HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Scoundrel Time
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:23:27 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

George Bush: I propose cutting taxes across the board, but only if Congress
makes corresponding budget cuts...Translation, I get credit for giving you a
tax cut, Congress gets blamed for the pain involved in cutting programs or for
failing to find those cuts.  In any case, don't expect me to tell you where the
cuts are coming from...

George Bush: I propose 10 billion in new job training programs, but I won't
raise taxes like that Clinton feller.  The 10 billion will come from elsewhere
in the budget.  Don't ask me where; it's Congress's job to do that.  I get the
credit for the job  program, Congress gets the blame for the corresponding cut
or failing to find it...

George Bush: I propose up to 10% checkoff on income tax for debt reduction. 
Congress will have to cut programs correspondingly.  Don't blame me if they
can't do it. 

Heads I win, tails Congress loses.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:40:22 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>The President submitting a balanced budget?


Too bad the President's budget is simply a guideline that Congress uses.
The result which Congress sends back rarely looks exactly the same.

MD 
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Selectivity vs Objectivity in the Media
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:26:47 GMT

In article <athos-020992135436@kip2-20.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>In article <95202@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) wrote:

@ What the press here declined to mention, in order not to offend our delicate
@ sensibilities, was that during the autopsy, researchers found human semen
@ in "Otze's" rectum. The frozen sperm was dated at the same age as the man's
@ body.

>Ooookay.  Collapsed prostate?

	Did they ever find out who the sperm belonged to? That's the
critical test. It should be straightforward to look for appropriate
marker genes.
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Fallacy Peculiar to Liberals?
Date: 23 Aug 92 17:59:20 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <NELSON.92Aug23155527@sun.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug23.082933.42507@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> 
>    Come on, guys, you can't have it both ways.  Anybody as dumb as
>    Quayle is supposed to be couldn't possibly be a threat to anyone.
> 
> You're right, unless that person happened to be the vice president of
> the most violent country on earth.

Could you be more specific?  What, for example, could Mr. Quayle do as
vice president, or even president, of the most violent country on
earth (I assume you mean the United States), that would be a danger to
you and me, and would not require intelligence?  In answering, recall
that under Jack Kennedy, to whom intelligence was at least attributed,
we came as close to nuclear war, no less, as we ever have; whereas
under Ronald Reagan and George Bush, to whom intelligence was not
attributed, not only did we not come close to nuclear war, but Eastern
Europe fell.  That fall, the major event of this century, may not have
been due to Reagan and Bush, but their much-touted stupidity certainly
did not get in its way...
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:52:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <1992Aug31.211048.6672@craycos.com>, jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.180554.17290@uunet!tellab5!odgate> mike@uunet!tellab5!odgate (Mike J. Kelly) writes:
> 
> >(And before anyone comes back on Clinton's draft record, at least he has a
> >reason: he opposed the war.
> 
> Would you care to elaborate on this?

Sure.  Can someone be a draft dodger if there name was in the draft, but 
got a high number?

>                                       If he was opposed to the war, then
> why did he join ROTC?

Because, like many men at that time, he thought it was better to pick
what part of the military to go into instead of being drafted (and
more likely to go to Vietnam).  Clinton then changed his mind, his name
was put in the draft, and he got a high number.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: pro-live/Hillary inconsistencies
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:31:30 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com


Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clintons support of legal
rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
party is promoting?

Methinks it is.
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dogs, never my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:04:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.035438.2978@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <syfywn-@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>
>>>In article <azdy5xj@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>>>
>>>It takes two to tango.  You need men for a pregnancy to take place.  If men
>>>don't participate, then women can't have abortions because they are
>>>not pregnant, right?
>>
>>My most sincere apologies, I had no idea that there were so many men
>>out there having abortions.
>>
>>                          -rocker
>
>The initial question involved putting PEOPLE (read: Men and Women) in
>situations where abortion does not become an alternative.  Since conceiving
>a child is a joint act between a man and a woman, then men are capable of
>NOT getting a woman pregnant.  No pregancies, no abortion.

No, no, Martin. Miss Rock Biter is implying her ignorance that it takes 
only a woman to get pregnant. Men don't get women pregnant; women do this 
all by their little lonesomes. 

In Rock Biter's world, of course. 

>So men, indeed, can help put women in positions where abortion does not
>become an alternative.

As common sense would put it, but obviously, Rock Biter has none. 


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Increase in millionaires
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug25.134223.28941@dscomsf.desy.de>
	<ART.92Aug26141414@world.std.com>
	<1992Aug26.195730.27559@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:01:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.195730.27559@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

   In article <ART.92Aug26141414@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
   >In article <1992Aug25.134223.28941@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

   >   But Bush did not increase the median income (in real terms), he descreased it.
   >   He increased the mean income, this is not difficult, it's inevitable that a
   >   technologicaly advancing nation increases it's GNP. Bush simply ensured that all
   >   the jam went to the ultra rich.
   >
   >Wrong, plain wrong.  In 1981 the year Ronald Reagan assumed office the
   >median US income was a little under $27,000.  In 1990 the median US
   >income was slightly over $29,000.  In the case of the mean the figures
   >are: 1981, $31,000; 1990, $35,000.  Source:  Alan Reynolds, "Upstarts and
   >Downstarts".  National Review, Aug 31, 1992, pp25-31.
   >
   >Read it liberals if you dare, you won't like it.  Of course I don't
   >expect to let a little thing like the facts interfere with what the
   >liberals put out for public consumption.

   I assume these are in constant dollars, or else your argument is in
   deep doodoo.

Yup, constant dollars.

   Er, how much of this is attributable to the Baby Boomers reaching
   their peak earning years?

Far more complex than that.  Actually most of the improvement is due to
recovery from a big dip in the Carter years.  For example, in 1977 the
year Carter took office the mean was a bit over $33,000, when he left in
1981 it had dropped to $31,000.

In the case of the median it was $28,000 when Carter took office, falling
to $27,000 in 1981.

Please, get hold of a copy of the National review and read it.  There are
far too many things in it to cover in quick summaries.  Then, it's
possible to discuss points raised.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41975 alt.politics.elections:11577 alt.politics.clinton:3012 alt.politics.bush:2924
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Better Off ..)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:54:17 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug20.222440.27721@pony.Ingres.COM> reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux) writes:
>If Bush thinks it's  time for a   change  then WHY  should  we reelect
>*him*? Let's vote for a *real* change and throw the fucker out!

I'm remembering the movie "The Fly": since the guy can't get the machine to
work, he is so frustrated toward the end that he just randomly programms it
and makes arbitrary changes, and it gets worse every time.  In the end he ends
up looking so grotesque that the director tastefully decides not to show his
whole figure.

Good things never happen by accident.  They're always the result of knowing
exactly what you're doing.  Clinton tries to capitalize on the voters' anger
which makes them want change for the sake of it, and I believe what we have
now will look real good in 4 years if Clinton gets elected.  Just inflation
and high tax alone will make you real nostalgic....
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:49:25 GMT
Summary: Did anyone notice those *Dumpy* -looking Democrats??

In article <1992Aug26.025832.16332@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <5156@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> sdbst5@gl.pitt.edu (Stephen D Brener) writes:
> 
> >Did the Republican convention look like a large circus of red-necks
> >to anyone else on the net?
> 
> 	It sure did to me. It is amazing to see a bunch of fat cats
> and pampered pets claim that hard work is such a virtue, to see
> Marilyn Quayle insinuate that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger when her
> husband was an even bigger one (the worst danger in his National Guard
> training would have been a hunter mistaking him for a deer), and so
> forth.
> 
I saw no evidence of rednecks.  I saw a much classier looking bunch
than at the Democratic convention, that's for sure.  Dressed smart, 
successful-looking, well-scrubbed.  Folks I might like to meet. In
contrast to the downright *dumpy* -looking Dems at their moan-fest. 
The Republican convention well-illustrated what Rush means when he
describes what sort of people join up with the alley cats of the 
Democratic-dominated militant feminist movement.  Mucho mangy in 
Madison Squ. Garden indeed....as long as you Clinton groupies are
so into physical comparisons.......

As for Quayle -vs- Clinton, Mr. Quayle at least put on a uniform.
Remember, YOU Democratic PEOPLE were solidy boosting this draft-
catwerwaulling four years ago, so don't MOAN about the counterpunches
now.........

Another Democratic buzz-phrase is this fat-cat tag.  As if YOU PEOPLE
don't have your own supporting you.  Shall we start with the Ivory-
Tower Hollywood Airhead Left denizens in Beverly Hills and Bel 
Aire??  Saw an interesting report on *that* on CNN last weekend.
Then, you're assuming all wealthy Republicans only get that way by
inheritance, greed, theft, etc.   Only wealthy Democrats and supporters
*earn* theirs, you claim? Ha!....let them volunteer to go to the head
of the line to pay "their fair share" of Taxes-By-Bill.  

                                                     H.R. Holm
*standard disclaimers, comment my own*
*pls post replies to the group only*
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.desert-storm
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: Bush giving up? (Colin Powell)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:38:25 GMT

In article <183sd4INNdr3@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>
>It's a great (and ironic) tragedy that Bush appointed Powell,
>passing up more qualified soldiers,  ...

So much for his experience and moral leadership as commander-in-chief.

>But any social system other
>than a meritocracy is bound to lead to tragedy eventually, ...

There is just no telling how far the blame for Bush's failure can go.
No one complained about the disproportionately large number of blacks in
desert storm.

>I won't go into the case of Richard Darman, a man beneath contempt.

So Mr. Darman is running the economy to the ground without the
president.

>On the other hand, Bush abandoned his old friend John Sununu, ...

And John Sununu was running the show in the White-House.

>Bush has been getting *BAAAD* advice,

Sounds like he doesn't know what he was doing.

>and unlike Reagan doesn't
>have a strong enough set of beliefs in his inner core to set
>his own course in opposition to the political winds ...

Look what Reagan's inner core has given us - a $1,300,000,000 debt.
And everyone think it is the congress to blame.

>(all this
>"following the polls" is one of the greatest jokes in history,

You got this right. Instead of showing leadership, we have a poll
chaser. It was no coincidence that G.Bush had the highest approval poll
ever on record. So much for his 1988 rhetoric which he still tries to
revive, "Competence makes the train runs on time, but it doesn't know
where it is going. Leadership ...", "Competence is the word of the
bureacrats who make sure that the gears mesh, but don't understand the
magic of the machine." Unfortunately, Mr. President, you had neither.

>like a president can lead by following the whims of a mob :-)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug24.202249.800@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.202249.800@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (JohnC) writes:

   In article <80984@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
   >It is interesting that the Republican nominees made their wives into major 
   >convention speakers, whereas the Democrats did not.

   As was pointed out by one of the TV commentators, the Republicans showcased
   their candidates' wives, whereas the Democrats showcased their (woman)
   candidates.

George Bush has appointed more women to high government posts than any
previous Democratic President.

In 1990 the Republicans had more women candidates than the Democrats are
fielding in this "Year of the Woman".  The fact is that this is really
the year of the Liberal woman.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Not Voting & proud of it?  Woodbury the wooden-headed
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:02:00 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <z0dn-wr.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <94872@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>If you want your voice to be heard, but you don't think the
>>present system (voting) is anything more than corrupt
>>coercion, think of some other way to do it. That would sure
>>beat doing nothing.

>>No pain, no gain.

>Oh yeah?

Yeah. What are you doing instead of not voting, in order to change
the system?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<1992Aug28.143612.18977@Princeton.EDU> <Btwqx9.J36@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:09:06 GMT

In article <Btwqx9.J36@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
-> Well, I hate to say "we told you so" but the fact is that We Told You So.
-> 
-> There isn't any significant difference between the Republicans and the
-> Democrats when it comes down to the bottom line.  Oh, sure, sometimes
-> the Reps *talk* a good line about fiscal restraint this and balanced
-> budget that but when push comes to shove they're perfectly capable of
-> outspending the Dems --- who then feel a moral obligation (it seems)
-> to go the Reps one better next time.
-> 
-> No, if you want a real change you'll have to support candidates (and
-> parties) who have a track record of *cutting* government spending at
-> every opportunity.  You'll have to work to build enough support for
-> them that they can get elected at the statewide level (which only
-> rarely happens now).  Only a strong grassroots movement will cause
-> The Powers That Be to pull their snouts out of the trough and run for
-> cover, while the *real* visionaries take care of cleaning up their
-> mess after them.
-> 
-> In short, you need to support the Libertarian Party and their candidates.

	It would be great to have the Libertarians in a position that
they could compete.  The problem is for them to become competitive,
they would have to sacrifice their ethics and become like the other
parties. 

	What we really need is for people to stop sitting in their arm
chairs finding fault in everything the government does, and start
finding what is good and promote it.  We are the biggest producer in
the world, we develop more technology than anywhere else in the world,
and we have one of the highest standards of living in the world are a
few among many.  Why do you think so many people want to leave their
birth place to come here?  Anyone that says the country is going down
the tubes is just whining because they don't get everything they want
handed to them.
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: nope
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:14:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.144529.13477@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>| >| In this USA, that dollar is extracted under threat of JAIL.  Even if
>| >| we accept Fitch's strawman, the two are the SAME.  Jail is jail.
>
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >No, it isn't.  You won't go to jail for owing the IRS one dollar.
>
>af:
>| Really?  The IRS boys don't care as long as you pay something, even if
>| it isn't everything they think they're owed?  The war-tax protestors
>| will love to hear that.  That principle can be applied in general;
>| everyone just send in 10% less because Fitch says that the IRS won't
>| care.
>
>Look, this is silly.  There is no comparison between having IRS
>charge you $0.60 per year, or whatever it is, and having the
>government break in your house and send you to jail for years,
>except in the most tortured formalism.

In this reality, failing to pay in full does result in the govt
breaking "into your house and send you to jail for years".  Maybe
reality is a "most tortured formalism" to Fitch, but ....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines