HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: The Democrat's Bill   (was Perot's IRS bill)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:36:00 GMT

In article <1bjsd9INNq6p@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, 
skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes...

>Is it fair to the average working person making 30,000 per year 
>to have people such as Ross Perot who I can bet made more than 30K
>last year pay the same amount of taxes? No it is not ! 

Ross Perot agrees. See page 42 & 43 of United We Stand.

He's also a rather well known philanthropist, though he doesn't
brag about it. And as I recall most of his money is in government 
bonds, an "investment" strongly encouraged by the Democrats. There
were big write-ups in the press several months ago on this matter,
if you care to check it out. If Perot had been anything other than
a saint in his finances, both parties would have already plastered
it all over the media.

What is not fair is that the Democrat and Republican congress
passed a $1.5 trillion dollar Federal Budget last week with
*no attempt* to cut spending or borrowing.

In short Timothy Reynolds -- you are acting like one of the cold 
heartless slimey snakes who are eating our children and their future.

It was Democrats and Republicans who authored every BILL of the 
Federal DEBT. They ought to have to pay twiced what the rest of
us do. Let's take names. 

Now as to this matter about running away...

>Any candidate who runs and hides from the media and the people does 
>not deserve to be on the same stage as Bill Clinton.

Ahh, then The Democrat's Bill won't mind sharing a bit about his
European Vacations with us while he was at Oxford. Sure would be great
to go off to Europe and let others do the real work in the Anti-War
movement, eh? As if Bill Clinton mattered -- one way or the other. 

The Democratic Party is who you're voting for -- Bill Clinton is just
another rubber stamp puppet.

-- Stephen Tice    Arlington Texas   10-15-92

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:41:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.190830.16312@husc3.harvard.edu> koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
>
>His cure for the economy - things are not that bad and let me
>give Jim Baker the job.  How about himnself?  BUt then again he didnt
>know there was a recession on until months into it.
 
  Well, there are still people who believe him. Ask the Stuped man, he 
says there is no recession. Wait, Stuped man is saying something different
than what his Desped man George Bush is saying. The Desped man at least 
has reluctantly recognized the recession. How can the Stuped man say
something which is different from the Desped man ?  Puzzling, puzzling...


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9948 alt.politics.bush:8793 alt.politics.elections:16334
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:52:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
Deleted remarks from eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
>>Bush gave an honest response to the question: "We're doing everything we
>>can!"  We spent $4.9 BILLION on AIDS research last year.  What else is
>>there but a plea to the people to modify their behavior?
>
>Yes.  He threw money at it!  What more do you want?  If a problem can't
>be solved with money, then it can't be solved.  

So in problem solving, money is more important than creativity,
ingenuity, and innovation as well as effective hard work.

>That's Bush's answer for everything.  Got a problem?  He'll give you 
>a token tax cut.

Wrong, that's been the liberals' answer to everything. Why do you think
Bush and Republicans accuse Democrats of "tax and spend" policies?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:32:44 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
: 
:	The broadcast networks are the only ones who are failing to make huge
:loads of money off of cable.  But now, Congress has handed them the golden
:goose.  They can simply charge each cable company for "rebroadcast" rights. 

Of course, the cable company could then decide not to carry those local
stations.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no law requiring local cable systems
to carry local TV stations.  The cable company must inform its customers
if there are any non-low-power stations in the market that they do not
carry, and if a customer so desires, the cable company must provide
some sort of mechanism (an A/B switch, for example) to permit the
customer to hook up his/her own antenna and receive that station off
the air.  However, the cable company is not required by FCC regs to
carry local stations.  Whether or not cable companies are required
by their franchises/charters/whatevers with local governments to do so
is a different matter.  :)

If I were running a cable company and some of the local stations wanted
to charge a fee for rebroadcasting their signals, I would probably
try and make some sort of deal with the local network affiliates carried
by sattelite (WRAL - Raliegh, WXIA - Atlanta, WABC - New York, most if not
all of Denver's and Detroit's stations), and see if I could rebroadcast
them for a lower fee than the local stations.

Capitalism at its best.  :)

--
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,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: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:01:40 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>|> Actually, we Clinton people figured Perot was good with money.  2 Billion
>|> in a CD at 5% is $100,000,000.  If you give away 99%, you still have 
>|> $1 million left in taxable income.  I realize it isn't quite this simple,
>|> but $30,000, sure!
>|> 
>This mornings paper had better data.

>	Clintons	approx $125,000     	Taxes 20%
>	Bushes		approx $1,250,00	Taxes 15%
>	Perots		approx $200,000,000	Taxes 6.7%
>		(I'm sure about the tax %, but I may be low on the income)

>But the rich pay their fair share, right?

The first one of you is arguing that 'if Perot spent 99% of his interest'
he would still have 1 M in income.  That is correct.  But what if you
take into account that he has 3 BILLION in the bank, and he GAVE AWAY
150 M of it, that would mean he gave away all of his 5% interest...
I hope you aren't insinuating that a man with 3 BIllION dollars needs
to have a net increase in worth to survive (even though NET INCREASE
is what you pay taxes on).  In last nights debate Perot said that
so far in his life he has paid a BILLION DOLLARS in income taxes,
what he did LAST YEAR really isn't relavent, and Clintons REALLY
isn't! By the time Clinton did his taxes LAST YEAR, he was a 
candidate for the Presidency, sure he isn't going to do anything
but look like he overpays his taxes..



>-i 
>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
--

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: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: China and Health Care interviews
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:09:13 GMT

In article <Bw5o8w.9Iw@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.040610.15970@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Both of my roommates are graduate students from mainland China;
>>one is in anthropology, the other in economics; they agree that
>>Clinton's ideas as expressed in the debate would be very bad and
>>that Bush's granting of MFN was wise in that it opened the way
>>for peaceful 'westernization' of China(free-market tendencies)
>>rather than cause China to close up and crack down(defensiveness).
>
>   The current (ancient) leaders don't exhibit any inclination to
>not crack down and it is likely that anyone who disagreed with that
>policy will be purged from the party and government. WHAT INCENTIVE
>DOES GRANTING MFN GIVE THEM TO CHANGE ?
>

None.  In fact, the Chinese government reaffirmed their commitment to
the hardline communist social policies.  They want to turn China into a
giant factory where they are the bosses and rule supreme.  There's no
westernization in idiology here, just universal greed.



-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Subject: Re: RHETORIC VS. REALITY -- THE FIRST DEBATE
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:26:06 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

In article <1992Oct12.135851.4597@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
wrote:

> >This is the kind of BS that really pisses me off. ANYONE who watched last
> >night, and anyone who watched Larry King last week will remember that he
> >said he could not understand people who demonstrated against his country IN
> >A FOREIGN LAND.  Our Clinton Friends here have left out that crucial part
> >of the line, how clever.  He has repeatedly said he understands fully
> >demonstrating in YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
> >
> 
> Pardon. What difference does it make? Are you supposed to have one set of
> beliefs at home and different ones abroad? If you think soldiers
> are dying needlessly and your voice might spare them, are you supposed
> to check the map before speaking out? I've never understood that.
> Sorry. 

1) It makes a difference when you misquote *anyone*.
2) You may not like it, but WWII veterans do look at life different than
you or I do.  I understand where Bush is coming from because my grandfather
felt the same way about protestors overseas.  It bothered him a great deal.

For the party of "Understanding" you folks have a huge gap in understanding
generational differences.
--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.elections
From: chey@novell.com (Cindy Hey)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:32:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.054903.29070@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>Also, CBS "lost" IMO by deciding that a baseball game was more important
>than the joint appearance.  I really thought they'd be more responsible
>than that.

So did I!  I even counted on it.  I wasn't able to watch the debate live,
so I set my VCR to record it.  I can't tell you how dissappointed I was
to discover 90 minutes of baseball on my tape rather than the debate :-(
Luckily for me, C-SPAN repeated the debate, in its entirety, several times
throughout the night.  Thank you, C-SPAN!

Cindy Hey
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10593 talk.politics.misc:51961
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Adm. Stockdale as Veep candidate...
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:58:31 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Stockdale was merely a placeholder on Perot's ballots.  Perot obviously
intended to get someone else to run.

	Either that someone said no, or Perot simply failed to followup
(unlikely).

	Perot's short list probably had Tsongas and Kirkpatrick on it. 
Kirkpatrick definately wouldn't join up with Ross, and Tsongas is looking
towards '96.  My guess is that Perot simply ran out of candidates.  However, I
bet he has someone lined up to step in when Stockdale resigns in the first
month or two (assuming Ross gets in).

	Hmmmm.  James Baker?  Would Tsongas relent if Perot was actually
elected?  Certainly more interesting than either Dan or Al :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:43:52 GMT

Stupendous Man (demon@desire.wright.edu) wrote:
: 	Al Gore was indeed pro-life, then he switched to pro-choice.  After the
: debate (NBC?) waved a letter he wrote to someone who gave him a chunk of change
: saying how proud he was to be pro life.  Gag.
: 
: 	So much for that "did not" denial :).
: 
Is this before or after Bush went from pro-choice to pro-life in 1980?
From: Little Findhorn Farms <ltlfindhorn@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 07 Oct 92 18:42 PDT
Subject: Clinton in NC
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1588800025:000:247
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ltlfindhorn    Oct  7 18:42:00 1992


Yippee!
   Clinton is coming to Charlotte NC (where I live)
next Monday (Oct.12). It should be a great rally.
He has a lot of support here.
   Does anyone out there have suggestions for
how we can make his visit memorable?  
Let me know.
---Donna

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:16:56 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>This mornings paper had better data.
>
>	Clintons	approx $125,000     	Taxes 20%
>	Bushes		approx $1,250,00	Taxes 15%
>	Perots		approx $200,000,000	Taxes 6.7%
>		(I'm sure about the tax %, but I may be low on the income)
>
>But the rich pay their fair share, right?

So Perot pays about 100 times what Bush pays in taxes?  I doubt that he gets
100 times the police protection or fire protection or other government services.
By that measure, he is paying his fair share.

--Tim Smith
From: tmcdonal@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Tom McDonald)
Subject: Re: If you dump ... STOP IT -- STOP IT -- STOP IT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:02:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.081142.19710@wixer.cactus.org> cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha) writes:
>ables@hal.com (King Ables) writes:
>>Could you folks PLEASE stop leaving (and in some cases ADDING)
>>austin.general to the distribution of this thread?  It has NO
>>business being anywhere but *.politics*!!
>>
>>Not to mention it's one of the more inane discussions I've
>>seen on the net in a while... and that's saying something.
>
>1) Take a pill.
>2) Ever heard of a kill file?
>3) No matter *what* you talk about, there's sure to be at least one person
>   that will think it's inane and/or inappropriate.

...and you prove your own point.
						-Tom
-- 
Okay, one more time.  This is your brain. (egg)
This is your brain on drugs. (egg in frying pan)
Any Questions?
"Yeah, can I have mine scrambled?"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: 21 Military Leaders Endorse Bill Clinton for President
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:12:04 GMT

In article <3891@randvax.rand.org> jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:

>>> Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

>>fired by Bush for incompetance in running NASA. He has a personal axe to
>>grind with Bush.

>Are you sure of this?  

Yep. Read Avation Leak, Space News, or whatever.

>I thought he was fired because of "personal
>differences" with the chairman of the National Space Council, the

Part of it. Truly insisted on living beyond what NASA was allocated
and refused to put together reasonable budgets.

>Hon. Dan Quayle of Martian respiration fame.

Say what you like about Quayle but he has done an excellent job fixing
serious problems at NASA. 

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: Boot The Newt
Organization: Godcorp
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:33:41 GMT

Are you tired of listening to Newt Gingrich on news shows and CSPAN?
Were you, like myself, angered and insulted by his rhetoric at the
convention?  Then maybe you would like to join me in helping the
fine people of Georgia elect a suitable replacement.  His opposition
can be reached at the following address and phone number.

	Tony Center For Congress
	P. O. Box 88129
	Dunwoody, GA 30338
	404-391-1992

Gingrich barely won in 1990.  He is even more vulnerable in 1992 due
to the effect of redistricting, not to mention his involvement in the
house banking scandal.  Maybe this will be the year they boot the Newt
out of Congress.

By the way, Tony Center is a lawyer who specializes in legal malpractice
cases, i.e. a lawyer who sues other lawyers.  He describes himself as a
"shark who eats other sharks".  We could use more of these.  :-)

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington)
Subject: Comments on state-by-state
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:54:22 GMT

Thanks to Brad Sherman for posting the state-by-state poll numbers.
Totals based on that data:

Clinton 10+ lead:	315
Clinton lead:		113
Bush lead:		 93
Bush 10+ lead:		 17 (includes Nevada, which was missing the "!")

I also looked to see where Perot was closest to finishing second
(this is of course skewed by the fact that these polls vary as to
whether he was in at the time or not):

Bush states: WY 34-28-23

Clinton states: HI 48-21-17
                OK 47-23-18
                MA 47-23-16
                CO 44-25-18
                RI 46-21-12
                DC 71-17- 8
                PA 47-29-18
             
Has anyone seen the Las Vegas or London "trick bet" lines?  I'd
be interested in the odds against Perot winning at least one state,
or finishing second in at least one state.  Similarly (my World
Almanac in elsewhere), anyone know where Anderson came closest to
finishing second in 1980?

Dave MB

From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:42:59 GMT
Subject: Choice? 
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton

Just how pro-choice are we?

Not very, I think.



Say these words Mr. Gore: " I support a woman's choice to keep and bear arms 
                            in defense of herself, her loved ones, and 
                            her community."

Now tell me why a 5 day waiting period makes sense when a woman's life is
threatened by a stalker?????



Ron Miller
Ft. Collins, Colo.
ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: Debate panel
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:44:19 GMT

Allan Schaffer writes:
>Four journalists will serve as panel in Sunday's debate.
>
>	public television's Jim Lehrer
>	ABC White House correspondent Ann Compton 
>	Boston Globe's John Mashek
>	former network correspondent Sander Vanocur, a freelance journalist.
>

   Minor correction... Jim Lehrer will serve as the moderator, not a panel
member.

Greg


-- 
*******************************************************************************
Greg Lyon		             	         Student Union Attorney General
gl1@cec2.wustl.edu			                       Clinton/Gore '92 
Washington University in St. Louis - Site of the First 1992 Presidential Debate
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:25:22 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21672@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.094215.16800@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>	Pissing away all our money?  Hmm...  Again, see "Russia".
> 
> In Russia's case, the government was the industry.  The state owned
> everything.  If the state owned GM, for example, I'd be worried about
> the prospect of continued car production.  It doesn't, so I'm not
> worried about the car industry going straight to hell overnight.

	Not if the government goes bankrupt, which you though might be a
good idea.  While it is true that the Fed doesn't own the industry, it
regulates most industries.  As this regulation continues to go up, government
has as much control over it as if it owned it.  The difference is semantics,
but the result may be the same.

	Yes, you're not worried about it?  I'm not taking the short-sighted
approach, since I plan on being here for the long haul.

> -- 
> John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117