HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:19:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <6854@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu sez:
>=This is great news - there'll finally be some investigations into all of 
>=the maneurvering the liberals did to get Hill before the Committee. 
>
>Sorry, John. That won't happen. Let's say "kid gloves" and add Carol
>Braun, Barbara Boxer, and Barbara Mikulski (among the other liberal
>women Senators) into the mix. She'll get so many free rides that she'd
>bankrupt the Walt Disney Corporation.

Sorry, Emil.  Five gets you ten that Orrin Hatch will have still more
juicy red herrings to throw into the pot -- once his staffers finish
their noble task of reading the complete works of William Peter
Blatty, and groveling through the Westlaw and Lexis databases for 
  LONG W/25 (SCHLONG OR SCHWANZ OR PRICK OR DONG).

-- 
        1992 Awards for Yeoman Service to the Democratic Party:
1st prize: Pat Buchanan  2nd prize: Craig Fuller  3rd prize: James Baker
	 Honorable mention: Rich "They aren't Americans" Bond
      * Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck *
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SOMEBODY'S GOT TO SAY IT (Re: Clinton by default)
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:11:55 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov5.104603.68199@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>In <3NOV199208185419@utkvx3.utk.edu>, drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>>In <eagle.720761837@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu>, eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes...
>>>dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

>>>>(someone else said)
>>>Nationwide health care, like welfare, is initally a good idea.  You then
>>>must come up with a way to FAIRLY pay for it.  It's not fair for all us
>>>tax payers to have to pay for somebody else to sit on their fanny, not
>>>working, but riding the government.  Also, put those prisoners to work!

>>All that BC is trying to do is to optimize the 13% of GNP we spend
>>on health care.  He's right in the fact that for what we are spending,
>>we should be getting a hell of a lot more.  We shouldn't have 37
>>million uncovered people.

>>Case:  A guy works for McDonald's...has no health care. Poor guy hasn't
>>been feeling so well lately, and the cut on his thumb he got trying to
>>fix the fryer doesn't seem to be healing.  Doesn't have the money to see
>>a doctor, so he just figures he'll get better.

>>Later on, at a party, his friends notice him going into convulsions and
>>take him to the ER.  Turns out he has a very advanced case of diabetes.

>>Now, for $50, he could have seen a physician that could have told him
>>"you have diabetes, and here is how you need to alter your diet to
>>control it."  But instead, it's going to take $5000 to nurse him back
>>to health, maybe more.  Who pays it?  YOU AND I.  Either through taxes
>>for medicare, or increased costs by the hospital.

>    You moron. A hospital CANNOT refuse treatment of a patient just because
>    they can't pay for it. If more people realized this, we wouldn't have
>    nimrods like you voting for Slick Willie.

I think I speak for a lot of people on the net when I say: "You're an asshole."
Besides not knowing how to edit posts when you're only adding one little
comment to them, you're deliberately insulting for no reason.

And, you're wrong besides.  EMERGENCY ROOMS cannot refuse treatment.
(You know, when there's an emergency.)  Hospitals can and do all the time.
This is why poor people have so much trouble -- because they cannot get
preventive care.

We wouldn't be having people vote for Bill Clinton if Pat Buchanan
wasn't at the GOP convention calling for a crusade against all non
straight white males.  And if George Bush gave the impression to anyone
that he gave a damn about what happened to them.  And if George Bush had
given anyone a reason to vote for him besides "Well, things could be worse."

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:18:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <40545@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>>OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>>________
>>Jennifer|
>>--------
>
>Why ask god for this. 
>In my opinion god must be the biggest socialist in the world. He
>could hardly be considered a conservative now could he ?
>Isn't it a wonderful day today...
>Pim
>
"If a man shall not work, neither shall he eat."

Sounds like a conservative to me.

Ted


-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:36:27 GMT

In article <92316.124914MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In<1dr4vtINNne0@spool.mu.edu>, marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) says:

>>Oh, and Hill will prob. not be the best person to sit on the court
>>when that time comes.  But if CT can qualify, so can AH.

>Perhaps, but the point is moot anyway due to the little-known fact that
>Anita Hill's politics are well to the right of Clarence Thomas's. No
>way at all she would be appointed under a Democratic administration.

What a scary concept.  "to the right of Clarence Thomas."  Who does
*that* fit?  David Duke?  Hitler?  Mussolini?  Atilla the Hun?  Genghis
Khan?  

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:41:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.215733.21027@megatek.com> cjp@megatek.com (Chris "Systems Stud" Pikus) writes:
>	Actually, according to the AP news service, the Libertairans
>(nationwide) got a little over 250,000 million votes. 

Not bad -- an average of 50 votes from every single person on earth.

>Aproximately 100M
>votes were cast which would make the number around 1/4%.
>
>	Personally, I suspect that the number would have been a lot
>higher if Perot did not run. [like more than a million]
>
>	Then again, since exit polls showed that Perot took four votes
>from Bush for every one he took from Clinton, Bush would have been
>President again. Maybe that is what he wanted to do.

Which exit poll was that?  The only one I've seen showed
40% Clinton
38% Bush
22% Other/wouldn't vote.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Nov. 23, 1992 A day that will go down IN INFAMY!
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:48:32 GMT

In article <Bx8zsH.68n@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Rockville) writes:
>pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>
>>   People's votes reflect thier lifestyle or what they want in a lifestyle I
>>guess this means that SPOUSE nonconsentual adultery, lying, draft dodging,
>>weasling and stealing is now the acceptable wasy of life.
>
>I suppose your idea of acceptable morals is living off the efforts of people
>not yet born?  

Certainly not mine.

I _hope_ you're not going to try to defend Clinton using this argument;
the only ones in the last election who passed this moral test that I
know of were H. Ross Perot and Andre Marrou!

Dave
   "Take your country back -- for our children's sake!"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58205 soc.culture.african.american:10662
From: dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Dean Calloway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: DEBATE: Statement - 10/19/92
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:08:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.geyIPbC00Uh742m5dY
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

1. Between 1977 and 1990, the average income of the poorest fifth of
American families declined by about 7%, while the richest fifth's income
increased about 15%.  This has left the richest fifth with a bit over
half of the nation's income...the highest portion ever recorded by the
top 20 percent.

2. The top 5% commanded 26% of the nation's total income, another record.

3. By the end of the 1980'2, the top 1 percent of the American earners
were payinga combined federal-state-local tax rate of only 26.8 percent,
compared with 29% in 1975 and 39.6% in 1966.

4. The number of impoverished WORKING Americans climbed by nearly 2
million, or 23 percent, between 1978 and 1987.

5. During this same period, top executives of American corporations
incomes rose 220% or about 12% a year (although during the first four
years, the average was 8%.  The remainder was made up during the
Eighties.)

6. By 1990, the chief executive of one of America's top 100 companies,
on average, earned $2,025,000.  This was 93 times the wages paid to the
average American production worker for these same corporations.

   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: Feckless Libertarian Party
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 03:52:26 GMT

In article <Bx90nx.G1s@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>I am a libertarian by inclination and philosophy, but I hold out little
>hope for the party. I think the Libertarian party should concentrate on
>getting dog-catchers elected before they dream of putting a man in the
>White House.
>
>If the Libertarian stategy is to force a "major" party to take up the
>Libertarian political agenda, then the Libertarian party ought to get
>people elected to the House and Senate, so the program can be taken
>seriously by the others.
>
>Now the good news. In that state of New Hampshire, 4 Libertarians were
>elected to the state Legislature. That is the ticket. Good start!

Not really much of a surprise.  Actually, I expected the Libertarians
to get more here in NH.  Get out of the cities, and Libertarian ideals
are very popular, even among people who have never heard of the party
or know what it stands for.  I like the chances the Libertarian Party
has of becoming a viable third party in Ner Hampshire.  I even voted
for a couple, as high as U.S. Senate.

God bless,

Michael

>
>Conan the Libertarian "If you can't love the Constitution, then at least
>hate the Governement"


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-0-2)
 Three wins from the national championship.  v. U MA Dartmouth  Sun.
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:22:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: November 4th
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Keywords: 

In article <lfipd5INNajt@news.bbn.com> fwebb@star-trek.bbn.com (Fred Webb) writes:
>In article <Bx96p8.AKL@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>The biggest reason I hate income tax is that when you invest,
>>you are taxed again on your money.  You _already_paid_your_taxes_
>>when you made the money in the first place; I cannot find any
>>reasonable justification for paying twice.  Please enlighten me.
>
> [deleted]
>
>But again, this double taxation is on the _profit_ you've earned on your
>invested funds, not the original invested funds.  You can still deduct your
>original investment when you sell the stock.
>
>						-- Fred

Thank you, Fred, I stand corrected.

One other question about capital gains:

Is is still true that the government will tax you fully no matter
how much you gain, but that you are limited in the amount of losses
you can deduct per year?

For example (assumed tax rate of 30%, and capital losses limited to
             $3000 per year)

  Year 1   -- earn $200,000             you pay $60,000

  Year 2   -- lose $140,000		you deduct $900 ($3000*.30)
  ...
  Year 2+n -- no change			you deduct $900

I was under the impression that this principle was once in effect.
Is it still -- i.e., does it take 60+ years to get the taxes "back"
paid in year 1?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Dear Dems: Here's your big chance-don't blow it (like last time)
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:44:41 GMT

In article <92Nov5.141708edt.617@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>In article <Bx91Gp.8LF@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>>
>>In article <92Nov4.181946edt.342@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>>....
>>Toronto must give you a perfect vantage point from which to 
>>understand the struggle of honest, WORKING people in America 
>>to survive the continuing plunder of their earnings by the US 
>>government.
>
>  Keep your ad hominem nonsense to your self, bro.  I'm American,
>and have lived, WORKED, paid taxes and voted in 3 different US
>states.
>
>  Your silly class-warfare-inspired innuendo above falls rather
>flat as well.  You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed by the
>crocodile tears for the WORKING people expressed by a supporter
>of George Herbert Walker Bush of Texas^H^H^H^H^HGreenwich, CT.

Mr. Sensitive complains about my assumption of his nationality 
which he reads into my statement, then goes on to spout his 
"innuendo" that I'm a supporter of GHWB.

Furthermore, he attributes "class-warfare-inspired" to a simple
notion that people who earn their living are tired of having
the government taking all their money.  Seems rather "silly" to 
me...

"You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed" with your petulant
response.

>  -- Evan

Dave
  Don't blame me, I voted for Perot!

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59230 alt.politics.elections:23288 alt.war.vietnam:502
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Stockdale is a Bumbling Idiot
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:25:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <Bx9E3A.4p2@news.orst.edu> olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen) writes:
]In article <Bx86zC.2Fr@cs.uiuc.edu> David Kohr,
]drk@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
]>Yes, it's a shame they didn't appreciate our efforts to
]brutalize them with
]>free-fire zones, carpet bombing, defoilation, and our
]support for the South
]>Vietnamese police state.
]>-- 
]Dave,
]I've decided it's doing no good to respond to you. You've
]got your thoughts on the matter, and I've got mine. We're
]not going to change either of our minds. I was there.
]Maybe you were and maybe you weren't.
]
]Yes, the burden of proof is on me. The proof is obvious:
]we're not there anymore. 
]
]I'm not going to honor your insipid final comment with a
]response. It doesn't deserve one. Go ahead and post all
]you want. I've noticed that people like you tend to resort
]to name calling and shrieking. Be my guest. I choose from
]now on not to participate in discussions with you. It
]doesn't do anything but raise my blood pressure and yours

Oh, Dave? Tell me. Are the Vietnamese better off today than before?
I mean, is their government much of an improvement over that police
state you seem to love talking about? If so, then why have so many
fled that country to live here? Just some questions.

My apologies to Monte Olsen for jumping in. I couldn't let this go
unanswered. 

]
]Monte
](War mongering baby killer and village burner that I am)

No. I doubt you are such a thing. But then people like Dave can't tell
the difference between a soldier and a brigand. Pity, for enlightened
folk, they really are blind in a few areas....

Me? Check my sig.



-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "We Will Stand" stolen by Clinton
From: <BTE104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:40:57 EST
Organization: Penn State University

Did you vote for anybody?  That's the problem-if you didn't vote for anybody, D
ON'T COMPLAIN!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:18:34 GMT

>>Clinton did not coin the phrase 'trickle-down-economics'.  It's been
>>around since at least the 1920's.

>A source for this please?

>And a definition?

'Trickle-down-economics' is slang for 'supply side economics' which
is the economic theory that says that if people (or businesses) are
left to themselves, and not 'punished' for succeeding, then the
'laws' of economics (supply and demand) will result in everyone's
status being improved.  It works by increasing the possibility of 
return on investments, which makes the user invest, which creates
a market (jobs).  The alternative is a regulated economy in which it
is easier to 'sit' on your money, because if you make a bunch it's
just taxed away anyway...therefore no investment, no market, no jobs.

That's a synopsis brought to you by Chadonomics 101.

Chad

>Pat
>>
>>Paul.


--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was: Release from the Clinton Camp
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:04:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) says:

>
>  
>
>      America is, well, was about "Freedom".  Hey, there are around
>      140 other countries where you don't have to worry about guns
>      ( like Britain. hehehehe ).  You can be protected from yourself.
>
>      Go there.  Why ruin the last one that isn't the same?
>>
>>People who do pass driving test are dangerous enough.  Times have changed.
>>When the constitution was written, a gun was an everyday part of nearly
>>everyone's life.  Hunting and local wars were the game of the day.  Young
>>boys (sorry ladies - not to many annie oakley's back then) were tought
>>how to use and care for a gun at an early age.  Now, most of the people 
>>buying guns have not skills, training, or respect for their new toy.
>>
>>-- 
>
>       And here, the most dangerous of all.  " Times are different now "
>
>       Go to Los Angeles and tell me that.  Look at our government
>        corrupt beyond belief, and tell me that.         
>
>       The argument is moot, anyhow.  Clinton, or at least congress,
>       will have it done by 1996.  There are other countries emerging
>       that recognize  the value of freedom.


           Thanks, Mike, for helping me realize something tonight.
     
      The American people really ARE too stupid to make their own
      decisions anymore.  I should have realized this Nov. 4.

           Guns should be banned completely, and our government
     should decide how our money, well, the American people's 
     money is spent.
>
>>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
>>
>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58755 ca.politics:9410
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Bill "STOGIE" Clinton. HEHEHEHEHE!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:38:39 GMT

In article <9211082121.AA06721@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> SMTP@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
#      For almost a year, I been candidate watching.
#      But not ONCE did I see Clinton smoking a CIGAR!

Yes, but did he inhale?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life)
Subject: Re: Thank you, Anita Hill
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:33:47 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:


>In article <bob1.721328972@cos>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) said:

>While I'll grant you that the Framers had a far different idea of the
>U.S. Senate in mind when they gave that body the duty of approving or
>rejecting federal court nominees (after all, direct election of
>Senators didn't come about until 1913), I'm not sure _what_ they had

Which, IMHO, was a bad idea.  Our courtcritters would be much less
willing to tread on state powers if they had to pass confirmation 
hearings controlled by Senators appointed by state legislatures, which
was supposed to be one check on Federal power.  No such luck nowadays.
Appointed Senators also gave state legislatures some say over treaties,
another check on Federal power the states have lost.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton