HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
	<1992Nov4.060711.12219@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Nov4.162157.20125@ncar.ucar.edu>
	<1992Nov4.174211.26672@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
	<FD==rz-@engin.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:49:58 GMT

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

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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Call for Radical Tax Simplification
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:49:27 GMT

In article <jbone.721499722@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>For most Americans, the federal income tax process should be paperless and
>require no intervention.

I disagree: Under such a system, people would be totally unaware of how
much tax they were paying, nor would they notice tax increases (except
indirectly) Without this there would be little political pressure against
higher taxes, and without that political pressure there would
be no restraint on politicians in that respect.

>Use your voice - call your senator/rep:  radical tax simplification and
>reform is needed NOW.

A simplified code, hwoever, would be a different matter: My only objection
is that everyone should see the bottom line with their own eyes, and
to have to write a check to cover it (E.g. be confronted with the 
amount of taxes they are paying.)

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16247 talk.politics.misc:58669
From: kloomis@cco.caltech.edu (Kate E. Loomis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton: Marriage == Slavery?
Date: 6 Nov 1992 20:36:04 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.013206.23295@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>
>>	If you will find for me _any_ part of the Bible which commands
>>an _egalitarian_ marriage (not one with supposedly complementary
>>roles), I will concede that also. By egalitarian I mean something
>>comparable to friendships, especially between those of similar social
>>positions.
>>
>I'm paraphrasing, but I believe this comes from Genesis.

>God created woman from Adam's rib so she could stand beside him.  She was not
>created from his head to stand over him, or from his heel to be below him.  

>I always hear this passage at wedding ceremonies.
>  
>-- 
>Douglas C. Meier		|  Read the Democratic party platform, then       
Nice homlili (sp?) material, but it's not in the Bible. Yes, it 
does say that Eve was created as a companion for Adam, but the keys
to the story are:

1) Eve was derived _from_ Adam. She was not created independently
of him.

2) More importantly, Adam _named_ Eve as he did all the animals 
and plants of Creation. In naming, according to the beliefs and 
traditions of the Hebrew people, one takes responsibility and 
stewardship over what is named. Thus, the importance of the naming
ceremony for Hebrew children. 

The Bible was written by a paternalistic culture. What do you 
expect? Does that mean that a paternalistic culture is the only
true, holy way to live? I find that hard to believe.

Kate


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: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:30:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.191830.28324@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.155600.26424@mercury.cair.du.edu> kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.033133.15536@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov4.174211.26672@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>>>>Remember too, that yes, Clinton has clearly won the election, BUT he
>>>>goes to the White House with almost 60% of the voters having NOT
>>>>voted for him.

>>>Actually, according to surveys, people don't vote for candidates. As
>>>a rule, they vote against the alternatives. Clinton is going to the
>>>White House with almost 60% of the people having voted against him.

>>Please remember that Clinton was in a three-way race (whatever you personally
>>think of Perot, he was a candidate in the end), and will end up with
>>~40-43% of the popular vote.  With Perot running at about ~18%, in 
>>reality Clinton did well.  Certainly not an overwhelming mandate, but
>>not bad either...

>But in other 3 way races, 1980, 1968, and also to some extent 1948
>and 1924, the winning candidate did get 50% of the vote.
>So Clinton really didn't do as well as in those cases.
>For example, in 1980, Reagan had close to a 10 point win.
>*even* if every Anderson vote had gone for Carter, it would have
>been a Reagan victory. Here, of course, a Bush+Perot vote would have
>swamped Clinton.  The last comparable race was 1912.

Not really.  In 1968, the winning candidate got nowhere NEAR 50% of the
vote.  What election were *you* watching?  Popular vote-wise, the
Nixon-Humphrey numbers were almost dead-even.

In 1980, Reagan got 50.5% of the vote.  And it was hardly much of a 3
way vote; Anderson was totally underfinanced.  Yes, Carter only got 42%,
but that's hardly a huge landslide either, now is it?

Yes, in 1992, if it was Perot+Bush vs. Clinton, P+B would have won, but
since polls show that Perot supporters were NOT heavily pro-Bush, this
is sort of irrelevant.  If Perot wasn't in the race, Clinton STILL would
have won by the same amount, according to the polls.

1912 is really the only comparable thing in terms of a 3 way vote,
because it's the only election in which the 3rd party candidate had the
national name recognition + money to mount a real challenge.

But 1968 is certainly the closest parallel.  
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Bill & Hillary are Socialists (was SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:54:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.213224.1@vxcrna.cern.ch> zeus@vxcrna.cern.ch writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.070545.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>> In article <eagle.720761837@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>, eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>>> 
>>> Why doesn't somebody just come out and say it?  BILL CLINTON IS A
>>> SOCIALIST.  His answer to everything seems to be "throw money into it,"
>>> or "throw the government into it."  Look at it: nationwide health care,
>>> a college education for everyone, and more police.
>> 

hmm,,,who was that guy who signed the 2nd biggest tax increase and yet had
higher defecits than any president in history and added more to the debt than
any president in history...lets see....he threw lots of money at everything...
um...oh yes...it was george *tax and spend* bush-in republican clothing!!!

