HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: test2
X-Xxdate: Fri, 9 Oct 92 17:00:04 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:03:02 GMT

another test

Norman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Ken Willing)
Subject: Gore in the year 2000?
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:18:39 GMT

Al Gore president in the year 2000 ?

A very nice thought in a way, of course.  But the default assumption that it
will be or even could be a male will seem, by the year 2000, as outrageous
and embarrassingly outmoded a notion as, say, use of the term "Negro" seems
now.  

To his credit, Vice-President Gore himself will perhaps have been to some
small degree a contributor to that change.  But let's be realistic -- and
honor in advance what's surely coming.

And [here visualise Gore saying this]:  "We can hardly wait."

Ken Willing   <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10931 talk.politics.misc:52380
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Dan Quayle: Attack Puppy Unleashed
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:02:40 EST
Summary: Oh, and it's congress that's the biggest spender in history
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.165616.14106@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.155448.4795@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
> demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>	#!%*)U#!.  This is the fourth time you've posted this!!!
> 
> And you still don't get it!!!!

	I still don't want it, Dr.!!!

>>	We are not made of money you losers!!!!  This is why so many people
>>distrust the Democrats with money!!!
>>
>>	Spend spend spend spend.  I guess that's what happens when you're using
>>other people's money.
> 
> Since George Bush and Ronald Reagan are the biggest spenders in history,
> this is hypocritical clap-trap.

	You seem to have the delusion that either Mr. Reagan and/or Mr. Bush
made that post.
:D

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Dan Quayle: Attack Puppy Unleashed
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:42:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct15.165616.14106@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>Since George Bush and Ronald Reagan are the biggest spenders in history,
>this is hypocritical clap-trap.

It looks like this year is boiling down to two candidates.  One who has
raised taxes and spending and says that he is sorry, and the other who
is looking forward to the opportunity to raise taxes and spending to an
even higher level.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dkline@krazykat.engin.umich.edu (david  kline)
Subject: Democratic Platform
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 11:23:34 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Originator: dkline@krazykat.engin.umich.edu


Does anyone know if the Democratic ( and Replublican ) platform exist somewhere on the Internet?  If so, where?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: Willie Horton endorses Clinton.
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 16:44:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.145949.4789@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.193021.6178@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>> Willie Horton who is currently serving two life sentences plus 85 years in 
>> prison has endorsed Bill Clinton stating that it is because of what the 
>> "Republicans did to me".
>
>	This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic, and so common.
>
>	"Society made me do it.  Society made me what I am."
>
>	How dare anyone react with revulsion at his torture and rape!!!
>
>Brett                                                      

Too bad conservatives can't think originally and have to parrot
everything Rush Limbaugh says -- this is why you guys are losing.


-- 
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
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9882 alt.politics.bush:8744 talk.politics.misc:51131 talk.bizarre:33829
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: The lie Al "did not" Gore can not deny
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:23:54 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:26:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.232645.4817@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>	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 :).

Furthermore, you have ignored the 9 or so lies and half-truths the media
charged to Quayle.

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




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9267 alt.politics.bush:8308 alt.politics.elections:15752
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Interest on the debt
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:12:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN) said..
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
		    that's pretty good. :-)

>	I have wondered, like many other people, where has all the
>money gone? Well I was looking over the 1990 budget and it became 
>obvious where it has gone.
>	We spent:
>	175.6 Billion on Interest on the Debt in 1990.
>
>	That is equal to all the federal spending on:
>
>	Health, Education, training, employment, Transportation,
>	Natural resources + environment, Science, space + Technology
>	Community, regional development, Energy, Consumer Health + Safety
>	Health education + training COMBINED! 
>	And you would still have 5 Billion left over.

Indeed.  Now, let's bring the numbers up to the present.  According 
to Perot's _United_We_Stand_, this years' budget deficit is 330 Billion 
dollars.  (+60 billion more, according to his TV thing).

Of that $214 billion is -interest- on the debt.

Perot says, "Today we have a $4-trillion debt. [...] Today all the income 
taxes collected from the states west of the Mississippi go to pay the 
interest on that debt.  [...]  And let me repeat: that $214 billion we'll 
pay next year is interest only.  Interest doesn't buy a thing. It doesn't 
spur new business to give people jobs. It doesn't help people out of 
poverty. It doesn't maintain our highways.  It doesn't protect our forests 
and national parks. It doesn't put more police on the streets. It doesn't 
restore our inner cities. It doesn't defend us. It will never build a 
classroom or fund research to fight disease."

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10756 alt.politics.elections:17112
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Let's watch together tonight.....
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:11:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

>
Let's have a debate party tonight....
Anyone who can, get on irc (internet relay chat) and join a channel
"debate" so that we can have comments and reactions in real time.
Could be fun.


Steve/Iain
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:13:02 GMT

In <1bho65INN2ec@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>I have some problems with the Clinton plan, myself. But let's look at
>the Bush plan. Across the board tax cut. Capital gains tax cut.
>Indexing. Export subsidies. Hurricane relief, including rebuilding
>Homestead AFB. Claimed deficit reduction. Health care plan. Job
>training.
>Is there something missing?
>Yes. Not one clue anywhere about how to pay for it. Not one!

	The following statistics are taken from a report given by the
American Institute of Taxation, a non-profit organization operating out
of Washington which collects, compiles and reports statistics about
taxes.

In 1980, when the highest tax bracket was 70%, the top 10% of income 
earners in the US payed 46% of federal income taxes. The top bracket
was later reduced to 50%, and then to 28%. In 1990, the top 10% of
income earners in the US payed 53% of taxes.

	The point here? Lowering taxes does NOT necc lead to less revenue.
In fact, in many instances it leads to INCREASED revenue. Why? Those who
were in the 70% bracket before did more to make money when the tax rates
were dropped, because they could keep more of it. Sure, the rich made a
bona fide killing in the 80's, but they also payed more taxes? They also
hired more people!! The reason that Reagan's two terms had the lowest
misery index for the last 40 years is because of the tax cuts that he
initiated. The economy is stifled by taxes. 
	Things were going well under Bush too, until he and congress decided
to raise taxes on the American people. Then everything went to hell. Bush
is not the be-all end-all of presidents, but he is a hell of a lot better than
Clinton. Raising taxes is only gonna make things worse.

		Bruce
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics,austin.politics,austin.talk,austin.general
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: If you dump Bush, dump Congress too, (at least.)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:43:33 GMT

In <84iesB1w165w@kunikpok.UUCP> richard@kunikpok.UUCP (Richard Hasting) writes:

>Every 
>economist that has ever gone in front of the economic develoment 
>committees in Congress say that Cap Gains tax cuts would increase the 
>overall savings rates.  Yet, those who would save most would be the 
>people with large assets.  So, instead of helping the economy, Congress 
>says, "Can't help the rich, I would lose votes!"  even if it would be a 
>positive influence on the overall economy, benefitting all of us as a 
>whole.  

Yes, and 9 Nobel Laureates and some 500 other economists have stated
that Clinton's plan of selective and targetted cuts would be better
for the economy than Bush's proposal to simply let the rich reap more
profits. 

>Ah.. Vote the bums out.

Especially the obstructionist one at the top, who lives in the big
white house.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: incumbent
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:44:25 GMT

In article <Bvrps0.Auy@oryx.com> xdedcj@atom.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (dave c jarzabek) writes:

>A plurality of electoral votes will throw the vote to the
>house which is controlled by Democrats.  I suspect they 
>would not be conscience bound to vote for the incumbent,
>Pres. Bush.  In that regard, a vote for anyone other than
>Pres. Bush is a vote for Slick.

I believe you hit it directly on the head there Dave. This does bring a question
or 2 to mind though. Since I have never had experience w/ a Pres. being
elected out of the House I was wondering if anyone could give exact details
of how that works. Has it ever happened before?{I don't think so}Is it true
that a House Repre. could vote differently then the populas of his/her state?
Does it take a simply majority or is there some creative math involved?
It is the House that is currently in office and not the Nov. 3rd elected House
that will decide, true?

New ground, just wondering.

Stan Knight
|"Dave's not here!"    ---Cheech---   | 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8970 talk.politics.misc:50163
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton at Oxford (Clinton while he was supposedly at Oxford...)
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:52:20
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct5.222212.4555@desire.wright.edu>
	<ld3fv1INN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com>
	<1992Oct6.212430.4592@desire.wright.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: demon@desire.wright.edu's message of 7 Oct 92 02:24:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.212430.4592@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:


   In article <ld3fv1INN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
   > Stupendous Man) writes:
   > |> Carolyn E. Adams-Price) writes:
   > |> > To the person who said Oxford was an easy school to get in, please
   > |> > note that Clinton was there on a Rhodes Scholarship, one of the
   > |> > most prestigious of all scholarships.

   > |> > Let's hear it for a smart man in the white house for a change.
   > |> 
   > |> 	Not only did he not go to the classes, he never took the exams.

   > |> 	Yeah, smart guy.

   > |> 	Draft dodger, class skipper.

   > As long as they all carried 3.5 or better GPA's, I can deal with it.

	   You can't have a GPA if you don't take exams :).  But I believe that
   Oxford's system is not like the USA college system.  You either pass or fail.

People, at Oxford you don't take exams when you take classes.
If you want a BA you take a bunch of exams at the end of your
third year, after a very specific course of classe.
Clinton already had a bachelors. Oxford didn't
offer masters by exam, MPhil and DPhil are by thesis and take
more than two years.

Essentially Clinton was an independent study postgrad
and if he had any sense spent his time sitting in on
seminars, talking to people and drinking beer. Except
while he was travelling, using up the stipend specifically
provided for travel so that he might use the occasion to
broaden his experience and mind. Something a lot of people
on Usenet benefit from.

Please try to understand that the parts of the world do
not obsess over GPAs and biweekly quizzes.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Inauguration
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:30:35 GMT
Distribution: usa


1. Anyone know of a way to get a ticket to an Inauguration Ball or to
the good seats at the Inauguration itself?  I am looking forward
to the best one in 12 years and I really want to be there!


2. Any bets as to what will happen to this newsgroup Nov. 4, Jan. 21?
I would like to see it continue.  I think some of us have good ideas
for the new administration, and this is a great forum for discussing
them.


CLINTON/GORE '92
From: pete@edsr.eds.com (Pete Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:11:30 GMT
Reply-To: pete@edsr.eds.com
Organization: EDS Research

In article <1992Oct15.062647.25769@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.154325.23807@edsr.eds.com> pete@edsr.eds.com writes:
> >pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
> >
> >>Clinton wants to raise the tax rate on the "top 2%" *not over $200,000*
> 
> >The 2% number was an estimate of the number of people falling in the 
> > 200,000 range.  The Clinton people have repeated time and time again
> >that his numbers are based on 200,000, not 2%. 
> 
> >Pete Humphrey
> 
> Pete, the problem is that Clinton's proposal to raise taxes on
> people making over $200,000 is that if he took ALL of the money
> these people make he would not collect the $150 BILLION he claims
> the tax would raise.
> 
> Therefore, he doesn't really mean the limit is $200k.  Republican
> estimates indicate he will raise taxes on those making over
> $50k.
> 
> David Shackelford

The assumption behind these Republican estimates (that Clinton proposes to
pay for his programs with new taxes *ONLY*) has been refuted in a number of
postings in this group.  The Republicans, hardly strangers to optimistic
economic projections themselves, have used worst-case scenarios to come up
with their version of Clinton's estimates.  Who is right and who is wrong
remains to be seen, although I suspect reality will be somewhere in between.
However, I do not believe that the Republican argument, predicting Clinton's
future actions based on their own economic projections, carries any weight.

-- 
				
Pete Humphrey
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Those awful Reagan Years
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:42:43 EST
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1bk8g9INNejq@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <39456@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>>Sorry Joe, but Regean cut taxes (although total tax revenue, and
>>percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy went up), he did not raise
>>taxes. He also continually asked for, (as does Clinton) a line item
>>veto to help control congressional spending.
> 
> If I'm reading Statistical Abstract of the US correctly, Federal Funds
> receipts (i.e. excluding Soc Sec) went way DOWN in 1983, and in 1984
> were still below 82 correcting for inflation.

	As a percent of GNP, receipts rose from 82-90.

> Spending did not go down to match; this is when the deficit started to
> balloon.

	Actually, it was on the rise since the 1974 impoundment ruling.

> As far as percentage paid by the wealthy, as I post over and over, this
> is meaningless until compared to income growth by the wealthy.

	Middle class gained 39%
	Upper class gained 25%

	Income change, real 1990 dollars, Forbes 400 issue.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10496 talk.politics.misc:51845
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:22:26 EST
Summary: Questions, comments, and a joke :)
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1bf1pkINNgit@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.111941.13258@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
...
>>> Since 1980, the United States has been transformed from the world's
>>> largest creditor to the world's largest debtor.
> 
>>This implies a change of status, which is false. The U.S. is still the
>>world's largest creditor nation.
> 
> Gross vs net. We are now net debtors, we used to be net creditors.

	That's not true.  Our credit outlays are greater than our debt outlays.

> 
>>> RHETORIC: On taxes. George "Read My Lips" Bush gave us the second
>>> biggest tax increase in American history. 
> 
>>I must have missed it when the democratically-controlled Congress assumed
>>blameless status? Did the original 1990 budget that Bush submitted have a
>>tax increase in it? Or, was the tax increase added by Congress?
> 
> Bush's original budget had an even LARGER deficit and had to be revised

	Deficit?  We're talking TAXES.

> because it furthermore had absurdly optimistic revenue projection.
> Howver, Bush's 1993 budget AS SUBMITTED had several tax and fee
> increases.

	Okay, larger or smaller than the one that was eventually signed? And
what about all those Demo promises to cut spending???

>>> In January of this year,
>>> Bush proposed a tax exemption of $500 per child but he reneged on his
>>> proposal one month later. 
> 
>>A $500 exemption per child is really useless.
> 
> Not to us. (My share of the Reagan tax cut you are so ecstatic about was
> less than $8.) Anyway, if it's useless, why did Bush propose it?

	Why ask why?  Drink Perot Dry! :D  Sorry, couldn't resist.

	Bush is a politician, that's why.

>>> RHETORIC: In his Midsession Review, George Bush named selected options
>>> that would cut $2 billion in child support enforcement funds.
> 
>>Is it the responsibility of the federal government to enforce locally
>>awarded child support payments?
> 
> A major problem is with parents leaving the jurisdiction. That's just
> what the federal government was supposed to be about....

	Certainly child support is an important issue.  But what real effect
did these enforcement funds have?  Were they doing the job or just making
people feel better because government was spending money?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Rhodes Scholarship - Frills and Frivolities
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:42:27 GMT


In article <jejensen.719193449@cunews>, 
jejensen@alfred.carleton.ca (John Jensen) said:

> Not many people stop to think where the money for Rhodes
> scholarships comes from.  They are from the proceeds of the estate
> of Cecil Rhodes, famous British colonialist (remember "Rhodesia"?)
> and violent conquering racist.
>
> It is somewhat ironic to read about liberal former Rhodes scholars.
> Did they ever ask where the money came from?

It may be ironic (sort of like the idea that all the Nobel Prizes --
including the Peace Prize -- were funded by the invention of dynamite),
but I don't think that it even comes close to crossing the line into
the realm of the hypocritical.  After all, Cecil Rhodes has already
amassed the fortune; it's too late to do anything about that.  The
money is already there, for better or for worse.  I kind of like the
idea of it being used for better.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9184 talk.politics.misc:50415