVED Ginsberg's name from consideration, over outrage at his "hidden"
sin.  Ginsberg was never voted upon.                                  

>yet one person who admitted to both (though I didn't inhale...)...

You can't mean Clarence Thomas, because Clare inhaled...and look what a
shining monument to justice _he's_ been since joining the SC.

>gets the top job.  

YAAAAAAAAAA-HOOOOOOOOO!  M-m-m-m-my g-g-g-generation!  (BTW, Clinton
never "admitted" to infidelity.  Did Rush tell you this?)

>How Qyale's fleeing to the guard to avoid Nam was a big issue, yet a
> draft dodger gets elected.

(Like Clinton's draft status _wasn't_ a big issue...)

Let me explain it, though I really shouldn't have to:

Quayle was/is a loud-mouthed, hypocritical hawk who, as senator, never met
a weapons system he didn't vote for.  Yet he had not the courage of his
convictions, appealing to Daddy to get him into the Guard.       

Clinton was forthrightedly AGAINST the war.  I'm proud to have one of us
elected as President.  Remember, close to 70% of Americans STILL think
that that "police action" was immoral and wrong.

>  I have serious doubts that a man who governed a state with a budget smaller
>than one of the candidate's checkbook could run this great country of ours.

Most of us will face Clinton's early days with trepidation.  However, a BIG
part of the problem - Bush letting right-wing "christian" wackos write the
Republican platform - is thankfully gone.  For now.  

>Nevertheless, he is the new leader of this nation and I hope he proves me wrong. 

We agree here.  Really, all I want is a country where people work together
without unreasoning hatred and fear getting in the way.  Us Clinton
supporters ain't Commies or subversives, you know.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com