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: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 06:05:46 GMT

Actually, there IS a state without a sales tax. New Hampshire. (unless
of course it has passed one since I was an undergrad at Dartmouth.)
The fact that NH hasn't a sales tax, coupled with the high taxes "enjoyed"
just across the Connecticut River in Vermont was playing havoc with
businesses in places like White River Junction, VT, and other
border towns.

 


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16152 alt.politics.democrats.d:341 alt.politics.elections:22933 ba.politics:6836 co.politics:1628 ne.politics:2758 nj.politics:563 or.politics:464 ny.politics:90 talk.politics.misc:58552
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
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 21:04:59 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>
>Not, it is not acceptable to raise their taxes just because they are a
>minority.  It is acceptable because they can afford it.
>
>Why do so many common people defend the rich?  I think many Americans
>expect that one day they will become filthy rich, through no means that
>they have planned.  "It just could happen somehow."
>-- 
>Tom Reingold
>AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
>tommy@boole.att.com or att!boole!tommy



First, I recoil at the notion of being called "common." This ain't England,
old sport. To answer your question, I simply say that we who
are NOT wealthy defend the rich because we see an injustice being
done. It is for the same reason that non-blacks defended MLK Jr.
Or that men defend women when they are singled out for discrimination.
When I see blacks singled out for discrimination, I defend them. I
certainly have no ideas that in the future I am going to become
black. And, certainly, most men who come to the defence of women do
not have any plans to become women in the future, (although some
may, thanks to modern science.)

Because they can afford to is no justification in my book. Just
because someone can "afford" to give up something he has worked
for and earned does not give the envious or resentful the right
to take it away from him. Learn that.
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: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:22:12 GMT

In article <fCB=NW@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.203111.24700@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>, tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
>|> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
 
>|> Why do so many common people defend the rich?  I think many Americans
>|> expect that one day they will become filthy rich, through no means that
>|> they have planned.  "It just could happen somehow."

>Who's defending the rich?  I'm not.  

Well SOMEONE ought to!  They are one of the few minorities politicians feel
safe about bashing and singling out for special punishment.  A great many
people seem to think that any measure which hurts only "the rich" is 
perfectly OK.  I wonder what these people would say if similar laws were
passed to attack "the poor" or "blacks" or "women" or "auto workers".  Of
THEN they would see that such discrimination is nothing but envious bigotry,
but they think that somehow "the rich" are more evil and deserving of whatever
punishments are proposed.  

Who's rich?  Anyone with more money than you have, of course.

>I'm only defending the right of
>someone to keep the fruits of their labor.  I see no reason why someone
>should face a higher marginal rate on their income, simply because
>they have passed some mythical income threshold.  I can accept having
>people pay more as the earn more, however this is best accomplished
>with a flat tax rate, not a progressively increasing rate.

That would be an improvement, but I'd prefer to see the idea that the
government has any business taking my money away without my permission in
the first palce.

--Brian
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:16:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.203111.24700@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> tommy@hilbert.att.com (Tom Reingold) writes:
>$ Is raising their taxes any more acceptable, just because they are
>$ a minority of the voters? By this logic, it is also acceptable to
>$ tax _any_ minority, if the majority feels like robbing them.

>Not, it is not acceptable to raise their taxes just because they are a
>minority.  It is acceptable because they can afford it.

That is an equally poor reason: Am I justified in shoplifitng, because
the store can the loss more easily than I can afford to pay? I 
equality was a basic part of American government: That everyone, rich
or poor, should receve equal treatment by the government.

>Why do so many common people defend the rich?

Why did so many white people in the 1960s campaign for the civil 
rights of blacks? Perhaps some of us care about equality and fairness,
even when we benifit from inequality and unfairness.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16169 talk.politics.misc:58572
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 20:50:20 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <FOX.92Nov6135233@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>In article <eagle.720807302@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
 >
 >   Those people on death row should be executed.  Those people in prison
 >   should stay there for the entirety of their term--they've all already
 >   demonstrated that they are incapable of maintaining a normal life as a
 >   member of society.

I agree with the death penalty but it's hard for me to watch young
kids put to death when when we have the two bastards in jail that should 
be first and second in line, the killers of Robert Kennedy and Martin
Luther King. If we are to do it, lets do it right, and fair.

I would love to pull the switch.


-- 
Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE volunteer
Election Campaign '92
Houston, Tx 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: We are going to hell
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:59:35 GMT

In article <92311.141827IK20073@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, IK20073@MAINE.MAINE.EDU writes:
> Now that we have ronald Mcdonald for a president, I mean by Ronald Mcdonald
> hair and a smile, the USA is down the tube.  Clinton had a very weak campaign
> strategy, and only won by voters disstisfied with Reganomics carried on by
> Bush.

What was it someone said the other day?  "Look, a cart!  Look, a horse!"
Do you have any problem with people voting out a President because they
think he did a bad job?

>        I myself am a Perot supporter, and think that he should have won.
> The only reason Perot dropped out is because he is a business man and thought
> he was loosing.

That's not what he said.  Are you stubborn, or do you think he's lying?

>              His reentry really screwed up things for Bush also, which I
> was extremely pleased about.  Perot showed that there is a dissatifaction among
> voters with both the Democratic party and the Republican party.  Hopefully
> Perot will run in 1996, I think he will do a great job at cleaning up the
> economy.  Better than Bush has, and better than Clinton will.

Bush seems happy.  Perot seems happy.  Why are so many of their
supporters whining?  BTW, you can join UWS, Inc. if you think Perot
is so hot.  Swindle is keeping it alive as a party -- with dues for
"expenses."  Funny how all the other parties in the US don't have to
charge for membership.  I can just imagine it: "I'm sorry ma'am, we
need a $500 donation before you can join the Communist Party." :-)

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
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: kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Denver, Telephone Services
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.033133.15536@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.174211.26672@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>Remember too, that yes, Clinton has clearly won the election, BUT he
>>goes to the White House with almost 60% of the voters having NOT
>>voted for him.
>
>Actually, according to surveys, people don't vote for candidates. As
>a rule, they vote against the alternatives. Clinton is going to the
>White House with almost 60% of the people having voted against him.
>
Please remember that Clinton was in a three-way race (whatever you personally
think of Perot, he was a candidate in the end), and will end up with
~40-43% of the popular vote.  With Perot running at about ~18%, in 
reality Clinton did well.  Certainly not an overwhelming mandate, but
not bad either...

Kip

Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:17:34 -0500 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mandates & 3-Way Elections


I hate to have to keep reminding people this but:
THIS WAS A FOUR WAY ELECTION!!!!!!
Please do Andre Marrou, the  fourth candidate* the courtesy  of 
acknowledging his candidacy.
-Karin

* (actually he should be refered to as the third.  He was on all 50
states BEFORE perot.)
        
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16631 alt.politics.democrats.d:407 alt.politics.elections:23298 ba.politics:6939 co.politics:1730 ne.politics:2841 nj.politics:624 or.politics:535 ny.politics:147 talk.politics.misc:59266
From: scott@asd.com (Scott Barman)
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: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:22:15 GMT
Organization: American Software Development Corp., West Babylon, NY

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 Mr. Turner should look at certain realities.  In addition to the
current income tax, we do have consumption taxes.  These consumption
taxes are called SALES TAX, EXCISE TAX, "SIN" TAXES, etc.  You cannot
buy *anything* that has not had a tax levied on it.  So while most
states have income taxes, they are also collecting sales tax, liquor
taxes, and an assortment of other taxes that you never realized you're
paying.

Regressive?  We got it.  I think that 22 states still have sales taxes
on food.  There are around that many who have taxes on medications
(perscription and over the counter).  Is there a state without a sales
tax?  A tax on liquor or cigarettes?  Gasoline?  Hey, come to New York
and pay an "MTA Surcharge" on your utilities bill!  (MTA == Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, the *wonderful* folks who run the busses,
subway, and commuter rails in New York).  Regressive?  It's all around
us!  You just haven't taken the time to notice it.
-- 
scott barman			| <This space intentionally left blank>
scott@asd.com			|
 (I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Subject: Re: Ultimate book of FACTS & STATS for $29! (Yes, YOU need it)
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:03:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.141408.219@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com writes:
> 
> Frankly, a lot of people in this newsgroup are tossing out "facts," 
> "figures," and "statistics" that are equivalent to the end byproduct of
> certain cud-chewing bovines.  Don't be one of them.  This book is
> guaranteed to equip you to BURY your debaters -- unless, of course, you
> discover that *you* are the one who's full of it.... 

On A realted note. There is a non-partisan project called "Project vote Smart"
which is dedicated to getting info. to the voters. They do research for you,
and have many stats on hand for you if you ask about any subject in politics.
All you have to do is call the 800# and ask for them to send you a brochure.


 	1-800-786-6885		Voter Information Hotline
	1-900-786-6885		Voter's self Defense Manual
	1-503-737-4000		Reporters Resource Guide

Hope this helps someone. 
Disclaimers. Disclaimers.
---------
Do you hear the people sing?
 Singing the song of Angry men?
It is the Music of a people who will not be slaves again!
----------
		Possible Republican Creed.
		Vince Goddard
		Jack Kemp in '96
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: President Clinton -- What a nice sound
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:22:02 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov4.024546.4752@athena.cs.uga.edu>, stanton@athena.cs.uga.edu (Catherine Stanton) writes:
...
> Well I'm going to unsubscribe to this fair group now...so don't
> even bother replying...chances are good whatever you mail to me
> will be bounced too.  :)  Take it or leave it.

	Unfortunately, this stance makes it hard to take you seriously.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc