HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Secret Service visits (was bleep Clinton, bleep Clinton...)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:57:04 GMT

[Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to talk.politics.misc.]

In article <treilly.722449276@vincent2.iastate.edu>, 
treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) said:

> ...assuming government agencies follow the letter and the spirit of
> the bill of rights is likely a naive assumption.  Sure, you can get
> out of prosectuion in a court of law judged by rational peers, but
> that does not repair the greater damage already done by inviting a
> govt agency to monitor what is said on the net.  We should also be
> free of being watched, and such a post endangers that.

I was under the impression that the net was pretty much a public forum
and that people posted articles here with the expectation that their
words would go out into the world to be read by anyone who cared to do
so, including government agencies.  We should be free from being
watched in private, true, but I don't think that we have any
reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to our actions in public.

> There have been posters on other political newsgroups who claim they
> were visited by the secret service after posting things that could
> be interpreted as a threat to officials.  I cannot gurantee the
> integrity of these postings, as I do not know the people beyond
> their posts.
>
> I know an artist in Boston who, while in college, published a
> cartoon depicting harm being done to Bush in his college newspaper.
> He spent hours in intense, grilling interviews with the SS.  On the
> issue of agencies honoring free speech, you may also want to an
> article titled "The prisoner and the politician" in the October 5
> issue of the New Yorker".

I can't say that I really have a problem with the Secret Service
visiting people, any more than I have a problem with anyone else
visiting people.  If the nature of the "visits" become threatening --
that is, if the visitors don't accept "I don't want to talk to you,
please go away" as a final answer -- _then_ I have a serious problem.

I'd like to know more about these hours of "intense, grilling
interviews."

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17489 alt.president.clinton:565 talk.politics.misc:60964
From: v094lrtr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (FENWYR)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:25:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov19.204047.10946@bnr.ca>, snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA (Antonio Tello) writes...
>mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
>|>
>|>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>|>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
>                                                              I'm glad that
>                                                              you admit things
>                                                              have been
>f*ck*d.up
>                                                              for at
>least the past 
>                                                              four (or
>is it twelve)
>                                                              years !
> 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>These thoughts are mine alone and not supported by my company, friends or
>relatives.  Please consult  your  parent,  guardian, lawyer and local law
>enforcement ageny prior to following any advice contained above.
>NOTE:  I am on a  Canadian node  and need distribution  of NA to see your
>replies. E-mail to snoopy@crchh426.BNR.CA.
> 

hmmm... i think the previous reply says it all. this country was run into the
ground for 12 years. we voted a new man in. now lets see what he can do. i
feel he will do a good job, but i wont know until he does something.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dwells@fits.cv.nrao.edu (Don Wells)
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES!
Organization: nrao
	<1992Nov22.201125.28643@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.201125.28643@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper) writes:

 BHH> STARR writes: ... "If president Clinton really wants to do the
 BHH> right thing he ought to say bluntly and plainly to the American
 BHH> people:  "Either Government will do less for you or you will pay
 BHH> more."  I believe Clinton should raise taxes to cover the budget
 BHH> deficit... YOU MUST PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE!"  

 BHH> No, it's not that simple... Our problem is the corrupt
 BHH> beaurocracy..  Wasteful spending is the problem, not too many
 BHH> programs or not enough taxes. Bill has promised to curb this
 BHH> spending, and cut staffs.. it's not as simple as raising revenue
 BHH> and spending it. Look at HOW it's spent.  

Starr's answer is right --- the cash flow of the Federal government
needs to be put into balance by "paying for what we get". It *is* that
simple. Elimination of the excess payroll of the government will not
correct this problem --- the deficit is *much* larger than the
salaries that will be recovered. The basic problem is actually quite
simple, and has been well understood by Washington folk since the
Republican primary of 1980. George Bush said that it was "voodoo
economics" for Ronald Reagan to propose to drastically cut taxes and
drastically raise defense expenditure while maintaining entitlement
expenditures (Reagan thought the tax cut would cause a boom that would
increase tax revenues enough to cover the cash flow shortfall).  Tax
cuts are popular, military expenditures are popular, and entitlements
(especially those for the elderly) are *very* popular. Subsidies and
tax breaks for a variety of industries are alsoo *very* popular. All
of these things add to the deficit, of course. Look at the numbers!
The money isn't going to bureaucrats --- it is going to *us*! Starr is
correct, Clinton should tell us frankly that we are getting those
benefits by mortgaging our children's future, and that we should end
this immoral practice either by cutting the expenses or by raising
taxes (or better yet, by doing both).

Read David Stockman's book "The Triumph of Politics -- Why the Reagan
Revolution Failed" (1986) if you want to know the details of how we
got to this sad state of affairs.
--

Donald C. Wells             Associate Scientist        dwells@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory                   +1-804-296-0277
520 Edgemont Road                                 Fax= +1-804-296-0278
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA            78:31.1W, 38:02.2N 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: belld@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (David Bell)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:42:37 GMT

tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman) writes:

>I heard on Rush's show a  GOOD argument for not letting gays in the military.

>Ok, when you serve in the armed forces, you get free/VERY cheap healthcare for the
>rest of your life.  (and your spouse)

>Q. #1  What is one of the most expensive illnesses?   AIDS!
>Q. #2  What lifestyle is one (if not the highest) highest risk category for AIDS?  Gays

>By admitting gays, you will be raising healthcare costs by making the gov't pay  for
>AIDS treatment for the vet and his spouse (same sex  spouse?).  After all, they are the
>most likely to get the virus in the first  place.  

>I don't want to hear  about non-gay people getting AIDS, either. I know that everyone
>could get AIDS in some way, but it is mainly determined by your lifestyle and your 
>spouses.   What are the odds of a heterosexual w/ 1 mate who doesn't sleep around
>(same w/ spouse) or use drugs as compared to a gay?  NOT EVEN CLOSE.

If this is your idea of a good argument, it is little wonder you are a 
Limbaugh fan.  Since so many married soldiers will be having children, with
the government picking up the tab, and only a few homosexuals will get AIDS,
it seems to me like the army could save a fortune by recruiting homosexuals
only.  In particular, a lesbian-only army would REALLY be a big money saver.

By the way, the odds of a homosexual w/ 1 mate who doesn't sleep around
(same w/ spouse) or use drugs contracting AIDS is about the same as for your
hypothetical hetero.  Obviously more state and city governments need to 
recognize same sex marriages to encourage safe behavior.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: Stupendous Man, Stupendous Silence! (conciliatory message enclosed)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:10:57 GMT

Brett: first off, sorry about the inflammatory subject line; I just wanted
to get your attention. My question concerns your claim that the deficit, as
a percentage of GNP, declined during the '80's. Jeff Davis posted some
figures that he said were re-posts of your figures, which seem to belie that
claim. I've asked you a couple of times what your response is to Jeff's
numbers. All the data is below. Have you missed the question each time I've
asked it? are you gathering data? Your silence on this matter is most difficult
to account for.

In article <1992Nov13.110541.12935@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> >> Stupendous Man writes:
> >
> >  [stuff deleted]
> >
> >> >	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.
> >> >
> >> ???
> >> Using figures you provided some time ago, the deficit as a % of GNP
> >> never fell below 3.1% of GNP during the Reagan years. The highest

[stuff deleted]

> >   Brett, I never saw your reply to this question. Do you dispute these
> >figures? they say that the deficit never declined as low as it was at
> >its worst under Carter.
> 
> I need to correct my correction. I read Stupendous Man's numbers
> with a program which wrapped the data oddly so I misinterpreted
> which deficit was associated w/ which president.
> 
> Carter's years: 2.8, 2.7, 1.6 (!!!), 2.8
> Reagan's years: 2.6, 4.1, 6.2 (!!!), 5.0, 5.4, 5.3, 3.4, 3.2
> 
> So, Reagan's first year under Carter's (more or less) budget he
> managed to have a smaller deficit as a % of GNP than under
> most of the Carter years. But note that Carter's best year
> was half that of the next best Reagan year. 1.6 vs 3.2. 
> 
> The point is this: there may be tax-and-spend Democrats, but
> Jummy Carter wasn't one of them. And there may be fiscally
> responsible Republicans, but Ronald Reagan wasn't one. The  
> larger, less partisan point may be that to insure fiscal 
> responsibility make sure Congress and the White House belong
> to the same party -- then vote out rascals if they futz up.
> (I will be VERY shocked if Clinton's budgets aren't enormously
> more austere than Bush's ever dreamed of being, simply because
> there will be no one to shuck the blame off on.)
> -- 
> Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> My bad.     
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17272 alt.politics.democrats.d:579 alt.politics.elections:23941 talk.politics.misc:60427
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Inheritance taxes
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:12:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1dvbqnINN10a@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>PS Inheritance taxes go back to at least feudal times--in fact, the
>right to inherit was not automatic.

In feudal times all property belonged to the King.  The king granted the
right to use some of his property to certain loyal nobles.  These nobles
in term sublet some of this property to lower nobles who were in turn loyal
to them.  Upon the death of the holder, all holdings reverted back to the
king.  The king then reissued the holding to whoever he chose.  Usually this
was the heir of the original holder, but that wasn't always the case.

BTW, we seem to be drifting back to this form of government.  That is
everything belongs to the government, which in turn, out of its mercy,
allows us to use some of it for a time.

Note the discussions in which any tax rate of less than 100% is refered to
as a subsidy.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: zawr02@hou.amoco.com (Andrew W. Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Robert Bork
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:48:43 GMT
Reply-To: zawr02@hou.amoco.com
Organization: Amoco

In article 1eqee8INN44b@agate.berkeley.edu, wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>
>Maybe Bork was *too* smart perhaps?   I didn't see an "agenda" on Bork's
>part.  Certainly his record as a judge on the U.S. court of appeals
>never showed it.  He never had a single opinion reversed by the U.S.
>Supreme Court.
>
Au contraire (or somesuch spelling). Bork had a definite agenda of changing
law through judicial decisions. Like Al Gore with the environment, Bork had even
written a book on his pet subject.  All the reports I have seen said that he DID
show this agenda as an appelate court judge.  He was defeated not for his
conservative views, but for his view on rewriting the US legal code from the
Supreme Court bench.  After all, the two justices nominated after Bork, Kennedy
and Thomas, were elected despite conservative viewpoints.  

One does wonder, though, how a judge with a similar outlook on affecting law 
but with a liberal viewpoint would have faired with the same Senate.
---
Andrew Robinson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are solely my own.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 18:44:39 GMT

In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>There's too many people here already. (And how many of those actually CAN
>>live? How many die of starvation each year? How many don't have homes?
>>How many CHILDREN die each year because the people thought it was their
>>most basic right to have kids and then couldn't FEED them!!)
>
>But that is NOT my situation.  And as for you not having any kids, fine.
>Your choice.  Now please allow me mine.
>
What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply
that you don't live on the same planet as *I* do? Hardly.
Your situation is the same as mine is the same as everyone elses.
There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!

You say limit people from having kinds through education, not by law.
I wish it were that simple. How do you expect to teach people to have less kids,
if you go ahead and have (say) 10 kids. You can afford them, so.. why not?
This is a classical "Do as I say, not as I do" case. And that won't work.
Educated people (like yourself and myself) have to set an example, or
the 'teaching' part evaporates into a lot of hot air.

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 02:08:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.131424.16306@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>
>Don't waste time worrying about such trivial matters.  You say the earth is
>over populated... so what?  How much longer do you think life on this earth,
>as we know it today, is going to last?  Remember, there WAS a beginning to
>time, and there *WILL* be an end to it also.  The same God who created this 
>earth is also going to destroy it.  Nothing you or I can do, can stop that!
>You would be better off investing your time in your eternal future, rather
>than worrying about such trivial matters as overpopulation.  People are 
>constantly projecting population figures far into the future.  The assumption
>being made, that the earth will still exist then.  What happens if it doesn't?
>Why do we so casually assume that there *will* be a tomorrow, just because
>today came after yesterday?  Just as the world began, it will also end.  Don't
>worry about the population, worry about where YOU will be when the world ends.
>
>... ponder that!

I'll asume this was an attempt at sarcasm. Coz If this was meant seriously,
I would recommend you go back to my posting about my opinion on such
bull as you just posted.

If it was sarcasm (I'm never too sure with all the idiots on the net),
then it was really good. I got a good laugh. 

If not... well lets just say I feel sorry that another perfectly good
brain is going unused.

I don't believe in no GOD, so I'll just keep projecting my figures out 
a few million years. As for the afterlife (or eternal life as you called it):
I'm looking forward to peaceful oblivion.

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: MORE MILITARY GAY STUFF
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:07:00 GMT
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591

Wasn't it a bunch of heterosexual men trying to hook some tail in the
Tailhook scandal?
                                        
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Cybernetic Samurai)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:42:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.220933.22112@umbc3.umbc.edu>, williamf@umbc8.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov23.080757.21689@wam.umd.edu> nuke@wam.umd.edu (root) writes:
|> >In article treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
|> >>
|> >>     Though not a direct threat to anyone, mr. Hunt's post implies that
|> >>this is a free forum for discussing threats.  The government then has
|> >>reason to watch, in the interest of seeing someone go the next step and
|> >>discuss threats.
|> >
|> >Actually, discussing threats would be more relevant.
|> >
|> >For instance, as cute as his trip through DC was...
|> >He was traveling, in the open, through a region reputed for having
|> >a high number of people hiding and using guns.  Although a vast majority
|> >of the killings (note this is an area where gun bans are in effect) are
|> >due to drug-related incidents... this still isn't the best place in the
|> >world for PE Clinton to walk about, flashing his pearly whites.  All too
|> >easy for things to go wrong.
|> >
|> 
|> What the fuck are you implying???  That in an area where thousands of people 
|> live and pass through daily that the Prez elect is under greater threat that
|> anywhere else on the campaign trail??  Political assasinations (attempted or
|> otherwise) have all been carried out by political ideologues or simple crazies.
|> Its you stupid, motherfucking, white snobbish bastards who at every turn try to
|> drag Wash. DC down.  You might have well have explicitly included the racial
|> component you not so subtly implied.  Georgia Ave. is home to many, many decent
|> folks who own their homes and are heartily sick of some of the problems fester-
|> ing there.  But its NOT a war zone of any kind and you have NO right to imply
|> that.  You ought to stay in fucking College Park and drive down Wisconsin 
|> Ave. if you need to go into the city.  For all that I hope you get your fucking
|> head blown off one day in the city, you bastard.
|>      
|> implid aVe *all* been
|> carrieD>gRANted, this will be his new home... 'course, it's mine, too... mostly.

I think someone got their feelings hurt. Awwww.

You seem to be putting a lot of words into the previous posters mouth
that he did NOT say (or even imply as far as I could tell).

lighten up!


-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: income vs. consumption (was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Nov18.201956.23581@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
	<kbanaian.25.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:13:31 GMT



   >P.S.  Martin:  Let's take this private unless someone else posts.

follow up to alt.politics.economics, others are interested
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap
From: tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's health care plan
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:49:26 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <921116211942.2060b14b@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU>, RSE32195@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU writes:
> 
> Would someone please send me a copy of Clinton's health care plan/proposal?
> I have seen it posted before but didn't save it.
> 
Don't worry, it'll  be a long time till (if) it happens.

on Oct 16, 91 he promised his healthcare system in the first 100 days of office, now he
says he promised to propose a hc system in the first 100 days of office.  They are 
crowing about how gridlock is over.   Tom Foley (who was there w/  Clinton when they
anounced gridlock was over) the very next day said he didn't feel  like the first 100 days
were important, but that we should be moving forward and showing promise.

Hell, if Clinton  says the first 100 days and Foley says it doesn't matter, what is that?
It sure sounds like gridlock to me!

Tim.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc