HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 8 Oct 1992 21:43:46 CDT
From: <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Bush Interviewed On Athiesm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
is the opinion of UIC.  Contact 75300.3115@compuserve.com for
further information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Free Inquiry v. 8 #4 (1988) (page 16)

"The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush.  The Republican
presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for
Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential primary:"

   Reporter for the American Atheist magazine, Rob Sherman:
        "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are
        atheists?"

   George Bush: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.
        Faith in God is important to me."

   RS: "Surely your recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
        Americans who are atheists."

   GB: "No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
        nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

  RS:  "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of
       state and church?"

  GB:  "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not very
       high on atheists." --GALA Interim
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:54:19 GMT

schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Not telling kids about condoms because they might then go out and
>have sex, makes as much sense as not telling them about seat belts
>because they might then go out and drive.

I question this analagy.  Although they do not drive themselves, kids are
frequently passengers in cars driven by adults.  Thus, it is important for
them to be aware of the proper use of seatbelts even though they are too 
young to drive.  Unlike driving, it is usually illegal for an adult to 
engage in sex in the presence of children, so what's the point in this
comparison?

Curt Roelle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: pat buchanan's convention speech
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:41:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <Bvq5tn.6pq@cs.psu.edu>, groenvel@brown.crayola.cs.psu.edu (John D Groenveld) writes:
|> I am looking for some quotes out of his speech but don't have the time
|> read the transcript. Mainly Im looking for his and any other Republican
|> which could be deemed racist or intolerant ("religious and cultural war"
|> Basically im having a discussion with a republican who asked which 
|> republican leaders were racist and i need some quotes.
|> John
|> 

If you don't read the transcript and pull out the quotes yourself, how
will you be able to defend your charges of racism and intolerance against
someone who accuses you of taking things out of context?  And given that
you apparently haven't read and didn't listen to the speech, how the hell
can you make that judgement?

	"I'm looking for some quotes out of Jesse Jackson's speech but don't
have time to read the transcript.  Mainly I'm looking for his and any other
Democrat's comments which could be deemed racist or intolerant ("Herod was
the Dan Quayle of his day.")  Basically I'm having a discussion with a 
Democrat who asked which Democratic leaders were racist, and I need some
quotes."

How would you respond to that statement?  No offense, but if you want to
make that kind of argument, you'd damn well better be able to back it up
yourself, without spewing out what you hear, and then begging people to
provide evidence to support *your* argument.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10261 talk.politics.misc:51552 alt.politics.bush:9044
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:52:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.064021.7914@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
} In article <92285.222116U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
} >                        CLINTON TAX PACKAGE
} >
} > RHETORIC: George Bush said: "Taxing people over $200,000 will not
} > raise $150 billion."
} 
} This exposes the problem with Clinton's tax proposal.  Clinton
} doesn't tell us where the rest of the money is coming from.  He
} tries to say that the only effect will be on people making over
} $200,000 -- this is manifestly false.

Under the current tax code, small businesses are allowed to file
their taxes as an individual income tax.  Since many (most?) of
them have incomes of $200,000/yr., it is clear that this tax will
affect a lot of "little" people.

A business that has a 2% profit margin is considered to be doing
extremely well.  So when you add whatever% income tax increase
plus minimum 7% for mandatory healthcare coverage plus mandatory
1.5% for training and education, the only conclusion is that a lot
of the small businesses that managed to survive under George Bush
will not survive under Bill Clinton.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Clinton's BS economic plan
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:08:05 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:11:10 GMT

In article <Bw51Dy.5qq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> P. Ialamanna,
pa56680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>I'm getting really irritated at these Clinton supporters who claim that
>his tax increase won't affect the middle class. If I understand it
corectly,
>Clinton wants to raise tax on the top 2% of wage earners and not to the
>middle class. Okay fine, but what gets me is that middle class people
beleive....

I suggest you read the WHOLE plan (which has been posted on several
occasions)
before you spout off. 500 leading economists have endorsed this plan
because it
nurtures LONG-TERM growth and stability instead of pandering to the
quarterly
report mentality.

Did you really believe that fixing a problem as large as the economy was
going
to be easy and painless? Get real. It will cost money to fundamentally
change
the system. It will cost much more money later if we continue with the
present
course. I'm voting for Clinton to protect my children's future, not just
my own
short-term comfort.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:09:37 GMT

In article <1bk6bvINN20u@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>
>You Perot people just might re-elect what we are all trying to unelect,
>think about it on the Nov. 3.
>
>-- 
>Timothy B. Reynolds
>CLINTON/GORE
>Election Campaign '92
>Houston, Tx 

Don't let it be said the Clinton/Gore campaign won't stoop as low as the next
guy.  This is fear mongering on a par with anything Bush/Quayle has come up
with yet.

This is *not* an "unelection".  If Bush isn't relected, that's great.  But let's
not forget that wel'll have to live with whoever replaces him.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.cascade
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Deja Vu all over again
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:31:49 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
: 
: 
: >	Will you Clinton people get a clue and stop posting everything to
: >Usenet 3-4-5 times?
: 
: >	And the people following up a 200 line message, including all text and
: >saying "yeah!", well, please stop.
: 
: >	We don't need a preview of Clinton inefficiency
: 
: 
: Yeah!   
: 
: -- 
: Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
: Publications Coordinator - User Services
: Rutgers University Computing Services

Hear, hear!  ;)
--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Insane Rep. Dornan...
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:33:50 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu () writes:

[deletions...]

>      Regarding the definition of "student," recall that the captors
> of the American hostages in Iran back in the Carter days were also
> referred to as "students."


ah hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I haven't laughed so hard since the Republicans brought up "family values"


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Organization: George Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:50:57 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct13112210@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.104124.4911@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>> >What questions are there to answer?  Clinton went sightseeing in
>> >Europe during his Christmas vacation, and one of the places his tour
>> >went to was Moscow.  
>> 
>> Well there is a bit more to it than that. Several independant and very
>> liberal people (hardly Bush supporters) say that Clinton organized anti-
>> US protests there.
>
>  (1) Clinton has never organized anti-American protests anywhere.
>      Clinton is an intelligent man, and he is able to tell the 
>      difference between opposition to the Vietnam War and hating his
>      country.  Are you?
>  (2) Clinton never participated in anti-war demonstrations in Moscow---
>      that charge is not only false, but also absurd.
>  (3) Mentioning Clinton's tourism in Moscow at the same time that 
>      you mention his anti-war activities is, at best, deceptive.  At best,
>      someone who does this has fallen for the Bush deception, intended
>      to create the impression that there is a connection.  At worst, it
>      means that they are participating in that deception, and trying 
>      to spread nasty insinuations of disloyalty without quite coming
>      out and lying.

Who cares what he did in Moscow 20 some odd  years ago. Let's drop this 
issue. It has nothing to do with our present problem. I don't care 
much for Clinton but I care even less on diverting the discussion 
away from real issues that effects us all.

John
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:53:10 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
: I'm sorry that you made the wrong three-chances-out-of-four guess
: (four-out-of-five if there's a FOX network station in your area) and
: picked CBS rather than PBS, NBC or ABC, but I have to disagree with
: all the CBS-bashing.  Frankly, if I was faced with a choice of
: broadcasting two live events and I knew that (1) for each event there
: existed a significant audience which wanted to see it live and (2) one
: of the events was going to be available to all viewers whether I
: showed it or not, but the other event would be blacked out if I didn't
: show it, I think I'd go with the exclusive event too.

I can understand CBS's decision, but I still don't like it.  Of course,
it might be because the only non-religious, non-home shopping station
I receive clearly (ie the picture's not badly distorted) here is
a CBS affiliate.  I don't watch enough TV to merit subscribing to
the local Rapevision, excuse me, Cablevision franchise.

*sigh*  Thank heavens for AM radio.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:08:54 GMT
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.

No, Curtis, the analogy is not about people having sex with minors
while driving without condoms and seatbelts. The point of the 
seatbelts-and-condoms analogy is this: some people argue that
we should not provide advice about condoms to teenagers because condoms 
reduce the risk of sex; and reducing the risk of sex will encourage 
teenagers to have more sex and thus put more of them at risk. (Follow?)
This is analogous to arguing against seatbelts because they reduce the
risk of driving and so encourage driving, thus putting more people at risk.

Both arguments are silly, because teenagers will continue to drive and 
have sex in any case. If we care about our children and want them to
be safer, then denying them safety information is counterproductive.
Attempting to scare teenagers completely away from risky activity, as 
with AIDS horror stories on one hand and gory car accident movies on
the other, is not effective. Fear CAN motivate kids to be more cautious,
but then we must tell them how to be cautious. (Think back to your own
high school days: how many of your classmates gave up driving altogether
after seeing "Red Asphalt" and "Blood On the Highway"?)

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10880 talk.politics.misc:52309 alt.activism:17552
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:51:06 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Jim Howe) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> >Bruce Varney) writes:
|> >> 
|> >> 	The rich do pay their fair share. The top 10% of income earners
|> >> (thats $80000+/yr) pay 53% of the taxes. What more do you want? When you
|> >> raise taxes on the rich, you stiffle the economy. When the tax rate was 70%,
|> >> it got to a point where it was no longer worth the effort to make more money,
|> >> because you only got to keep 30 cents on the dollar. But when the top
|> >> bracket was dropped to 28%, the "rich" worked harder, made more, paid more 
|> >> (total) in taxes, and created jobs and economic prosperity.
|> >> 
|> >Is there any data to suggest that the rich didn't work to accumulate wealth
|> >when the tax rates were higher?  I have not seen any.  In fact, if one
|> >wanted to make a philosophical statement, one could say they worked even
|> >harder because it took more work to make the next $10 million.
|> >
|> 
|> I don't have a study that I can refer to but I would like to make two
|> points.  First, it does not seem at all unreasonable to me that when
|> the marginal tax rate hits 70% that someone may decide to spend time
|> doing other things than economic activity.  In addition, the higher
|> tax rates are, the more people can afford to spend finding tax shelters
|> to shelter the income they do have.  Reducing the rate increases
|> the costs of finding and maintaining a shelter relative to the benefits
|> received.  Second, I believe the results of the 80's give a reasonable
|> empirical basis for Bruce's claim.  Marginal tax rates were cut
|> significantly and the income earned by those effected by those cuts
|> rose.  We're talking pre-tax earnings.  When rates were cut pretax
|> earnings rose substantially.  I believe this represents the increased
|> economic activity and reduced sheltering of income done by those in
|> higher brackets.
|> 
1. Interesting opinion, but not data.  Nothing I have read suggests
   that people stopped trying to get rich when marginal rates were
   high.
2. The second only may say that by cutting their taxes, they had more to
   invest and therefor invested more and earned more.  But if you believe
   that, they why not cut everyones tax.  What is the magic of giving
   the extra to the already rich?

   We seem to be talking about priveledge, or special treatment.  Of
   course the argument could be made that the wealthy were the best
   people to give it to because they had already proved they knew
   how to invest it properly.  But that would fly in the face of
   the initial premise that the rich were sitting idly about doing
   nothing because they got such a small piece of incremental income.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: test
X-Xxdate: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:42:54 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:45:50 GMT

this is a test of my new mail system.

Norman
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10560 alt.politics.perot:2196 alt.politics.bush:9262
From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Debate results
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:54:08 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <DENG.92Oct13180625@owl.bunny.rhic.bnl.gov> deng@bunny.rhic.bnl.gov (dp) writes:
>>>>>> In article <Bw0tE9.9yK@news.udel.edu>
>>>>>> "Dewey" == Dewey H Barich <barich@bach.udel.edu> writes:
>
>  Dewey> Good observation.  Remember that one response (sorry, forget the
>  Dewey> specific question) where he stood there for 10 seconds or so, then
>  Dewey> seemed to remember his planned response, and started the tape
>  Dewey> recorder in his throat?  It just seems to me that he a Bush were
>  Dewey> playing the same old song, hurt the other guy.
>
>That was about the definition of a family, I think.  Clinton just isn't
>trustable, but if you trust Bush you get screwed anyway.

Thanks for bringing this up.  I haven't had a chance to look at the tape
yet to figure this out.  

Although, I have not said I trust Bush...


I think we're at a crossroads in this nation.  This election (much
thanks to Perot's mere presence) has seemingly forced much more
attention to the issues than the last several elections.  88 Was my
first election, so keep in mind I didn't pay much attention to elections
before then....

As I said, though, moreso now than any other time in recent history (50
years or so) we are at a crossroads in this country.  One problem I
think we are going to face (are facing) is that the Democratic and
Republican parties are still fighting each other tooth and nail.  The
rude, inconsiderate behavior of Dan Quayle and Al Gore last night is a
perfect example.  It is time for a change.  The cold war (sans a few
cleanup jobs) is over.  But the parties are not going to change
direction for some time.  We need new parties, or better yet, no
parties.  The Libertarians offer us a choice, and within another 2 or 3
elections, they will probably have a major standing in the races.  I
think we are going to see another party, revolving around the "Perot
Movement," as well.

As for what road to take now, I'm ready to move away from the
Establishment, away from the Demopublicans and Republicrats.  Let's
shake things up a bit!  This will help to change things in the next
several elections, as it should send messages to all the incumbents,
letting them know that their re-election is getting less and less sure
each day....


Dewey
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10567 alt.politics.bush:9267 alt.politics.elections:16945
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:53:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@erlang.src.umd.edu


In article <DBROOKS.92Oct14213721@penge.osf.org>, dbrooks@penge.osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>> Its called Republican campaign strategy.  Luckily its not working,
>> thought you'll hear a lot of it this month cause its all they've
>> got left.
>
>If only this were true.  I'm convinced the October Surprise is being
>prepped, and it'll be pretty nasty.  These Republicans can't be allowing
>themselves such a bad campaign unless they have a killer revelation that'll
>make everything else moot.
>
>The suspense...

    I get the same impression.   It may make Perot look good by trying to
be above the fray.    It'll be a gamble if it does happen.

    Concerning the VP debate, two words seemed to used to describe
Quayle and Gore respectively, and that was shrill and wooden,
respectively.   It almost seemed as if there were people being paid
to call CSPAN and give these opinions since these adjectives were
used a lot.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc