HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:46:05 GMT

In <lux+r*Bk1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.143927.22911@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>> In <qliVr*ge1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Oct26.190244.19210@novell.com>, Brendan B. Boerner writes:
>> 
>> >> In article <yHqTr*gb1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >Fred apparently doesn't know what "moderate" means.
>> >> >
>> >> >A "moderate" would NOT
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >  3.  Make radical Pro-Abortionism a litmus test for his appointments.
>> >> 
>> >> And Bush wouldn't make radical Anti-Choiceism a litmus test for his
>> >> appointments?  Yeah, right.
>> 
>> >He obviously hasn't yet.  Remember all the ridiculous "litmus test" accusations
>> >about Reagan/Bush Supreme Court appointees?  If those accusations were true,
>> >the Court would have already overturned Roe vs. Wade.  They had the opportunity
>> >recently, but they did NOT overturn Roe vs. Wade.  Therefore YOU are wrong.
>> 
>> Well, no, Jim.  What it demonstrates is that George Bush guessed wrong

>Fred still doesn't seem to understand plain English.  If it is a litmus test,
>then he doesn't have to GUESS how they will vote.  He would have already
>established that fact BEFORE appointing them.  Therefore he couldn't have
>"guessed wrong" as Fred said.

Once again, Jim demonstrates his inability to grasp reality.  You
cannot, in general, directly ask about anything they might have to
rule on.  Hence, a 'litmus test' generaly involves picking them based
on their past record and how you think they will vote, with those
whose 'expected' behaviour doesn't match the 'litmus test' being
dropped from the selection process.

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23970 alt.politics.marrou:2307
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:50:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov15.022850.13866@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>If Libertarians had won the 1932 presidential election, Europe would
>be under the Fourth Reich, and there would probably be some sort of
>dictatorship here as well under a Huey Long or Charles Coughlin type. 

	Really?  How can you be so certain?  Do you have a time machine?  :^)


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 17:00:19 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

David L. Cathey (davidc@montagar.com) wrote:
: 	Well, since John has already stated that he believes that people
: will only do what it takes to get by,

Really David, I would have thought you were above such intellectual dishonesty.
How long are you going to harp on this out of context?

: we can guess what kind of neighboor
: he would be.  John just does not want to share.

I like to share.  When you are required by law to "share" then it's not 
"sharing" anymore.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system
 of government"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:26:13 GMT

In article <g-w+r*xk1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> In article <1992Oct31.185649.28876@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:
> 
> > Saudi Arabia is more than capable of protecting themselves, especially if
> > the US allowed them to buy the weapons they wanted.  This whole argument
> > goes back to whether or not the US should be in the business of protecting
> > rich countries that could afford to protect themselves, if they were
> > so inclined (which they aren't since the US does it for them).
> 
> This is nonsense.  Regardless of the weapons that we let the Saudis buy, they
> don't have the population to use them!  Much of their current military is
> manned by foreign mercenaries (e.g. Pakistanis, etc.)  The Saudis cannot
> possibly defend themselves alone.
 
When I said alone I didn't mean literally "only by Saudi citizens".  I
meant with Saudi money alone.  I don't care if they stock their army with
mercenaries.  I just don't want the U.S. to continue in the business of
defending wealthy countries so that they can spend their money on other
things (like building infastructure to compete with us).
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Libertarians in WW2
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:32:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.212647.17847@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.180832.9937@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> And wouldn't have entered at all under Libertarians.
>
>  This is just nonsense, pure and simple. What part of 
>self-defense don't you understand? 

Wait, you just said that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because
they were afraid that the US would get involved in the fighting!

You can't have it both ways -- the Japanese would no more have attacked
a Libertarian States of America than the Nazis would have attacked
Switzerland.

>> Because the Libs would've counted on the free market to get the country
>> out of the depression, it wouldn't have, and there would've been a
>> revolution.
>
>  Has it occurred to you that the Great Depression wouldn't have
>happened under a Lib system? Everything about the Great Depression
>points to governmental meddling as the root cause. 

Smoot-Hawley.  Perhaps that.  But that didn't change what happened
in Europe.  It was a global depression and the LSA would have been
swept right along with it just as easily as the USA.  

>That being said, FDR's New Deal did little to help the ecomony.

It did much more than Hoover's laissez-faire.  Plus, it prevented
a revolution.

>  Besides, if a lib government had been effect at that time there
>would have had to been a substantial amount of support for their
>positions. Huey Long and his ilk are *so* far to the authoritarian/left
>side the country would have to be in two armed camps for such an
>event to take place. What you are conjecturing here is civil war.

Yes, we would have had either a civil war or a revolution under
a Libertarian government.  And ended up with a system far worse than
what we have now, while Nazi Germany reigned supreme.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Libertarians and 1930's
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:35:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.201336.3107@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley) writes:
>ted frank claims that free markets would never have gotten the U.S. out of the
>Great Depression.  

It's not a claim.  It's an empirical fact.  Hoover shrunk government
spending from 1929 to 1933.  Other than the tariffs (which really wouldn't
have made much difference unless Europe went Lib also), I don't see what
Hoover did that was different from what the Libertarians would have done.

>Of course, we'll never know how it would have done, but is 
>he trying to say that FDR's policies did any better?  

Yep.  He saved the country from revolution and demagoguery.  He stole
the thunder from people far more radical than he. 
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23969 alt.politics.marrou:2306
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov15.180832.9937@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
>Because the Libs would've counted on the free market to get the country
>out of the depression, it wouldn't have, and there would've been a
>revolution.

	Oh really?  :^)

	Libertarians have reason to believe that the New Deal actually
_prolonged_ the depression (and there wasn't any revolution during the
depression anyway, even given its length.)

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:05:00 GMT

In article <1egjriINNsna@armory.centerline.com>, 
>thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes...
>
>There is a simple reason for "liberal" media bias.  The mainstream
>national media lives in cities. Cities are almost never conservative.
>Tolerance is a necessity in the city - without it, the city falls
>apart.
> 
>In cities, you have millions of people of a wide variety of
>races, religions, sexual orientations, and political beliefs.
>Minority groups of any sort can band together to protect
>their rights when their rights are threatened, or when they
>realize that they have never been granted rights.
> 
>This is true, of course, only for the national media.  Local
>media tends to be far more conservative.

Bingo. 

Hence:

      megalopolii - city - urban - suburban - country - frontier

      liberal       conservative      libertarian       populist               


The glitch is that the inner city basically collapses again into a
frontier. 

This makes more sense as a circle, which is left as an exercise to
the reader. (Which is a cognitive map -- not geographic.)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:01:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.225058.28424@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> How much evidence would you like?  After that Convention, I decided
> that I would not only not vote for George Bush, but would vote against
> practically all Republicans.  That's a new trend for me.  I think the
> Republican Party has been captured by the Right Wing Whacko Squad,
> just like the Democratic Party was the property of the Left Wing
> Whacko Squad for a while.  Well, times change.  If people want a
> fascist country, let them move.  I don't want to vote one in.
> 
> Perhaps you should talk to more people who voted for Clinton?
 
John's already provided some written evidence that social issues weren't
a key issue.  Just about ever anchor I saw on TV said something along
the lines of "this is a classic pocketbook election".  Unless you can
come up with something better I'm sticking with that.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:52:10 GMT

In <1992Nov16.171418.46779@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>:                                                          hell, how
>: much have the French gotten back for their assistance in our
>: Revolution?

>I think saving their asses from Hitler was good enough.  And they still didn't
>let us fly over their country so that we could go kill Kaddafi's baby.  That's
>gratitute for ya.

You think we went after Hitler for the *FRENCH*?  Bwaahahahahaaahah!

-- 
"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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23896 alt.politics.libertarian:1897 alt.politics.reform:57 alt.politics.usa.misc:589
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:15:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.180832.9937@midway.uchicago.edu>, on 15 Nov 1992 18:08:32 GMT,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>
>In article <92320.112633U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>If Libertarians had won the election in 1932....
>>>
>>>Still be under a Third Reich in Europe.
>>
>>Last I checked, the US did not enter WWII until the 40's.
>
>And wouldn't have entered at all under Libertarians.
>
>>>And the US would have some dictatorial fool like Huey Long as pres..
>>>
>>And how would this come about?
>
>Because the Libs would've counted on the free market to get the country
>out of the depression, it wouldn't have, and there would've been a
>revolution.

You need a few clues as to what actually caused the Depression and how
and when the U.S. got out of it.

The two primary causes of the Depression were the Federal Reserve
Board's ill-advised contraction of the money supply and the passage of
the Hawley-Smoot tariff act.

The effect of the FRB's tightening of credit made it impossible for
many businesses to obtain the financing required to expand or to even
stay in business. As they began to go belly up one by one, the
unemployment roles began to mount. Thus, it was not the stock market
crash that triggered the Depression; it was the FRB's ill-advised
reaction to margin financing of stocks that started the damage.

The Hawley-Smoot tariff (and the various retaliations exacted by foreign
governments in reaction to it) absolutely ruined the U.S. export
markets. With no buyers of our goods overseas, more businesses for
forced into retraction and even bankruptcies. What should have been an
economic recession was turned into the worst depression in the history
of the world -- thanks to an over-active government.

As to recovery, all of the New Deal programs did very little to relieve
the impact (the psychological perception that the government cared about
people was the main effect) of the Depression. It was only in 1940 as
the buildup of the armaments industry took off that measurable economic
recovery occurred.

        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Blockades
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:38:40 GMT

  >  Surface blockades are less effective when you don't have a surface
  >blockade fleet.

  This gets right back to the point someone else already raised -- if a
nation chooses to rely on a certain military technology which is known to
be useful only when employed in a manner contrary to the accepted rules of
warfare, that nation is just as guilty when it does so as a nation that has
a wider range of military assets but -chooses- to use unacceptable ones.
The only difference is that the former type of nation makes a committment to
war crimes somewhat earlier than the latter.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:55:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.160121.21201@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>In article <BxMpqp.JB2@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.063952.24801@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>>The Republicans best chance for the future is probably someone like 
>>>William Weld or Pete Wilson.  But I don't think they can wise up in
>>>time for 1996.
>>
>>	The Republicans will be back in the White House in 4 years.
>
>Twelve years of facism on social issues are not easily forgotton.

	Unless you're talking about the American electorate. (-:
(Did I _say_ that? No.) BTW, where did this alleged fascism occur? (-:
Yeah, maybe some bounds were overstepped. And they shouldn't be, nor
is that a minor matter. Fascism it wasn't. "With fascist tendencies",
I'll accept. It's part of the moral continuum, if you will, to want
things to be the "right way" so badly that you begin to force the
issue, then enforce it. Look at the War on Drugs. We've all become
convinced that druggies are immoral. Meanwhile, that enforcement
creates terrifying situations, like Columbian banditos having any
sort of global impact, much less quite real impact on our inner
cities (and outer, for that matter). I think the Dem's can outdo 
12 years of barely-fascism with 4 of skyrocketing inflation and 
unemployment. I don't want nor necessarily expect it will be
quite that bad, but Clinton's gonna have to have a positive impact
on a sleepy economy fast, or else. History might still read that
the Dem's penetrated the presidency but twice in 40 years, having
too long endorsed overly liberal causes. It's back to the morality
continuum, IMHO. They mean to help. 
	I've clearly gotten into another topic, so I'll start a 
new paragraph (and waste one sentence announcing same). When we 
mess with someone's ability to fail, we mess with his/her ability
to succeed, since fear of each drives the other, they come as
a pair. You can't jack with one without jacking with the other.
We must be threatened by failure. We cannot afford to ease that
fear much longer.
 
>>The party's not in a shambles, they lost their 2nd presidential
>>election in 24 years. Wow. The Rep.s still have a dozen decent
>>candidates, the Dems still have none.
>
>One great thing to come out of the Reagan era is that the Democrats are 
>far better than they once were.  They are aware of how often they've lost
>in the past, and they're determined to do a good job.  The Republicans
>have at most 2 decent candidates, the Democrats have at least 2 excellent ones.

	I'll grant you Gore, Bentson, and Tsongas. I'll take Kemp, Gramm,
Bush, Dole, and Dole. Wanna bet on 96? (-:

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:19:08 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, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) says:

>
>Examine economic and social reforms demanded and followed through by the
>National SOCIALIST Party.  Education for all, total care for the aged, a
>welfare state, etc. all accomplished by heavy redistribution of income.  Sound
>familiar?  


       Actually, if I remember correctly, there was a plank about 
       " rebuilding the infrastructure " too
>

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24183 alt.politics.perot:5592 talk.politics.misc:61062
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:43:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com's message of 19 Nov 92 15:32:37 -0400

In article <1992Nov19.193237.29882@kadsma.kodak.com>
pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes (quoting me):
>>Formal editorial endorsement of a candidate doesn't invalidate a news
>>organization's objectivity (theoretically, anyway--it might cast
>>suspicion).  When TNR endorses Clinton and then goes on to report only
>>things favorable about Clinton/Perot and unfavorable about Bush,
>
>TNR did endorse Clinton. They also printed many articles, including a
>couple of cover stories, which were highly critical of Clinton.

You could say the same thing about the Washington "Post" (if you left
off the modifier "highly" in front of "critical").  They endorsed
Clinton.  They printed articles critical of Clinton.  They printed
Op-Ed pieces in support of Bush.  So why am I so outraged at them,
when I accept this behavior from TNR?  Don't worry, I won't go over
all that again.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is TNR's own
"Clinton Suck-Up Watch," which was a pretty biting feature.
Particularly odious examples of media gushing over the Boy Wonder and
his trusty sidekick were reprinted here, to the eternal shame (one
would hope) of the lampoon-ees.

>Editorially, they hammered Perot pretty hard (more so than Bush).

Well, be fair.  He's a pretty easy target.  And he was at least
perceived to be more of a threat to Clinton than to Bush (I'm not sure
I believe this myself, but that was the perception), so it was in
their interest to discredit him.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections