HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrm@cbnews.cb.att.com (john.r.miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Why Do Soak the Rich Schemes Always End Up Picking Everyone's Pocket?
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:24:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct15.061208.15888@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
> 
> 
>   "Mr. President, Read Our Lips: No New Taxes"
>   by J. Peter Grace
> 
>   ...
> 
>   If 100 percent of all untaxed income in this country above $100,000 of
>   taxable income were confiscated today, we would generate only enough
>   money to run the government for 19 days -- less than three weeks. There
>   simply is not enough money raised in the highest brackets to contribute
>   meaningful amounts of revenue.
> 
>   They once asked the famous bank robber Willie Sutton why he robbed banks.
>   He answered, "That's where the money is." And if you want to raise
>   serious tax revenue in this country, you have to go to where the money
>   is. Ninety percent of all taxable income in this country is generated in
>   brackets of $45,000 and under. More than 75 percent is generated by
>   people who make $25,000 or less each year. If politicians raise taxes, it
>   is these people, not just the rich, who'll be soaked.
> 
>   ...

Yet 10% (the rich) hold 90% of the wealth in this country. If what you say
is true, then something is very wrong with our "tax" system. Those who
have the least pay the most. I propose we tax the "holdings" of the
rich and shake some of that 90% loose to cover the tax bill.

			John Miller
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51526 alt.rush-limbaugh:7322 alt.politics.bush:9023 alt.politics.clinton:10228 alt.politics.elections:16586 talk.abortion:42448
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:36:51 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <Bvzssz.Iqt@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> ... I don't believe
>for a moment that he really intended to join ROTC and then "changed his
>mind", and if you really believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell
>you, CHEAP. 

See, guys, Mitchell is basing his vote on his (Mitchell's) religious beliefs.
He believes, without any possibility of proof, Bush's assertion that Clinton
lied.  Bush has repeatedly and consistently lied about Clinton, and has even
admitted that the public was aware that he (Bush) was lieing, and has even
said that although he (Bush) knows that we know he's lieing, he will continue
to lie about Clinton, because he (Bush) thinks we're too dumb to refuse to
believe his admitted lies.  Mitchell believes (or claims to) Bush's admitted
lies about Clinton.  This is clearly not based on any form of logic yet in-
vented, and therefore is some kind of religious faith.  One cannot reason
with the irrationally faithful; one can only pity him and pray for him to re-
gain the wits God gave him.

If you believe Bush, even when Bush boasts about his lies, I can arrange to
sell you some oceanside property in Kansas you'd be fascinated with.


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: MODEL UN NEWSGROUP
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 13 Oct 1992 21:52:41 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    Hello all -
                I am in the process of starting a Model United Nations
   newsgroups to be called talk.politics.model-un.  The Model UN is a
   simulation of the United Nations which takes place on the high school
   and college level.  Each conference takes place over a weekend and is
   prepared for months in advance.  It is a worldwide phenomenon which is
   challenging, educational and fun.  The talk.politics.model-un group
   would facilitate the exchange of information between Model UNers the
   world over thereby helping to facilitate better understanding of the
   UN and helping to build a better world.  If you support such an
   endeavour, please post positive responses onto news.groups as soon
   as possible to that we can get this thing up and running and improve
   Model UNing around the globe!!!!
                                   Peace,
                                         Matt

                        REMEMBER TO POST TO NEWS>GROUPS!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:24:11 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct14.061232.28951@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
]>If you want to consider a long record of lying for no good reason at all,
]>cheating on his wife, and political favoritism for his lover, to be
]>immaterial, then you'll love Slick Willie. I happen to consider them
]>all windows into his soul, and what I see through those windows isn't
]>pretty.
]
]There's no proof, other then by repeated assertion, that Ms. Flowers got
]any such "political favortism".  I maintain that the Clintons have gotten
]past their marital problems, and as such, it's no one's business but their
]own.

Well, I listened to a Jennifer Flowers tape where she was talking to
Bill Clinton (remember, Clnton first claimed he didn't know who she was) where
he tells her "If anyone asks, just deny it." The lady who had been promised
the job that Flowers got filed a complaint about it that was upheld by
the complaint board, and then overturned by a Clinton political appointee.
Don't give me this "no evidence" crap - GO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!

]Newsflash!!  the cold war is over, the USSR is dead.  Live with it.

Newsflash: According to the (liberal) Harvard Professor who is chief
economic advisor to the Russian government, the "military industrial
complex" (his words) has stopped the economic reform and taken over
economic policy. He also said that hyperinflation can be expected
shortly, and that he expects social turmoil and irrational decision
making as a result. He said this LAST NIGHT. It is terribly irresponsible
of the press and the democrats (and even Bush) to act like it is all
over when there is every possibility that a hostile reconstituted
USSR (but probably with a frankly fascist regime rather than a
crypto-fascist regime) is going to appear on the scene in the
near future.

Look, if I thought that the world was now a safe place, I would be much
less upset about Clniton as commander in chief, since the military wouldn't
be having anything to command. But, as long as it is dangerous, and it is,
the character of the president and his knowledge and past history in
foreign affairs and military crises are germain. 
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Waffling
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:29:31 GMT

The Republicans have accused Clinton and Gore of changing their
minds on many occassions, waffling, they call it. 

While those "waffles" may be true of Clinton/Gore, they are
nothing more than hypocritical coming from the President.

---Bush was for abortion rights during his 1980 primary run.
---Bush called Reaganomics, "voodoo economics" and then 
   endorsed it while vp and now prez.
---"Read my lips"

I'm sure people can add to my list.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
CLINTON/GORE FOR PRESIDENT		DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-24TH)
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Americans believe Anita Hill
Date: 7 Oct 1992 17:56:43 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Stupendous Man) writes:
|> James L. Heilman) writes:
|> > The results of a recent poll by NBC and the Today Show indicate that a  
|> > majority of Americans now believe Anita Hill was telling the truth about  
|> > Clarence Thomas.  What took you so long?
|> > 
|> 
|> 	2) The media as "Willie Hortonized" the affair so that every mention
|> casts Clarence Thomas as a liar.
|> 
Where?  I must not watch or read enough news (hard to imagine) to have
seen these "mentions."  Most of the coverage I have seen in the last
year that mentions him is talking about current Supreme Court issues
and is not characterising him either way.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: Whatever...
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:04:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.151752.20782@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>In article <Bw2CE4.GEC@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) 
>writes:
>
>}--PLH (just what's in that Edwards Aquifer water, anyway?)
>
>Neither the Edwards Plateau nor the Balcones Fault impart anything into
>the water.  The hydrology of this region has been studied fairly closely
>by (you guessed it) cavers.  I don't think it is genetic, I don't think
>it is environmental.  I think it might be a brain disease...

Whatever it is, I'm not getting any closer to UTSA than I have to...

-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
The U.S. Constitution isn't perfect -- but it's a hell of a lot better than
                            what we have now...
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Date: 8 Oct 1992 20:57:48 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
|> Mike Polen):
|> > Typical simplistic bull shit.  In Dallas or Houston or San Antonio, you can
|> > buy a nice house in the suburbs for less than $100,000.  That same house
|> > in Silicon Valley is over $500,000.  Do you become rich because you work
|> > in Silicon Valley?   Actually, it works the other way around.  More of 
|> > your income goes to housing and you have less to spend/invest in the
|> > economy.
|> 
|> The government, and more specifcally the taxpayers across the country,
|> should not be subsidizing outrageously inflated housing costs any more 
|> than they should be subsidizing million dollar homes.  
|> 
|> "Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell

I see.  Suspend the laws of supply and demand as they apply to
housing.  I suppose that we should outlaw states from exempting
food from sales tax since food has inflated at a rate much higher
than the cost of living index.  Or just tax steak, since only
rich people can afford it.  Or make all the people with average
salaries move out of silicon valley because their house
costs are rising.

Like I said.  Simplistic.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: You're NO John Kennedy
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:07:43 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.194337.1899@gacvx2.gac.edu>, emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.115633.4568@desire.wright.edu>  writes:
>>In article <7610059@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, myers@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Myers) writes:
>>>> Hello, everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> Who said "I knew John Kennedy. You're no John Kennedy", and to
>>>> whom was it said? Could you phrase it exactly, more or less?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Nick
>>> 
>>> Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, then the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate,
>>> to then-Sen. J. Danforth Quayle of Indiana, during the 1988 Vice-Presidential
>>> Debate.
>>> 
>>> A closer quote is "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy - Jack Kennedy was a personal
>>> friend of mine.  And Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"  Not exact, but that's
>>> the best I can dredge up from my memory.  As I recall, Quayle had no reply -
>>> he just stood there looking somewhat stunned.
>>> 
>>	He was not stunned, he was angry.  He said "that was uncalled for,
>>Senator", much to the delite of the audience present.  (But not the media.)
>>...
> Just goes to show that Republicans take fiction over fact.

	Not a Republican.

	Next?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton will clarify
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:17:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Oct9.132610.10327@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rob Harrington) writes:
}In article <1992Oct9.152414.15518@linus.mitre.org>, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
}> 
}> And for those with "that far in the past doesn't matter":  Care to vote for
}> Nixon?
}
}Ahh.... damn... too bad he's not eligible... you can only be elected 
}to the presidency twice... his was 68 and 72...

Astounding, the number of folks who all of a sudden decide that the
constitution is inviolate and that the government can do no wrong when
it is doing what THEY personally want!

(not especially you, Rob.  I just got through reading an entire trail
of anti-nixonites.  Amusing.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Quayle on Rationing (was Re: GORE/QUAYLE/STOCKDALE: VP debate text (10/13) part 2/2)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 10:47:09 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct16.034015.9420@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct14.191711.18252@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cc.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
|> 
|> >  BRUNO:  Mr Vice President.
|> >  QUAYLE:  ...
|> 
|> 	[On the dangers of rationing health care...]
|> 
|> >  Remember when we rationed energy in this country?  Waiting lines at
|> >the gasoline stations.
|> 
|> 	He mixed up cause and effect here. The rationing was _because_
|> of a shortage, to insure that everyone had their fair share.
|> 

Wrong.  The shortages were due to a confused policy of price controls
left over from the Nixon debacle.  Prices weren't allowed to reach
market levels and as a result shortages occured.  Higher prices would
have encourage people to purchase smaller cars, car pool, etc., all
things which would have make more efficient use of the resource.
The government mucked with the price system and the result was
misallocation.  Notice what happened after decontrol, prices rose and
people bought more energy efficient cars.  And yet, gas in the U.S.
is still cheap.  In addition, OPEC is now toothless.

|> 	I wonder how Quayle would have handled such a shortage. Let
|> assorted sleazebags rip people off?

You are clearly a person unfamiliar with how the price system works.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: An Aside on this Rights Issue
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:07:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.225042.13970@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
}StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
}] 
}] The rights to life, liberty, and property are not guaranteed in the
}] Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10, Amendment 27, and one other article
}] that was not, and probably will not be passed).  These rights
}] are protected in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Actually, property rights are given surprisingly strong protection by the
Takings clause of the 5th amendment: "nor shall private propety be taken
for public use without just compensation".  The libertarian legal theorist
Richard Epstein has written an excellent book about this: "Takings: Private
Property and the Power of Eminent Domain."


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Re: Republican Fear
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:00:36 GMT

One of the biggest disadvantages of a negative campaign is that your
party loses _ALL_ power if it goes down.

Further, with a climate of hate and fear between the two parties...
Will the Bush Administration attempt to abort the election?  Scuttle
the presidency by destroying documents?

In a "polite" campaign your party, your _vision_ can still be followed
if you lose, especially if there is no widespread mandate or coattails
of booklicking Congresspeople swept in by the new president.

Bush has no _vision_ beyond, "Oh what a disaster if the Democrats
win!  Shocking!  A Dem Pres and a Dem Congress was what caused us to
elect a half-senile ex-actor in the first place!"

Oh, I guess that is a little unfair.  Bush may have a vision he
is just too embarassed to put forth.  Any guesses?



-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50438 alt.rush-limbaugh:6923 alt.politics.bush:8291 alt.politics.clinton:9222 alt.politics.elections:15740 talk.abortion:41498 alt.sex:32390
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:36:16 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1687A9093.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>In article <Oct05.203207.51974@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
>sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> 
>>        BTW, life of the mother and rape exceptions are CONSISTENT exceptions.
> 
>Steve....exactly *HOW* is rape a consistent exception?  If abortion is
>truly the murder of an innocent child, why is a child conceived by a
>rape any less innocent?  It bears no responsibility for its father's
>crime.
> 
>Please explain....no one else has been able to do so.

Before I do, I wanna tuck in this DISCLAIMER:  This is how the argument works.
I'm not saying whether I believe in it or not.  drieux, lay off with the
hurricanes.

By having sex, a woman has "signed" a virtual "consent form" that reads
more or less "God forbid we actually concieve, I will carry this child to
term, 'less my life is in danger" So on so forth.

When she is raped, she did not consent to carry the child to term, and so can
do with it what she wants.

I know this argument has pokable holes, do me a favor and don't flame me,
I just work here.

Big Al.  Who REALLY believes that the great pumpkin will descend next thanks-
giving and destroy us all.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: JZ lands in a Hot LZ...
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:09:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <21374@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis

>> Except, of course, that God's opinions will carry somewhat greater
>> weight on Judgement Day than will William D. Starr's.

> Why?

Because God will be the judge.

> Why would God give us free will, if He/She/It did not value our own
> opinions?

For reasons other than this.  If our opinions were of greater value
than God's, then God would not be God.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:33:38 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <MATT.92Oct7115038@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
]In article <1992Oct7.022226.19164@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]> He WAS in the SU in '70. He admitted it on TV last night.
]
]"Admitted"?!  It's an "admission" to say that you travelled during
]your Christmas vacation?  

Yes, admitted. He never brought it up until he was asked as a result
of Republican digging. This is the same guy who has been slippery about
the draft business, dishonest about the Jennifer Flowers business, and in
general lies a lot. All sorts of stuff about his anti-war stuff is now
coming out. I have no problems with him being against the war, but when
he (a) demonstrates against the US in a FOREIGN country, and, the same
year (b) travels to the capital of the main enemy (which, by the way, was the
term used by the Soviets when discussing OUR country) while we are in a war,
I have real problems with his judgement.

[ Bush doesn't deserve to be elected. The american people don't deserve
  to have Clinton elected. ]
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -