HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight...
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:15:49 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug27.181128.3547@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@jaynes (
Steve Novak) wrote:
> 
> > = (Rick Eames) writes:
> 
> [...]
> >Last night on PBS, I watched Gore say that they were going to tax the rich
> >(punish them) for doing well in the Reagan years.  
> 
> You know Rick, I'd like to read more of your ideas, but after you
> stop these baloney statements.

Gore said that.  I didn't make that up, dude.

> Why not get down on Reagan for his own tax plan of 1986?  The plan
> that left an unexplainable, totally unfair "bulge" in certain
> middle-income tax rates that is HIGHER than upper-income rates?
> 
> I've never understood that.  

If Reagan were running, that might make sense, but he isn't.  I'm not
defending Reagan here.  I am talking about Clinton/Gore who want to punish
the rich now.  And I, unlike some people, don't view $200,000 / year
"rich."  My definition of "rich" is "never have to worry about money."  

My point here is that if I get rich tomorrow, I didn't get my money from
Ronald Reagan and punishing me for the 80's is stupid.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Responsibility: The Dirty Word (was Re: Insulted by... 
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:09:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.203513.28221@ncsu.edu> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <92236.140940U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> 
>U56503@uicvm.uic.edu (Brady Woodward) writes:
>
>> "Family Values.  Words to go to war over.
>
>No they're not, they're words to live by.  I believe that ``Family
>Values'' means taking personal responsibility for your children's
>welfare.  It means supporting your parents in their old age.  It
>means giving assistance to your brother or sister when they're 
>down on their luck.  These are the kinds of values which have proven 
>themselves to work.  

No problem there.

However if this is family values I don't see how gay's or feminists
are anti family. A gay friend of mine took time off from college to
care for his dying grandfather, rather than have him committed to a
nursing home. 
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.african.american
From: llk@kepler.unh.edu (Local Genius)
Subject: Re: The Simpsons answer Bush!
Organization: Department of Mathematics
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:17:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.164124.2411@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>In <1992Aug22.164220.5810@athena.cs.uga.edu> heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
>
>>Man, what is it with Republicans and television shows?  Can't they
>>tell make-believe from the real thing? 
>
>You got it.
>Remember the tooth fairy? How about Pinochio?
>How about "There's nothing wrong with the economy" - R.R.
>Or "this isn't a recession", and  "This isn't a war", and
>"the war is over".
>That's why I call the 80's the decade of denial.
>They are constantly acting out text-book dysfunction:
>optimism in times of crisis, living in fantasies,
>demanding loyalty, trust, and silence and best of all:
>always knowing and telling us what's in our own best interest.
>Oh, and my favorite:
>explaining away secrecy and misinformation with the 
>justification that they "don't want to cause us unnecessay alarm".
>Ever read any of Alice Miller's "For Your Own Good".
>Helps me see who the "real" facists are.
>
>-- 
>Bev Huntsberger		bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu
>			The University of SOUTH Carolina
>Personally, I have nothing against incumbents.
>I'm simply exercising my right to vote.

The strange part is that they are still voted into office!

And another thing, for Bush, everything that goes wrong in this country
is either Japan's fault or Congress'... How come he doesn't blame
Congress and the Japanese for the socalled Foreign Policy successes?

--
lk(with the man in the yellow hat)
** - I take one day at a time but lately, several have attacked me all
     at once -

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3544 alt.politics.bush:3541
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: No new taxes!
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:34:03 GMT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS, New Orleans, LA

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

> Hello.
>       Someone on the net complained about the 'no new taxes',
> calling it a lie of Bush.  Well, if you had ever had anything especially
> difficult to do, you know that the best outlook is one which ignores
> failure.  That is, 'don't try, do it!'  Bush gave an outlook.
> Does DNA which codes for sexual maturity after full development 'lie'
> if the organism dies before reaching that maturity?  Bush's goal,
> the Republican goal, is 'no new taxes.'  If the Democrats can defeat
> him, if the organism is slain before maturity, then that is unfortunate.
> Do you wish to protect the organism? Do you wish to protect your
> right to not be leached by the government? Do your best, but that is all
> you can do.  To say that the organism did not have the coding for
> 'sexual maturity' seems to be the lie, especially when the real liar
> is the one who prevents it from happening.
>
>                       J. Wagner
>

Yeah, whenever I have something especially difficult to do, and don't succeed,
I always lie about it afterwards.  Makes life much easier.  My four-year-old
son is also quite good at saying 'I didn't do it, someone else did' after he
does something he wasn't supposed to.  Ok, I'll stop calling Bush a liar on the
tax issue and class him with my four-year-old son.




|Edward J. Branley                         elendil@mintir.New-Orleans.LA.US|
|Seashell Software                                UUCP:  rex!mintir!elendil|
|3508 North Woodlawn Avenue                          Compu$erve: 71237,2227|
|Metairie, LA   70006       voice: +1-504-455-5087     bbs: +1-504-455-8665|
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: What is Clinton? by Hillary
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:34:32 GMT

>dorham_r@lrc.edu writes:

>       "CLINTON IS A SOCIOPATH...AND A CRUSTY BOOGER"
>
>					HILLARY CLINTON

I have to admit...there's *no way* Clinton can win, considering the
intellectual prowess of Bush supporters :).

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: jollie@zambini.cs.uiowa.edu (Jeffrey C. Ollie)
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:55:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <bVcBr*rV0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> I'm telling you again.  The deficit is MUCH LOWER than it would have been
> if a Democrat had been President!

There are no facts to support such an opinion. You only have the stereotypical
image of the "Tax & Spend Liberal Democrat."

> I agree that the deficit should be eliminated immediately.  The ONLY way to do
> that is by cutting spending - anathema to the Democrats (and they are the folks
> who control Congress.)

Well, if the Republicans (and presumably Reagan and Bush) believe in cutting
spending, why has neither of them presented a budget to Congress that was
balanced?

Jeff Ollie
jollie@zambini.cs.uiowa.edu
From: jogulin@zen.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:46:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Rift from Here to There

In article <G8EAr*rU0@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug24.140434.3640@sun44.synercom.hounix.org>, Allan Maxwell writes:
|> 
|> > In article <KgFyr*FR0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|> > >The Democrat party has controlled the House for 40-50 years.  The House controls
|> > >ALL spending of the Federal Government.  So, think again.  Slick Willie's buddies
|> > >in the House spent the money - NOT the Republicans.
|> > >
|> > This statement seems somewhat naive, Jim.  Do you honestly beleive what you
|> > are saying here?  Doesn't the president draft a budget each year that
|> > congress must pass?  
|> Don't you people know anything about how our government operates?  Every bill
|> is a compromise.  Each side trades this for that to get what they want.  The
|> President traded the tax increase to the Democrats to get something else that
|> he wanted.  He now realizes that that was a grave mistake.  However, the tax
|> increase was a DEMOCRAT idea forced upon the President by holding his other
|> programs hostage.

Actually, the PRESIDENT PROPOSES a budget.  CONGRESS CREATES the budget and
can take the president's PROPOSAL into consideration when CREATING the budget
or just throw it out the window. 

Wow, what alliteration... "President proposes" and "Congress creates"... 

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
Subject: John SUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUNUN is a twit
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:03:30 GMT
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu





He should take a flight into a black hole...maybe he should try the one
between his ears.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Democratic Pornogrpahy Platform?
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:26:50 GMT


    Is there an official Democratic position on Pornography? Is it
mentioned in the PLatform, or in official policy statments?

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:3370 alt.politics.bush:3336 talk.politics.misc:42604
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:23:18 EDT
From: <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Distribution: usa
 <21432@rpp386.lonestar.org> <1992Sep2.162922.29228@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>

jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>This is simply not the case.  In each of those years, tax revenues
>dramatically increased.  If spending were set back to early Reagan
>era levels, the current level of tax revenues would create a massive
>surplus.
>
>What led to the current deficits is the need for Congressmen to
>provide more than $1 of benefit for each $1 of taxation.  As tax
>revenues increased, Congress needed to provide increased kickbacks
>to the public whose money it had stolen.

"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
$4 trillion]
   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
                        budget direction (quote from 1987).

Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
CES Systems Office
Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: Really - who is this Barbara Bush person?
Organization: CSLI, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:47:04 GMT


I've got a couple of questions about Bush, maybe someone can help.

1. Who is that person that claims "she" is his wife?

Could this person be George Washington? Is it his mother? Could George
Washington be the presidents mother? This is scary stuff.

Look at this person, then take a look at a dollar bill. It's strange.

thanks...rich cower
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Family Values
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:22:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.114345.27246@wixer.cactus.org> lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:

>   My mother went to hear Clinton speak in Corsicana, Texas the other day.
>   She went with other members of Parents & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who
>   were carrying a sign stating "Thank you for recognizing our families, too."
>   After the speech Clinton went around shaking hands, and my mother managed
>   to squeeze in - after shaking his hand she showed him the button she was 
>   wearing, "Another Straight for Gay Rights," to which he responded to 
>   positively.  So when talk of "family values" comes up, perhaps we should
>   talk about parents like my mother who actually _values_ their family.
>   Bush, Quayle, et al, seem to be more interested in silencing and demeaning
>   their gay and lesbian children (assuming, of course, that they had any).
>   So much for their family values.

I keep saying this, but oh well...AMEN!  What a great story!  The GOP
propaganda tool they dub "traditional family values" has nothing to do
with values...it has everything to do with *rejecting* members of the
family who don't happen to be straight, don't happen to be
"conservative," don't happen to feel "Christian" all the time.

If Bush wins the election, be prepared for the TFV troops
incarcerating all us undesireables and caging us up somewhere in the
forests "from sea to shining sea."

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"now we find sodom strange take it out put it in your mouth how do you like
gomorrah now a taste of this swallow that feel the fish hide the hat ezekial
where's your wheel you better grease it GREASE GREASE GREASE GREASE! ROCK!!!"
       --Chainsaw Kittens, "Ezekial Walks Through Sodom and Gomorrah"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Bush and Baker
Keywords: State
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:36:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.121753.6330@iscsvax.uni.edu> fay@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>Once again, I raise the spectre of "trust".

And I'll raise the spectre of "Clinton folks are babbling again".

>It's a dangerous world out there, Bush tells us, no time for people w/o
>experience.  This is one of those times I might agree w/him.

Hold that thought.

>Why then, is is at all prudent to withdraw our Secretary of State from his job
>and turn it over to someone who says that he will not serve after January,
>regardless of the election outcome?  

Why then, it is at all prudent to support any candidate who advocates
changing the secretary of state?

Clinton supporters can't have it both ways.  If it is unreasonable for
Bush to remove Baker from state, it is unreasonable for Clinton to do
so.  Was Clinton going to keep Baker on?  No?  They were going to
remove Baker for THEIR political reasons?  Then they don't get to
complain when Bush removes Baker for his political reasons.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: black@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black)
Subject: Setting some of Bush/Quayle's lies straight AGAIN.....
Organization: Center for Communications, MCNC; RTP, NC
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:23:45 GMT

After receiving some flames on the net it was obvious that some of
you obvious Republican types missed my point entirely!

Most of the flames I received were arguing this or that against what
Clinton wants to do. That's fine and as a Clinton supporter I will
gladly argue back. MY POINT WAS THIS: Whether you agree with Clinton
or not, Bush and Quayle have grossly misrepresented Clinton's statement
and his record. They are using the tried and true Republican tactics of  
fear and labeling.

I realize that I am biased but I think I can safely say that there is no 
way that Clinton has misrepresented Bush's record to the magnitude that
Bush has done to him. For cryin' out loud, the 128 tax increases were
widely shown to be bullshit BEFORE Bush's speech yet he used it anyway!


I will deal with one flame right here. One of the posters said that since
Clinton created manufacturing jobs at 10 times the national rate how
come that couldn't be credited to Reagan's policies. Then he went on to say
that if he has no jobs and he creates 1 job that this is a 100% increase.

Way to go Einstein! But look at my post, did I mention a percentage?? Hell
no I didn't. My statement was one of COMPARISON, "jobs at 10 TIMES the 
national rate." This is significant when you look at the FACT (look it
up in any almanac) that unemployment reached higher levels under Reagan
and Bush than under Carter. Boy his policies really helped a lot!!

Rob Black                     black@concert.net                  Raleigh, NC

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: WSJ: On the hustings, Clinton proves slicker than ever
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 23:08:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Thanks to Paul for posting this! I was goint to do it, but Paul has
saved me a bunch of work! OK DumbOcrats, let's hear the response!

-- 
Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Clinton blunder
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.222301.4269@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>~
>
>Remember how the media made a minor fuss about Reagan's mis-quote
>of Lincoln.  Well, consider the following:
>
>
>According to the USA Today (8-26-92)           
>                                                               
>"The American Legionnaires barely applauded as Clinton listed other
>presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, who never served in the military
>but still led the nation to war".                                 
>                                    
>                                           
>It looks like Bill needs to go back to school.  Collier's Encyclopedia
>reads:                                                                 
>                                                  
>"In 1832 the Indian chief Black Hawk brought his tribe from Iowa in an
>effort to reclaim their Illinois lands.  The militia was called out,
>Lincoln volunteered, and was immediately elected captain of a local
>company."                                                          
>  ~
>
>
>Hmmm.  If Quayl had made such a mistake, don't you think the media
>would have been parading it?  But since the media is at work trying
>to get Clinton elected, they passed over this faux pas!  
>
>Then again, given the typical liberal revisionism that predominates
>today, why not rewrite the history of a great president to help
>Clinton's personal political cause, right?  
>
>Send Bill back to school!  
>   
>-- 
>Michael        
> 

	Good work.
				J. Wagner
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bono
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:44:25 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

I was at the U2 concert on Sunday, and Bono said, "Clinton sounds like
a good guy, if he is what he says it is."

Wow!  An endorsement!  I'm amused.

(of course, an endorsement from Bono might turn away some voters...)

--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Al Gore's Plans for Internet!
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 03:14:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

I found this on another newsgroup. For those of you out there that 
think Gore's plans for an upgraded computer network sound great,
read on what our DumbOcrat Senator from Tennessee has in mind...



In article <438@arrl.org> jbloom@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:
>In rec.radio.amateur.packet, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug18.181839.26451@cs.yale.edu> ewing-martin@CS.YALE.EDU (Martin Ewing) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug18.121013.27822@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>...
>>>>The Internet is *not* free. Our use of it is parasitic and subject
>>>>to the whims of government and corporate sponsors. Ham satellites
>>>
>>>Yes, but universities are effectively in the same boat.  I think
>>>it's fairly safe to piggyback on university network access.  (We need
>>>some precedents to be set just to be sure.)
>>
>>Al Gore, yes *that* Al Gore, is pushing a bill to commercialize the 
>>networks we are now using for free. When we start receiving a monthly 
>>bill based on bits/buck, using the landline networks is going to look 
>>a lot less attractive. I just want people to keep their options open. 
>>If we lock ourselves into the landlines for long haul packet, we may
>>regret it later.
>
>Some of us are already paying for Internet service.  And the people
>we get it from (PSI) don't allow us carry third-party traffic.  (And
>you thought hams were the only ones with third-party traffic
>restrictions!)  If/when the government gets out of the business
>of subsidizing the Internet, you can expect that sort of thing to be
>the rule rather than the exception.  I agree with Gary: go ahead and
>make use of the Internet, but don't let's stop trying to build our
>own, independent network.
>
>   [deleted]
>>If it ain't broke, nobody is going to pay to fix it. We've got to
>>load the systems until they break to force higher capacity. Therefore
>>spectrum filling 300 baud HF robots *are* helpful to the cause of 
>>high performance networking on the amateur bands.
>
>Maybe we should be using 60 wpm RTTY!  :-)


-- 
Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk  "Time for a clean sweep of Congress"   (408) 253 4541 fax

A government that is afraid of an armed populace is a government
the populace should be afraid of.