HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Bill
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:32:14 GMT

xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:

>Now that the gov'ment has come to my rescue, I can look forward
>to cheep Cable, right?

>I'm willing to bet anyone who wants to that my rates will increase
>for the same service now that the gov'ment has their fingers in it.

Yes, it is possible for some cable subscriber's bills will go up,
but the chances are that most bills will go down.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: Gore: did not.  Or did he?
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:40:38 GMT

Stupendous Man (demon@desire.wright.edu) wrote:
: 	Just so everyone gets the timeline correct:
: 
: 	Gore voted against the Car. Init. in 83 and 87.  He voted in favor of
: it in 1990.  Both Quayle and Gore are "right" in the sense that each can point
: to proof of their position (Gore's vote in 1990 was on a large bill that was
: only partially for the initiative).  However, when Gore said he "did not" vote
: for the initiative, as in never-ever, he lied.
: 
I believe he said he never voted for the Caribean (sp?) Basin Initiative.  He
did not vote for the bill that created in the program and which probably 
carried the program name as part of the title.  In D.C. voting for large
spending bills is usually not considered the same as voting for the individual
programs - a distinction that former Senator Quayle should be aware of.  I
consider this a draw in the honesty debate - more a matter of definition
than substance.

Quayle was clearly wrong about Gore's book.  His education voucher program,
which would supply $1000 of an average $6000 private school tuition is clearly
not going to help poor families.  His health care reform will give the
woman he mentioned in the end of the debate something under $4000 to pay an
insurance bill of a couple thousand dollars. His figures for the Clinton
program were covered with economic assumptions (a matter of argument) and
policy assumptions that are silly.  And U.S. funds are going to help move
U.S. companies overseas.

I'll take Clinton/Gore for honesty and trustworthiness over Bush/Quayle 
anytime.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Clinton's e-mail address
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:45:14 GMT

Is there a non-automated e-mail address for the Clinton campaign?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10525 talk.politics.misc:51879
From: compton@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton at Oxford (Clinton while he was supposedly at Oxford...)
Summary: re: clinton at Oxford
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:39:59 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

> 
>    In article <ld3fv1INN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>    > Stupendous Man) writes:
>    > |> Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:
>    > |> > To the person who said Oxford was an easy school to get in, please
>    > |> > note that Clinton was there on a Rhodes Scholarship, one of the
>    > |> > most prestigious of all scholarships.
> 
>    > |> > Let's hear it for a smart man in the white house for a change.
>    > |> 
>    > |> 	Not only did he not go to the classes, he never took the exams.
> 
>    > |> 	Yeah, smart guy.
> 
>    > |> 	Draft dodger, class skipper.
> 
>    > As long as they all carried 3.5 or better GPA's, I can deal with it.
> 
> 	   You can't have a GPA if you don't take exams :).  But I believe that
>    Oxford's system is not like the USA college system.  You either pass or fail.
> 
> People, at Oxford you don't take exams when you take classes.
> If you want a BA you take a bunch of exams at the end of your
> third year, after a very specific course of classe.
> Clinton already had a bachelors. Oxford didn't
> offer masters by exam, MPhil and DPhil are by thesis and take
> more than two years.
> 
> Essentially Clinton was an independent study postgrad
> and if he had any sense spent his time sitting in on
> seminars, talking to people and drinking beer. Except
> while he was travelling, using up the stipend specifically
> provided for travel so that he might use the occasion to
> broaden his experience and mind. Something a lot of people
> on Usenet benefit from.
> 
> Please try to understand that the parts of the world do
> not obsess over GPAs and biweekly quizzes.
> 
> *  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
> *  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
> *  Some people think they're really clever			*
> *  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 

o.k. i'm at Oxford.
Clinton did a BPhil (or didn't do)
A B.Phil is a postgraduate degree by exam.
You don't get a GPA just exams at the end.
At present they only accept about six people to do
one each year so you have to be pretty good to get accepted
and of those six about half fail to pass.
As I heard he didn't do any work in the first year
as he didn't think he'd finish because he expected to
be drafted. Then by the second it was too late to catch up.
By the way he used to live in the road I live in now.

anyone want my autograph? : )
Christine
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:23:35 GMT

In article <Bw2B98.2Jw@unix.amherst.edu>, pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN) writes:
|> StarOwl (StarOwl@uiuc.edu) wrote:
|> : I must admit that I was impressed with Perot. 
|> 
|> I liked Ross, but I wouldn't vote for him.  The biggest problem with Perot
|> was summed up with Clinton's "It's not that simple" response.  I've worked for
|> both government and industry, the they're two entirely different institutions.
|> A corporate CEO doesn't have to worry about a bunch of guy getting together
|> and doing something dumb.  Dealing with Congress successfully is the most
|> important talent a president needs and industry provides
|> no equivalent experience.
|> 
|> I also have some problems with his actual policies.  The best response to them
|> came on "Washington Week in Review" where the statement was made that they 
|> would have been good four years ago when (as Dukakis pointed out) we were
|> going in the wrong direction but hadn't suffered much damage yet.  It's easy
|> for somebody with 3 billion dollars to talk of shared sacrifice, but it's a
|> little tough on the average guy trying to make ends meet.
|> 

So what would you do?  Keep ignoring the problem?  By saying that his
policies would have been good 4 years ago are you implying that more
drastic action is necessarry.  Are Clinton or Bush going to take that
action.   Come On.

Doug

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:32:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bw2spB.61L@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>    The rich can postpone purchases of luxury items, and they can defer
>    and/or shelter their income while waiting for more favorable tax rates, 
>    but there is one thing they could not live without - their wealth.
>    By taxing wealth instead of income, we can make the rich pay their
>    fair share.

  We could accomplish the same thing much more fairly by eliminating 
  those loopholes.  One problem with taxing wealth is that to merely
  maintain any reasonable standard of living, by the time we're retired
  we'll need to have assets in the $1-2 million range (5% interest on 
  $1 million dollars = $50,000).   Surely any attempt to tax "wealth"
  would call this "wealth" and end up taxing it despite the fact that
  a $50,000 income is quite middle class these days.   (Note also that
  the 5% interest is a bit optimistic at the moment, as well).

  Most people in our generation have NO CLUE about the need for retirement
  savings since they grew up seeing their parents enjoy comfortable
  retirements on SS and generous corporate pension plans.   Changing 
  work patterns mean few of us will have corporate pension plans and
  SS will almost certainly have less for us than our parents.  Moreover
  our parents were typically able to own a home with lots of accumulated
  equity by retirement age -- this is also more doubtful for our 
  generation due to declining home prices in many markets and greater
  need for mobility to seek work.   But few people I know are saving 
  at a rate sufficient to enjoy a comfortable old age.  


>   Right now, we have the marginal income tax rate peaking up at ~46% for
>   families making ~$55,000 a year,

  We do?  How do you figure?    You can't just add up SS, federal
  income tax and state income tax since the 31% marginal federal
  rates kick in above the upper limit on FICA income, and state
  income tax is deductible from the federal.  

---peter




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:59:30 GMT

skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:

>The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
>due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
>of his billions last year. 

>Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!

This is very misleading.  You don't pay taxes on the money you have accrued,
you pay taxes on the taxable income made THAT YEAR!  All of R. Perot's money
is relatively old, he hasn't made anything other than interest (and then
most of it in tax DEFERED anuities) since GM paid him off.  You take the
little bit of taxable income (proportionally speaking) that he made
last year, then deduct (a quite proper practice) all the money he GAVE
AWAY, and he probably did only make $30,000 to the good last year.

You Clinton people need to really try to think about things before
you just spout them off, but I know that isn't in the agenda...


>-- 
>Timothy B. Reynolds
>CLINTON/GORE
>Election Campaign '92
>Houston, Tx 
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: RCHRDSN@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: State by state polls?
Organization: Yale University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:15:08 EDT

Has anyone seen a recent poll done state by state for the
November Presidential election?  What are the best estimates
on what fraction of people will vote for Bush, Clinton and
Perot in each state?
 
Thanks
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:25:05 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	Cable rates will go up.  The broadcast networks will be able to charge
>cable companies for redistribution, basic cable rates will skyrocket.

Why would broadcasters charge for redistribution?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.singles
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Happy 17th Anniversary!
Followup-To: soc.singles
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 23:00:52 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (C. Perttunen) writes:
>     Wasn't it a touching moment during the debate when Gov. Clinton 
>(also known as "The Love Gov") "extemporaneously" acknowledged his 
>and Ms. Rodham's 17th wedding anniversary -- even considering that 
>up to 12 of those years were shared with Ms. Flowers?

Yes, it was touching indeed.

This just goes to prove that an intellectual partnership outlasts one
based on lust and physical attraction only.

Was Ms. Flowers an intellectually compatible partner for Mr. Clinton?
I think not.

(ohhhhh my ... the Bush camp can have a field day on THAT one !)

NOTE: FOLLOW-UPs to soc.singles, NOT HERE.           :-)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11016 alt.politics.elections:17340
From: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton Tax Numbers
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:47:09 GMT
Reply-To: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Organization: Group 101, MIT Lincoln Lab.
Originator: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)


In article <1992Oct16.142038.194@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
|> In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct15235511@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> 
|> >Clinton says he's only going to raise taxes on families whose incomes
|> >are in the upper 2% -- those making over $200,000.  Bush says Clinton
|> >can't possibly raise his $150 billion by only taxing the upper 2%.
|> 
|> >Since I trust neither, I decided to some rough back-of-the-envelope
|> >calculations:
|> 
|> Actually, you are overstating the amount Clinton would raise. The upper
|> *5%* earns about $425 billion per year (source: World Almanac). To
|> earn that much you need to have a family income of above $95,000 (well
|> below Clinton's 200,000). Applying Clinton's tax plan to the top 5%
|> will only yeild $21 billion in new taxes.

   $21 billion/year * 5 years = $105 billion.  Plus, he expects to get a
similar amount, if not much more, from making foreign corporations pay up
their due, and close some other glaring loopholes.  The $150 billion in
new spending and tax incentives (like *targeted* capital-gains cuts) are
for 5 years (or maybe four).  The numbers are a tad optimistic overall, but
on the whole the plan is by far the best shot.
|> 
|> Yet when asked how he will pay for his $150 billion in new spending he
|> always says he will take it from the rich.
|> 

   Hell, even my father-in-law, who hasn't voted Democratic since Kennedy,
is voting for Clinton.  He knows his taxes will go up (he makes well over
$200k/year), but he also knows that for the past ten years he's been getting
more than a fair shake at tax time.  He wants his daughter to be able to
get a job once she finishes college *for the second !@?$$# time*, and no,
she's certainly no dummy.

-- 
Dr. Marty Ryba                     |	Generation X:
Group 101 - Air Defense Techniques |
MIT Lincoln Laboratory             |  Too young to be cynical,
ryba@ll.mit.edu                    |		too old to be optimistic.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9877 alt.politics.bush:8742
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:17:01 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Red Georgie??

>xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:
>
>>"I paid my own way, I got a visa, and _mostly_ I was just
>>a tourist."  (emphasis added).
>
>>By his own words, he admits that he was there, at least
>>in part, for purposes other than tourism.  This should
>>put to rest the comments claiming he was there _strictly_
>>as a tourist.  What portion of the trip was pleasure and
>>what portion was business??
>

So, by the same reasoning, we can assume that Georgie is being blackmailed
by the Chinese?  After all, he was ambassador and his Gennifer was there
while Barbara wasn't.  I'm sure it wasn't all *business* - I guess the
Chinese have photos.  That would certainly explain why he sent a secret
mission to play kissy-ass with them after the massacre.

Hope this helps.

Jeff Luck                *These opinions are mine, but facts are facts*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University         "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU               -Dan Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:22:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.212637.16930@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.163408.7134@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>|
>| I maintain that everyone who has AIDS is either someone who engaged
>| in irresponsible activities or the victim of someone who engaged in
>| those activities.  The only innocents are those victims.
>
>This is a very silly train of thought.
>
>The only way that this makes any sense is to define as "irresponsible"
>anyone who does not follow the Jehovah's Witness rules of life -- one
>sexual partner, no blood transfusions, etc.
>
>Could you explain to me how non-condom-protected anal sex before, say,
>1983 or so (whan viral transmission of AIDS was firmed up) is defined
>as "irresponsible"?

Before we knew about aids you couldnt say it was irresponsible.  Now
however, as we know it is irresponsible you can define it as such.
From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
Date: 15 Oct 1992 14:27:25 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Oct14.154457.4793@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <Bw3BKC.FsD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
>> Well, it's official.
>> 
>> I just saw the article come across the clarinews feed here.  Time
>> magazine is suing the Bush campaign for copyright infringement (I
>> think) because of the overuse of Time's cover story on Clinton.
>> 
>> I would repost the article, but I'm not a Republican.  I try and
>> respect the copyright rights of others.  ;)
>
>	TIME will lose this one.  (In the ad I saw) TIME is clearly shown, thus
>no conflict over where the picture came from.
>
>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!

Yup, you're right there IS NO DOUBT about where the picture came from...problem
is that under copyright laws, you must obtain the permission of the owner of
the copyright to use copyrighted materials. The cover of TIME (logo, apperance, etc)
and the picture are all covered under the copyright laws...too bad Bush/Quayle
et.al. forgot to obtain permission to use the material...but then again, that
doesn't surprise me...

John
From: dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON (enslavement) DOCTRINE
Organization: Open Software Foundation
	<1992Oct16.195433.6043@pmafire.inel.gov>
	<1992Oct16.230145.27501@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:37:02

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> Because slaves are neither citizens nor voters. We are less of a Democracy;
> many of our citizens are not ALLOWED to vote, i.e. citizens under the age
> of 18.  We also have many people who, although they are human, much as
> Athenian or Spartan slaves were, are not allowed to vote.  These include
> visiting foreigners, illegal aliens, etc., who are given no representation.

Neither, for that matter, are we legal resident aliens.  Yet we pay our
full shares of ta<TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS TYRRANY!!!>xes (excuse
the subliminal message there, but I *am* from Boston).

But, while frustrating, that doesn't mean I feel completely
disenfranchised.  I've offered to work with the local Dem committee, for
example; that must be worth something in terms of affecting votes, if
indirectly.
--
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Three more months!  Three more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: rkn3u@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (R. Keith Norwood)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:25:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.235456.2470@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct7.154954.11694@news.acns.nwu.edu>, lyman@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kenneth Casey) writes:
>>> 	to you, is "tribalism", so be it. Just be sure you recognize
>>> 	your own tribalism, and don't ask others to join your tribe.
>
>What tribe?  I'm the one protesting tribalism.  I'm not advocating it
>on any scale.  

What do you advocate then?  
>
>One of the primordial features of America that makes it great is it's
>patriotism.  What you have is truly a nation.  When Americans go to
>war (for instance), the whole country rallies (usually).  In a 
>dangerously cosmopolitan country like Canada, national concerns
>mean very little to the many tribes whose tribalism is encouraged
>by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  

What exactly is "dangerously cosmopolitan"?  Canada isn't the only
nation with a diverse populace.  What special circumstances merit the 
"dangerous" label?

>Oh well, Canada is on the verge of breakup and possibly civil war
>but that means nothing to you, I suppose.

Your right it doesn't.  Although, maybe it is time for a war on north 
american soil to shake things up a bit.  It certainly has been a while.


Keith
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10866 alt.politics.elections:17234
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton Tax Numbers
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:14:35 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct15235511@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Clinton says he's only going to raise taxes on families whose incomes
>are in the upper 2% -- those making over $200,000.  Bush says Clinton
>can't possibly raise his $150 billion by only taxing the upper 2%.

He's right.  Clinton can't.  Of course, Clinton never proposed to do so.
First of all, the $150 billion is over four years.  Second of all, that
figure doesn't include $105 billion in tax cuts.  Finally, much of the
money comes from taxing foreign corporations, and closing loopholes that
allow tax credits for sending jobs overseas.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek)
Subject: Re: incumbent
Organization: Oryx Energy, Dallas, Texas.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:19:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.125256.7317@iscsvax.uni.edu>, fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
|> If you're not voting for Clinton, you're really voting for Bush.
|> 
|> There is only one incumbent.  There are lots of non-incumbent candidates.  But
|> if the incumbent gets the pluarlity, he stays in office.
|> 
|> Non-votes help the incumbent, too.
|> 
|> If you're not voting for Clinton, you're voting for Bush.
|> 
|> 

A plurality of electoral votes will throw the vote to the
house which is controlled by Democrats.  I suspect they 
would not be conscience bound to vote for the incumbent,
Pres. Bush.  In that regard, a vote for anyone other than
Pres. Bush is a vote for Slick.


-------------------------------------------------------------

Congress consists of one-third, more or less, scoundrels; 
two-thirds, more or less, idiots; and three-thirds, more
or less, poltroons.
                             H.L. Mencken


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10944 alt.politics.bush:9465 alt.politics.perot:2269