HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Colin Powell's Record (was Bush giving up? (Colin Powell))
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:18:33 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

More to the point, there was never any serious possibility of
continuing Desert Storm for much longer. The entire alliance
was built around the sole function of removing the Iraqis from
Kuwait. Once that was acheived, it was over. Sure, we could have
destroyed a couple more divisions of Guards, but the effect
would have been nil. Only a complete conquest of Iraq would
have made any difference.

And we would have had zero support, and perhaps active opposition
from our allies in continuing the offensive. We would have had to
do without any Arab support, probably being thrown out of 
our Saudi bases. British and French troops would not have parti-
cipated. We'd have had to quickly secure Basra as a port, and then
hope we could open it up before our troops ran completely out of 
supplies. All the while, Iran would hold the cards. A small effort
on their part could completely cut off our troops, forcing us
either to surrender half the US Army, or else nuke everybody in
sight.

No, I'm not exaggerating. Shortly after the war, I heard a presentation
given by a Navy Captain who was called up to serve at CINCUSNAVEUR, the
European headquarters of the US Navy (and NATO, under a different hat).
When asked why we didn't continue, he explained much of the above, 
summarizing that the thought never received any serious consideration,
because it was impracticable.

No doubt Starfleet would have done better. But in our real world, with
the alliance we had, there was no alternative to continue.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: buckmr@aix.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Bush loses post-convention bounce
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:04:51 GMT

daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:

>Ah, but the polls can change quickly. Look what happened to a "reformed"
>Labour Party in the United Kingdom.  John Major STILL won, despite the
>worst recession since the 1930's.  AND all the polls said he would lose,
>right up to election day.
Yes, but even in Britain the polls showed a trend towards the Tories at the
end and the results were with in the margin of error. PLUS, people admitted
afterwards that they had been LYING to pollsters. It's not clear whether 
people have gotten around to lying  to pollsters in the USA on a massive 
scale as reported in the UK.
-- 
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority 
receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42618 alt.rush-limbaugh:4065
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Are Tax and Spenders in second place
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:13:37 GMT

In article <lacb8jINNdab@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>During an interview on PBS yesterday, the statement was made that if you
>added up all federal welfare programs since the 1930's (the onset of 
>federal welfare), the total is a small percentage of the S&L bail-out
>cost.  Does anyone have access to data to support or refute this?

Sounds utterly bogus to me.(*)

Using ballpark numbers: We spend $200-$300 billion a year on
"welfare" programs - Food Stamps, housing, AFDC, and the like.
Add in SS and medicare and you've got about three S&Ls worth of
spending per year.

Or ... HUD alone is $25 billion (just checked the 1992 budget)
and food stamps is in the same ballpark (I think it's about $30 billion).

So you might say that the S&L bailout, at about $200 billion,
is equivalent to the Food Stamp bill for almost 7 years, or HUD
for 8 years.

The comment has been made that we have spent $3 trillion
since the 1960's on welfare. Well, our multi-trillion investment in
military may have helped win the cold war.
What has our welfare spending wrought in the "War on Poverty"?

---
Pat

(*) Could it be a HarelStatistic?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42041 alt.politics.elections:11609 alt.politics.clinton:3065 alt.politics.bush:2984
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:22:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>The international and domestic business community voted on Bush's
>economic plan this week...taxs cut and vague spending cuts...the
>bottom has fallen out of the US dollar in international markets...
>a freefall which may yet force the Fed to begin raising interest 
>rates.

The reason for the fall in the dollar is that international
financial investors feel that Bush's call for lower taxes
and lower spending means only one thing - a bigger deficit.
No one believes that congress will limit spending. One report
I read quoted an investor from Britain saying that Bush's
econimic package would not persuade enough voters to win
him the election. He fears runnaway deficits with Clinton and
a Democratic congress. As do I. 

Prediction - If slick willy wins, runaway deficit spending will
crush growth, unemployment will skyrocket, and inflation will
rise to double digits. The reasons: the deficit will push up
interest rates, eliminating funds needed for REAL (not pork
barrel) investment in industry. His health care policy will
require employers to cut back on workers in order to pay the
increased per employee costs. Expensive (and according to
some reputable scientists, but not Al Gore, unnecessary) 
limitations on CO2 emmisions will cripple industry's ability
to expand. If willy caves into the Gephart protectionist
wing (he will owe the unions), NAFTA will become meaningless,
further eroding our industrial base, and missing a great
opportunity for all three countries.

>Gerald
				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush's acceptance speech -- @Clinton's taxes
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:12:59 GMT

In article <farenebt.714924805@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
} In his acceptance speech Bush said that Clinton would raise taxes on the
} rich with the rich being defined (by Clinton) as anyone who has a job.
} 
} Besides the fact that Clinton wants only to raise taxes on people making
} over $200,000:

People think of a small business as one that has less than 25 employees.

If a typical one has 15 employees that it pays, say, $15,000/year each,
that means a $225,000 payroll. 

By the time you add in payment for things like utilities, loans, insurance,
rent, supplies, etc., that figure has risen considerably over $225,000.

Since small businesses are also allowed to pay its tax the same as an
*individual*income*tax*, and as most people, who are employed, are in small
business, it will be far more people than just those earning an income of
$200,000 individually who will feel the tax.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Summary: Run, Creamer!  Run away and don't come back.
Organization: The Pipe Wrench Clench
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:50:35 GMT

In article <11991@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>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.

You damned idiot.  If homosexuals hold a parade, how are they forcing
themselves on you?  Are they kidnapping you and dragging you down to make
you participate?  It's funny that you have no qualms about supporting laws
that tell *them* how to behave -- but God forbid YOU should have to be
subject to the same rules...

>> 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.

Name me a law that tells you who to associate with, what charities to fund,
or what ideas you can express.  For some reason, I don't seem to be able to
find any in Texas...

>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.

What a maroon -- in other words, Mike is liberal solely because he thinks
homosexuals are people too, and you don't.  Guess what -- I'm in agreement
with him on that much, and I'm straight...and a Libertarian.  Now let's see
you tell ME I'm for gun control...


-- 
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. 

                  All wiyht, rho sritched mg keg tops awound?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Rooster causes Sunrise:
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:12:47 CDT


The theory goes like this:

 hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

|Regan and Bush changed this one. They took the worlds most powerful ecconomy and
|destroyed it.

Clearly the world's most powerful economy influences the world economy.  
The recession here caused a recession in the Eastern Block.  This
caused the Eastern Block to crumble.

Horray for George Bush!		;^)  ;^) ;^)  

Or was it just that the world economy influenced the US economy?

Which is it?  Is it Bush's fault or not?


The "Peace Dividend" has closed many military bases and caused a dramatic
increase in our unemployment.

So if the high unemployment rates are Bush's fault, then so too must
the closing of the military bases, since that is what caused it in a
very large part.  If this is George's fault then maybe we should blame 
him for the end of the cold war and the end of the need for those bases.  

So which way will it be?  Do we blame George or not?


Re-elect George "Inspector Cluso" Bush.		;^)  ;^)   ;^)


---
--David C. Adams   dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.


IMHO, "Destroyed the economy" is a bit strong.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:42:19 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <81741@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
]    Bill Clinton sought to avoid the draft and stay in school through 
]perfectly legal means.  He did nothing worse than what Quayle did with
]his "quickstep" into the National Guard, except that the legality of 
]the influence peddling which went on in Quayle's behalf is not at all
]clear.  A bigger difference was that Clinton never hid his opposition
]to the war, and he is honest about it now.  Quayle, who thought the war

Hah hah hah! First of all, Quayle served in the military. Have you ever
done so? If so, you would realize it is a far cry from being in
ROTC, and when you serve, you really do surrender all control over
your future. Don't forget that some National Guard units did go
to Vietnam, and so did some reservists (including myself).

What Clinton did was participate in an activity where he was draft
exempt because that program required him to enter the armed services
later. I guarantee you that he had to keep his anti-war sentiments
quiet during that program. What he then did was renege on that
duty and slip out entirely.

Yes, there were legal methods for dodging the draft, but channeling
was not meant to send people into programs that trained them to
be soldiers (at government expense), only to have them slip out.
-- 
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
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43119 alt.activism:15773 misc.headlines:6123 sci.econ:7284
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:04:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer

In article <1992Aug31.180037.28472@clpd.kodak.com> fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613)) writes:
>>>Sum .687/1.075= 64% (to normalize for FICA you never see, paid directly)
>
>Nothing needs normalizing.  If the govt. did not take 7.65% from my
>employer, I could be getting that money.  It is a stealth pay cut.

The other tax rates need normalizing, since you do not pay income tax
on the portion of FICA that your employer pays.  

-- 
Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
But I make a profit of 3 1/4 cents an egg by selling them for 4 1/4
cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy them from for 7 cents an egg.
Of course, *I* don't make the profit.          Joseph Heller, Catcha 22
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
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 18:03:22 GMT

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:

>In article <1684ED566.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org>
>M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>      [...]
>>>You imply that those who make their living by investing (speculating is
>>>too strong a word) in stocks are not working. Do you know any of these
>>>people? I know several, and they are the hardest working people I know.
>>>They are working in the information industry: they are allocating capital
>>>in our economy based on profit potential. I see nothing wrong with
>>>rewarding these people for their labors, because the work they do is
>>>as important as the work that you or I do.>
>>*************
>>Excuse me, but what does their activity add to the gross domestic product? It
> 
>Obviously. Not only are they productive, but they're *more* productive than
>are laborers. Investors in high-risk bonds created CNN, Sprint and other
>new employers in the 80s that employ thousands.
that is real goofy.  those number are insignificant to the employment picture
and by are by no means dependeded on CG sources.  

> 
>>seems to me that the main motivation that drives these people to *work* so
>>hard is a mixture of greed and fear--hardly a cause for a pat on the back for
>>a great contribution to American life or a commitment to a strong work ethic.
>>They may provide working capital which lubricates the economic engine, but it
>>is *not* done as a public service, so why do they deserve a *reward* in excess
>>of that offered to the poor laborer for his sweat?
> 
>They provide the working capital that employs you and everyone else, and they
>take a risk in doing it. Why should they be taxed *more* than other workers-
>which, given the non-indexing of capital gains tax, they are?

capital comes from lots of places no just from IPOs and NPOs and venture.  those
are the last sources.
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: [X] -- Put 10% of my Taxes to Paying on the National Debt.
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:14:16 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Aug26.134734.8107@dg-rtp.dg.com>, gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gr writes...
>In article <01GNTTBS9IC0002O0Q@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>`10%' ???  What the Heck?
>>
>>We already paid = 14% = of each '91 tax-dollar for National Debt.
>>
>>And as best I recall, that's also been bumped up higher for 
>>'92 tax-dollars as well. 
> 
>I hate to tell you this, but Congress has not spent one red penny on
>reducing the actual debt.  They have only paid the interest on the debt.

[Delete lots of very scary stuff]

>America is about to get what it deserves.  And our children, their
>children, and their children, will probably curse us every day of their
>lives as they struggle under a burden we can't even begin to imagine.
> 
>Gene

You've explained the debt problem very well (almost too well), but I'm
left with the question, "What do you think of Bush's proposal?"
	Is it anything substantial? Is it the same old BS in a new
package? And most importantly, what can be done to avoid this before it
hits?
	You seem to know what you're talking about, so can you e-mail
as well as post it? Thanks.

Garrett@Ingres.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Help Needed in South Florida and Louisiana 
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 13:48:30 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.


The results of Andrew have been very devastating to those in its path.
Homestead is no more.  The people there haven't just lost their homes,
they have lost their jobs and worldly possessions.

The same is true for those folks in Louisiana hit by Andrew.

Relief organizations, such as the Red Cross, are asking for donations of
the following items:

-- canned food
-- baby food and formula
-- baby diapers
-- clothing for men, women, and children

If you have anything to give, please take it to your local Red Cross.  I
also understand that there are a number of radio stations holding
special events to collect the above items for the relief effort.

Regardless of your political views, or your views concerning my own
postings, I urge you to give and give generously.

Thanks, and now back to the regularly scheduled programming. ;-)

Regards,

Gene Gross


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: A Fallacy Peculiar to Liberals?
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:55:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.082933.42507@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

   Come on, guys, you can't have it both ways.  Anybody as dumb as
   Quayle is supposed to be couldn't possibly be a threat to anyone.

You're right, unless that person happened to be the vice president of
the most violent country on earth.

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war.  Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary.  War never creates peace.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: BCCI and Jimmy Carter (again)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:21:26 GMT

	Don Palmrose reminded me recently that he had once claimed that
Jimmy Carter was going to be indicted along with Clark Clifford in the BCCI
scandle. Obviously, since Clifford's is accused of something that happened
two years after Carter left office, Don was mistaken, but I happened to
read in the paper today that Orrin Hatch (R. senator from utah) has now
been dragged into the scandle (something about misrepresenting a $10M loan),
I was wondering if perhaps that is what was being refferred to?

	I only ask because, like many of the accusations about Carter, the
allegations that Carter would soon be indicted were offered without 
evidance. I can only guess that Rush said it and it was being parroted
here, because both Don and Mike Schwartz were very adiment about it. As
a hopeless news junkie, I've been scanning for BCCI and Carter ever since,
but the event has eluded me. Did I miss something?

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42644 alt.politics.elections:11887 alt.politics.bush:3370 alt.politics.clinton:3400
From: schubert@capri.berkeley.edu (John Schubert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 28 Aug 1992 21:47:04 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Reply-To: schubert@capri.berkeley.edu.UUCP (John Schubert)
NNTP-Posting-Host: capri.berkeley.edu

In article <py3e824@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:

>In article <1685080A8.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>> 
>> ... Do you have statistics that dispute the ones we've introduced?
>
>The United States Census of 1990.

Ok, this is a start, we have a source.  Could you please be a "little" bit
more specific on the ACTUAL statistics though!!

Thank you,

-John

John Schubert
schubert@united.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality