HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gt4925b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jason Woodward)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gus savage is history
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:45:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Politically Incorrect and Proud of It

In article <adams.715012991@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
 >lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
 >
 >>In article <1992Aug28.063908.1@fnala.fnal.gov> maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov writes:
 >
 >>: Well, Carl, you should feel a lot better then, because due to the most recent
 >>: gerrymandering in Illinois, Gus Savage will *not* be returning to Washington
 >>: next year.
 >
 >>: Every once in a great while, something nice actually happens. (You shoulda
 >>: heard that execrable bigot whine when he lost the primary--- hee hee!)
 >
 >>	I don't live anywhere near Illinois. What did he have to say?
 >
 >He blamed everything on 'the Jews' and 'White Racists' and that 'real
 >blacks' voted for him, but 'Uncle Tom' blacks voted for his opponant, etc,
 >etc.
 >
 >He called people who voted against him Nazi's.  He blamed Israel. etc.  I
 >haven't heard such crap since I heard David Duke.  The two are
 >interchangeable, if you disregard skin color...
 >
 > -Steve

But there is one slight difference, in my opinion.  Ever since Duke
started running as a Republican, the Republican Party has opposed
him, even supporting Democrats Johnston and Edwards over Duke.

The Democratic Party, to the best of my knowledge, as NEVER opposed
Savage, even in the Primary.  Even when his opponent was Mel Reynolds,
who is very liberal and a Rhodes Scholar.

The Democrats and the media liked to imply that not forcefully opposing
Duke meant that you supported him.  Does the same reasoning not apply
to Savage also?



-- 
Jason Woodward | EE Graduate Student | Georgia Tech | Go Braves

Reason #461 to not vote for Bill Clinton: Justice Mario Cuomo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: GOP's are big govt too
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:31:07 GMT

I'll make this short and sweet (or bitter).

GOP's accuse Dems of being "big govt liberals". Well, in an economic
sense they are. But what about the conservatives stand on censorship,
homosexuality, abortion (although I agree with it, it's big govt) and
many other social issues that they want govt to stick its nose into.
The GOP's are saying: "We don't trust the individual to make the 'right'
decision so govt must do it for them." This is no less "big govt" than
the Dems economic proposals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	is a PC-hating, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU
CLARKSON '95	     			
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

When two people CHOOSE to have sex, they CHOOSE to accept the consequences
of their actions. (yes, there is such a thing as a pro-life liberal. Please 
send flames to the above address)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rhorlick@mtholyoke.edu (Rick Horlick)
Subject: Bill Clinton on the Highway
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:38:27 GMT
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The buck stops where?
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:21:23 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <3442@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, 
mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) said:

> By bashing congress so hard, how does he [Bush] expect any
> cooperation from them if he is reelected? Would this guy be a lame
> duck from the beginning?

A more relevant set of questions might be whether Bush *cares* whether
he gets any cooperation from Congress, is able to accomplish anything
during his second term, etc.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:53:26 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 


>You make a good argument for reducing the size of government. I agree.
>However, when you tax capital gains, you are taxing the engine
>of growth.

how is that?  

> Furthermore, capital is already taxed.... if you
>invest in a company, that company pays taxes on its income, which
>reduce your capital gains. You could reduce the capital gains tax to zero
>and these people (who you seem to be afraid might get a free ride)
>would still be paying more tax than you and me through their investments.

huh?  investments into a company reduce profit and income.  what are you trying to 
say?  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:16:01 GMT

In article <BtJuFo.9Dq@world.std.com> pjs@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt) writes:
>...I have found good and bad teachers in
>our schools.  But unfortunately the government monopoly makes it almost
>impossible for me to take my child elsewhere....
>-- 
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President

Of course, if you can pay, you can always send your child to a private school.

BUT: this whole discussion about school choice to me misses the point. Everyone
acts as if introducing choice into the public schools will improve their
quality, and, up to a point, it probably will. There aren't actually that many
who *oppose* choice these days. Both major-party candidates support it; they
differ only in the extent to which they want to introduce choice.

The problem I see is this: the schools are no longer merely educational
institutions. They are now required to perform any number of other socialization
functions, many of which aren't inherently difficult, but which become nearly
impossible in the context of a diverse, multi-cultural population.

And even the basic education function has become problematic. Here in NY State,
the Board of Regents is mandating multi-cultural history classes. Thomas
Jefferson and friends are no longer to be portrayed as the 'Founding Fathers',
but rather as slaveholders. The American Revolution itself is to be shown as
a highly ambiguous event.

The idea of a uniform education for all is disappearing as it becomes
politically impossible to implement. The future seems to be one of increasing
fragmentation, where parents use their vouchers to send their kids to the
school which offers the preferred propaganda. The idea of 'well-educated'
in some general sense is becoming obsolete.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What if America were a direct democracy?
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:15:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep4.031646.26313@hubcap.clemson.edu> trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight) writes:
>farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>
>>Well, I guess the subject is pretty self-explainitory (sic?). 
>
>Sic.  :-)
>
>>prof seemed to think it was a good idea. The idea was to have both sides
>>of an issue presented on the 6:30 news. The news would bring in two debaters
>
>A good idea if it were feasible...but your class has already eliminated
>the representation of those too poor to afford a television set.

  Or those of us who don't watch/have TV's because they are a stupid
  time/brain sink.

  Also this:  "the idea was to have both sides of an issue presented
  on the 6:30 news" is as moronic as can be!   First of all, "both
  sides" implies two sides.  Anyone with half a brain can find more
  than two sides to most issues.  And we already have big problem with
  trying to condense complex issues into something small enough to
  present on the "6:30 news".  This is one of the major things wrong
  with the curent system.
                         

---peter
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mr. Kaldis's "misogyny"
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:28:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <Aug.30.22.57.09.1992.22622@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>Every so often, the charge is put forth that I am, somehow, a
>"misogynist".  

I've never heard this.  Most often, I've heard the charge put forth that
you are a complete asshole. In all your postings that I have ever
read, I never found a counterexample.
-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:58:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.204551.24642@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.205750.8790@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
> 
> >his granddaughter if she were to have an abortion?  Wouldn't you want him to
> >be ragging on her parents to throw her out of the house?
> >
> >Actually, I think it's neat that Bush and Quayle would be supportive of their
> >female offspring (or offoffspring in GHWB's case).  I wish that they would
> >remember that _every_ woman is _someone's_ daughter or granddaughter; all 
> >equally deserving of their parents' and grandparents' support of their right
> >to choose.
> >
> 
> I  believe there is a slight confusion.  I took Bush's statement on
> Dateline to be support AFTER THE FACT.  The media and others twist it 
> around and use the logic to something BEFORE THE FACT.  There is a BIG
> difference, and I hope people see the difference.

I think you're wrong.  The reporter specifically asked George Bush
whether he thought that ultimately the decision was her (Bush's
grandaughter's) own, and Bush answered "Yes, of course."  This
is before the fact, since after the fact there is no more
decision to be made.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: TRADE NEWS 8/24 -- Canadian Agricultural Marketing Boards
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:21:44 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <1992Aug28.013306.4609@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>>
>>Under NAFTA, Canadian marketing boards for eggs, dairy and  
>>poultry products are exempt from tariff reductions. 
>>
>>Source:  "FUMMC Demands Full Dairy Details of NAFTA," MILK  
>>MATTERS, August 17, 1992, p. 1. 
>
>Canada has put its marketing board system on the table for GATT.  
>It is a card needed by North America in the agricultural dispute
>currently holding up the bogged down Uruguay Round of talks.  The
>Canadian consumer can't wait for them to go; while our domestic
>product is better due to fewer additives -- and I vouch for that 
>from personal taste tests between here and home up north -- it is
>discouraging to see Canadians buying chemical-heavy American eggs
>and milk during the cross-border shopping rebellion due to price.
>Western Canadian farmers' co-ops are already streamlining their
>operations for the day that the provincial marketin boards go.
>

The marketing boards are a politically sensitive Canadian issue
in central Canada and particularly in Quebec...burdening NAFTA
with getting rid of them will make it essentially impossible
to get political support for NAFTA in Canada...but since the
US knows that the Canadian marketing boards are going to be
doomed in this GATT round, there is no need to insist on
their elimination in NAFTA.  For the government, it is better
politically for Quebec dairy and poultry farmers to blame the
GATT, than to blame NAFTA.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:32:35 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Jeff Davis says:
>
>>1) I agree that the supply of alternate providers has not stemmed the
>>   rise in cost, but (I believe) that is in large measure due to the
>>   fact that most of these have to operate as an adjunct to a physicians
>>   office. Not much of a monopoly busting maneuver.
>
>Explain to me why you think monopoly busting will make any contribution
>to reducing cost pressures.  Most economic research describes the market
>for physician care not as a monopoly, but one which is monopolistic
>competitive.  Price competition can occur between physicians.  The problem
>is that in these types of markets increases in competition do not necessarily
>reduce prices, because the demand curve may become more inelastic as it shifts
>inward.  The net effect of increased competition may be to increase prices.
>Some empirical research suggests that this has taken place in some markets.
>
>You also seem to assume that the primary source of cost pressures is in
>primary care.  In fact, cost increases in primary care are far below those
>of specialist care.  While increased powers of physician extenders may
>reduce cost increases in primary care, they may have little effect on overall
>costs.
>

  One of the big cost to the health system comes from taking care of
people in extremis: I've seen statistics which suggest that 2/3 of all
health care goes to people in the last 6 months of life. Now, most of 
this is for older people, but among people who can't afford care the
impetus is to wait until the condition can't be ignored. These costs
are higher than they need to be. Given an inexpensive primary care
provider, these costs should come down. My last visit to my internist
came to just over $100. It was a stretch and the visit had been delayed
several times: I know that at $50 dollars for a visit, I would have
been more likely to go. I can only suspect that for people whose incomes
are 1/2 to 1/4 of mine that their patterns of cost and care are similar.
A ounce of prevention, yes?

One of the studies about inflexibility in cost among doctors when the
numbers of physicians in an area increase comes from the ability of
doctors to peg their rates to the income they want to make, a not 
unreasonable choice. But this ability is not infinite: think of it
as a medicinal Laffer curve. Eventually increasing the number of
primary care givers will have produce a downward pressure on costs. See 
1 patient at $175,000 per year? Probably not. Does this run the risk of 
eventually driving out the Best and the Brightest? Sure. But the recent 
study which shows the US having a lower life expectancy than Costa Rica 
suggests that the lure of flat bed press salaries is _not_ providing 
decent care for society.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
In-reply-to: jswitzer@afit.af.mil's message of Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:31:57 GMT
Organization: pubs
Distribution: talk
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:51:55 CDT

Chip Switzer writes:

   I saw an interview with Marylin Quayle tonite on CNN.  She
   has been in Florida since Sunday and apparently nobody in the
   media knew she was there. ...

Something I've barely heard mentioned since Andrew is that Marilyn heads
some kind of Federal disaster agency, but not FEMA.  Does anyone know
what this group is, why it exists, how it relates to FEMA, etc?

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:53:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.162438.3095@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>
>The Laffer curve can be clearly shown to be correct by looking at
>the extremes:
>  100% taxation yields 0 revenue because it stifles ALL legal economic activity
>    0% taxation yeidls 0 revenue for obvious reasons
>    x% taxation (somewhere in between) yields the most revenue. Above x%,
>       the slope is negative.
>
>One can argue all day about what the value of x is, but it is transparently
>obvious that there exists a value of x greater than 0 and less than 100%.

Not quite.  The curve could have multiple extrema.  Laffer's little
back of the napkin chart had one maximum point.  And, as someone
pointed out, taxation could be somewhat more complex than a simple
percentage of revenue.


--
But this is.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: "Thank You Lord -- For Ending the Cold War"
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 12:54:26 GMT
Organization: The Fighting Thundercats

Don Pajerek writes:
>
>I also see that Perot has weighed in with some comments about the GOP's
>relentless bashing of Hillary Clinton, something like, "What's next? Are
>they going to attack Clinton's pets, too?" I wish I had the exact quote,
>it was pretty good sarcasm on Perot's part.
>

A little history lesson. Perot was obliquely referring to attacks on
FDR in which THEY attacked his little dog Falla [sic?].

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.peeves
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: _liz_ Gets Close to the Truth
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:06:34 GMT

hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
] drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
] >] The Y chromosome clearly confers unsurpassed wisdom and knowledge.
] 
] nope... her name is _liz_.  it's more polite if you use the name that
] _she_ prefers (i.e. elizabeth).

Why? She has No Enhanced Elegance of Enlongation....

] >Just to clear up the ambiguity here, it is NOT the Y chrome
] >that Give Manly Men their Masculine Malenesss.
] 
] you mean that years of biology classes are wrong?
] 
] >It is the Throbbing Wand of Wonderment, that Tumultuous
] >Totem of Truth, The Divine Discriminator of Domination,
] >The Most Heavenly Extension, The Pulsating Piston Of Piety,
] >The Enhanced Enlongation of Excellence, etc, etc, etc,
] >Which Affords unto those Endowed by Our Creator the 
] >Capability to Correctly Perceive and Understand all things.
] 
] ummm, maybe i missed something, but isn't one the direct result of the
] other?

Not That I would Wish to battle an UnArmed man,
but Your Enhanced Elegance of Enlongation appears Elastic
in the Face of the Hideous Threat of the RadFems.....


ciao
drieux


-- 
If I have Told You Once, I've Told You a Thousand Times:
To Keep Good Girls From Going Badm
Put them back in the Refrigerator.
This Also Works for Stale NFS Handles.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43443 alt.activism:15871
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:28:50 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <BtCL0L.LG9.2@cs.cmu.edu> dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish) writes:
>
>For example what are the new taxes spent on?  Throwing money into the
>ocean?  Building monuments?  Building mass transit?  (note these
>are examples off the top of my head, no flames on specific choices please)

I can't help it. Your three choices sound interchangeable to me.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck)
Subject: Re: Newest Quayle Quote!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:45:41 GMT

nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:

>>>
>>>NYT today:
>>>
>>>_AIDS Speech Brings Hush to Crowd_, p. A21
>>>
>>>"Many of the delegates at the first seemd not to be listening.  They
>>>could be seen chatting and wandering about the floor.  But as she went
>>>on, the room gradually feel to attention.  By the middle of her speech
>>>almost everyone was staring up at the podium, quiet and with grave
>>>expressions.
>>>
>>>"There were exceptions.  A television camera caught Vice President Dan
>>>Quayle, standing in his box in the rear of the hall, glad-handing a
>>>beaming Arnold Schwarzenegger."
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>But this is.
>>>
>>Once again a sound bite taken out of context.  "The room" NEVER fell to
>>attention until the Quayle and Bush speeches on Thursday night.  I was
>>about 6 feet from Quayle during the speech and a very large number were
>>visiting and "glad-handing" during the speech.  The liberal media continue
>>to skew the facts of the convention to meet thier own agenda.
>>
>>
>>These opinions are my own.
I was there too and I agree that there was a lot of side conversations taking
place during all of the speeches.>>
>>-- 
>>=============== I speak for myself only, not for my employer ================
>>      James Meredith  (jmeredit@cray.com)     
>>      Cray Research, Inc.                     

>Oh, shucks, I was beginning to believe that some Republicans have
>hearts.  Wrong again.
--
/     I am the terror that flaps in the night ... I am Darkwing Duck       /
/     galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu  aka Darkwing Duck                  /
/                                                                          /
/     Let's get DANGEROUS !!!                                              /
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42684 ca.politics:7203 ba.politics:4867
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:54:23 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <5092@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
> Marked a liberal, the message I got from Houston was that if I don't conform
> to their view of the world, there is no place for me in my own country. How
> does that make me feel? Well, I'll tell you:
> 
> This is my country too. I'm not telling you how to behave or what to think.

What an utter lie.  You are a liberal.  You support laws to tell me how
to behave (antidiscrimination laws to protect homosexuals from the
consequences of their parades), that tell me that I may not defend
myself from criminal attack, that tell me that I MUST fund your
pet art projects.

> Please don't tell me how to behave or what to think. If you continue I will
> have to deprive you of your freedoms before you deprive me of mine. Is that
> clear?
> 		
> Are you people trying to start a civil war?
> 
> 								MPA

Who is starting the civil war?  It's liberals, with their constant
need to run my life, tell me who to associate with, what charities
to fund, and what ideas I am allowed to express.

It's clear why liberals support laws to disarm the population --
they know that when push comes to shove, the only way to get the
population lined up for death camps is if they are disarmed.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc