HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:09:52 GMT

In article <C16u87.MpI@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Issuing bonds and defecit spending are not the same thing.
>
>[then later]
>
>A balanced budget does not prevent the government from issuing bonds.

are you really sure about this? how do you think the government
raises the money it spends on misbalancing our budget now?

they may not be exactly the same thing, but the government uses
bonds almost exclusively to do the borrowing which causes the deficit.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: What to do?
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:04:20

Robert Edward Schmidling (am i the only suspicious one?) writes:
>I am new around here. I pose this question. "How do we the people
>get back our country?"  For so long now we have allowed the
>government to do what they want with no way of stopping them.

"Getting our country back" is a really nice phrase, isn't it?  It
resonates.  It makes an effective rallying cry.  But what does it
mean?

It reminds me of when i used to watch my parents' pet chihuahua (one
of those dogs that could be eaten by your average alley cat) chase the
school bus every day as it passed our house.  I could never figure out
what she planned to do with it if she ever caught it.  I have not
heard any concrete, unified plan from the people who cry "We have to
take our country back!"  Throwing the bums out and taking the bad laws
off the books is a good start.... but then, what?

A plan.  The first step is a plan.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69512 alt.politics.elections:25115 alt.politics.clinton:21089
From: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Homework assignment for the media
Date: 24 Jan 1993 06:10:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) says:

>NEWSWEEK poll conducted 1-14 & 15 Latest edition(1-25) 
>
>Reagan/Bush or Clinton admin. more likely to meet the needs of people like you.
>
>56%--Clinton
>36%--Reagan/Bush
>
>What's more important:
>50%--Stimulate economy even if deficit reductions delayed short term 
>40%--Reduce deficit even if economy recovery delayed short term
>
>Will economy improve after 4 years of Clinton:
>65%--Yes
>31%--No
>
>Is Clinton somewhat to very likely to:
>26%--Cut deficit in half within 4 years
>29%--Cut taxes soon for middle class
>
>Are Cabinet Apointees too tied to special interest.
>43%--No
>35%--Yes
>
>Do you approve of the way Clinton has handled the transition?
>68%--Yes
>18%--No
>
>Is Clinton likely to:
>62%---Send troops to Bosnia
>88%---Renew military action with Iraq.

Where did they take this poll - Hope, Arkansas?   {:^)

-- 
Richard Mulac                                       ck347@cleveland.freenet.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       1996 election countdown - 1381 more days         | These pontifications 
 until the Democrats are thrown out of the White House  |      are my own!
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Priviization
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:09:43 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07445; Sun, 24 Jan 93 16:14:46 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA22064; Sun, 24 Jan 93 16:14:43 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 2471; Sun, 24 Jan 93 17:16:31 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 6981; Sun, 24 Jan 93 17:16:30 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 24 Jan 93 01:19:16 GMT
>No one says the deficit doesn't matter.  What we've been arguing is
>for attacking the problems that are causing this particular deficit,
>rather than just have people recite the catchphrase "The deficit is
>bad" without any understanding what *makes* a deficit bad.  And not
>all deficits are bad.

          CHRIST!  You've shown me the light here, Ted.  Blame it
    on my upbringing.  I agree wholeheartedly.  We should concentrate
    on boosting the economy and worry about the deficit after every-
    thing's running right.

          In fact, I'm sending a letter to Clinton's e-mail address
     and his snail address, urging him to concentrate on his economic
     plan.  I'll forward a copy to this newsgroup.

          Here's a joke which changed my life.  Maybe you'll appreciate
     it...


      Poor man -  " Preacher, preacher, I got really big problems! "

      Preacher - " What kind of problems? "

      Poor man - " I owe the bank $10,000 dollars! "

      Preacher - " Well, I don't see the problem here "

      Poor man - " But it's DUE TOMORROW! "

      Preacher - " Son, son.  Don't worry.  It's not YOU that has
                   the problem.  It's the bank! "


      I need to keep the gravy train going for another 3 or 4 years.

      I can't believe I'm worried about convincing anyone to fix
      it!  It's not *me* that's got the problem.  I don't have any
      children!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: The White House:  Under Siege!
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 5:09:52 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA17086; Thu, 28 Jan 93 06:21:00 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA16657; Thu, 28 Jan 93 06:20:54 -0800
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
	(16.6/16.2) id AA04477; Thu, 28 Jan 93 05:09:53 -0700
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]


     
	  The White House received over 400,000 phone calls yesterday,
	  mostly in relation to the lifting of the gay ban.


	  <click>  " Houston, this is Welfare State.  We're breaking up! "

	  <click>  " Welfare State, this is Houston.  Damn, it really 
		     *did* have a flaw.  Eject! "

	  <click>  " WHAT!???  A flaw?  Ahh, ahh, what about the 
		     passengers??? "

          <click>

          <click>  " Hello!  Houston!  What about the passengers??! " 


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70431 alt.peeves:19777
From: potler@umbc.edu (Laura Potler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 28 Jan 1993 08:53:41 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc4.umbc.edu

In article <1k8ln4INNid2@titan.ucs.umass.edu> jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only) writes:
>Well, the drug user thang makes a certain amount of sense, since a heavy
>day or night of drug usage might affect a person's ability to properly 
>blow away the enemy.  Now while a seven-hour session of making
>wicky-wicky may also impair ability, I don't see how doing it with

"making wicky-wicky"??

peeve: that i'm not up on all the "in" terms. 

-l "oy" p
-- 
-lp  *********************************************************************
*     "How did Elvis' handwriting appear on his own death certificate?"  *
*		--from "The Elvis Files:  Was His Death Faked?"          *
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Still Blasting Bush (Was: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan15.140221.2582@athena.mit.edu>
	<1j6s40INN6bv@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu>
	<1j6sb7INN6d8@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu>
	<15JAN199319482790@vxcrna.cern.ch> <randall.727665720@seashore>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:26:14 GMT

In article <randall.727665720@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:

	[a long tirade about how naughty Georgie Bush was].


	Earth to Rhea: Bush ain't President anymore. You wanted
	"change", you got it. 

	Of course, the kind of "change" we (and the Haitians) have
	seen so far may not be what SOME folks had in mind....

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Privatization
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:02:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.023654.15601@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1jnh0mINNls0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>Britain is privatising its electric industry.  We can't -- it's already
>private.
>
>Phone system?  We're private, everyone else is government owned.
>
>Health care?  We're private, everyone else is public.
>
>Air travel?  We're private, almost everyone else is public.

Electric:  where I live, at least, the city runs the power plant.

Phone:  Although not officially part of the government, each privately
owned regional telephone company is granted prtected monopoly status
by the government (i.e., it is illegal to try to provide competing
service).

Health care:  I don't see how you can make the blanket statement that
medical care is private.  Medicare is nationalized health care for the
poor.  Extensive regulations and licensing laws have made the
government an intimate part of every physician's practice, even if not
every doctor is actually an employee of the government.  Remains to be
seen how President Clinton will change this.

Air travel:  the only one you've mentioned that I would call private.

Remember that the Nazis scheme was private ownership of property put
to uses directed (or dictated, take your pick) by the government.
When the government controls what you do with your property, it
doesn't make much difference in whose name the title is.

-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69302 alt.politics.clinton:21011 alt.president.clinton:1728
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:30:56 CST
From: <U60829@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: "It's the economy, stupid!"
Distribution: usa
 <1993Jan20.133520.2550@linus.mitre.org> <C16q75.JpI@newsserver.technet.sg>
 <1993Jan21.144844.18829@linus.mitre.org>
 <ATAYLOR.93Jan21140236@gauss.nmsu.edu>
 <15597.2b5f3fb5@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>

I don't recall that guy saying anything in support of Bush.  What you show
is how arrogant you are and how you, most open-minded one, stereotype other
people.

Jim Pacella
University of Illinois at Chicago - I speak for everyone
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: libercommunism the new quick fix
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:04:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.191543.28998@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:

|>}I have several internal documents from the Monday Club including a list of
|>}candidates for election, this list contains several members who are members
|>of
|>}the Libertarian faction.
|>}
|>
|>Perhaps I'm misreading you, Phill, but based on the above you seem to be
|>equating Libertarians with Conservatives and racists, yet in another post,
|>to which I just replied, you correctly define a Libertarian as one who is
|>active in the defense of liberty.  Which is it?  If you assert the former,
|>we disagree.  If you assert the latter, we are in agreement.

I am asserting that many of those representing themselves as Libertarians are
humbugs and frauds.

This is especialy true of the British Tory party, an organisation that could
supply a large confectioners with a millenial supply of humbugs.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Seem to have missed...
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:31:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1993Jan21.132030.16214@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>Could someone please let me know when Hillary Clinton won an elected position,
>or was appointed and went through a confirmation hearing? 

Contrary to what many people on this newsgroup seem to believe, the
president has the right to appoint anyone he wants to numerous advisory
positions without confirmation by the senate.  All presidents have done
so.  Confirmation is required only when specified by law, as in the 
case of cabinet secretaries.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69810 ca.politics:10662 misc.legal:23307
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Failure of Gun Control in New York City *Jails*
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:22:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan23.141849.3193@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> In article <13969@optilink.COM>, 
> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) said:
# # If gun control in its most extreme form -- gun prohibition -- can't be
# # made to work in a JAIL, where you have strip searches of incoming
# # prisoners; where you are subject to arbitrary search and seizure at
# # ANY time; where people on the outside have only limited and controlled
# # contact with the prisoners; where the guards who must be bribed to get
# # a weapon smuggled in have a VERY direct interest in not arming the
# # prisoners -- if you can't make it work in THAT environment, what makes
# # you think you can make it work in any milder form on the outside?
# #
# # Of course, the gun prohibitionists will have a solution -- make the
# # outside more like a jail.
# 
# Point One: He's right, I think.
# 
# Point Two: Y'know, you can make almost exactly the same statement about
# drugs instead of guns.  (No, Clayton, I'm not accusing you of supporting
# the War on Drugs; I'm just pointing out something that might otherwise
# be overlooked.)

And in fact, the court decisions justifying gun control measures,
and drug/alcohol prohibition, are interestingly intertwined.  Even
in the last century, laws prohibiting the sale of "Saturday Night
Specials" used local alcohol prohibition laws as precedent.

# Point Three: Why is it that with reports of this sort of thing --
# prisoners possessing contraband with the knowledge and, often, the
# active cooperation of the guards -- we never seem to hear about any
# serious movement to reform the prison system to the point of at least
# only hiring honest men and women as guards?

Perhaps they are honest (or at least, not actively corrupted) when 
they are hired, but are corrupted by money?

# -- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu#


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: This Shall Not Stand!
Keywords: homosexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 03:27:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.181502.25063@netcom.com> cjk@netcom.com writes:

>In article <Jan.28.10.02.43.1993.2520@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>
>>(Say, if the percentage of homosexuals in the population is really 10%, 
>>as homosexual activists claim, then how come the margins against 
>>homosexuality are so large?)
>
>I've seen figures that say its running about 4 to 1 against. (the lifting
>of the ban)  But maybe there are alot of homosexuals that don't believe in
>homosexual activism.

In my experience, people pipe up most often when they get scared.
Queers get furious and write in to public figures when they're afraid
that their civil rights are being eroded away.  Now the shoe's on the
other foot; heterosexists are (rightly) afraid that their little
bastion of straight privilege is going to be destroyed, and a lot of
homosexuals are confident of it.

>Two questions in my mind are:
>
>Are there any homosexuals for the ban?
>
>Are there any bisexuals for the ban?

The only ones I know who don't oppose it (which isn't the same as
supporting it, incidentally) oppose the entire military system as it
presently works, and don't think there's any point in their raising a
ruckus about this particular aspect of it.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70160 alt.pagan:15947 talk.religion.misc:27708 talk.abortion:58291
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:00:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Luther was quite a charming fellow, yes. Leaving aside the anti-Semite
stuff- which would simply make me blow out a blood vessel, being a 
Christian (Catholic flavor) who's ee close to asking the Hillel rabbi on
campus to break out the De-Gentilizing Kit- he had... well. Don't know if
it was psychological problems- Marty had just SUCH a spiffy father- or if
he really believed it, but he claimed on a number of occasions to have been
tormented by the Devil while at work with his theological writings. There
was the incident with the inkwell, of course, but I still like one method
he used to drive the Devil off. Apparently, he shouted- in German, I don't
know the German words, just the English- "Lick my ass!" at the Devil. He
was no more tormented that night, and wrote that it was "a good way of getting
rid of him."

It's SO much fun, looking at the sources of religion! Ever play count-the-
Goddess-titles with the Litany of Mary? *grin*

-- 
All difficulties under heaven arise from what is easy,
All great things under heaven arise from what is minute.
For this reason, the sage never strives to do what is great.
Therefore, he can achieve greatness.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:44:38 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Once again, liberal enthusiasm for judging people by the color
>of their skin, instead of the content of their character, shows
>itself.
Not all liberals.  I am a counterexample.  

Peace
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70407 alt.peeves:19764
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 28 Jan 93 11:57:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan27.132819.1@vxdesy.desy.de> hallam@vxdesy.desy.de writes:

> I am very surprized that US generals are allowed to make political
            ^^^^^^^^^[Is this a new British spelling?]
> statements such as this.  If a British soldier ever made a speach like
   [Have the British changed the spelling of this word also?]^^^^^^
> Powell they would be up on a serious charge.

The differernce is, of course, that the right of free speech of
Americans is protected by the U.S. Consititution.

Wait a minute ... aren't you English?  [Even if you do post from a
German site.]  What are you doing talking about American issues (which
you apparently know very little about)?  Why don't you just mind your
own business and quit poking your nose where it doesn't belong?
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Minor Historical Nitpick (Was Re: National debt is not bad)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:59:06 GMT

In article <1jnff7INNkg7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>In a previous article, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:
>><In article <1jmdbaINNqbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>	
>>	Uh, not since the 18th century have we been a colony.
>>	And we've not been primarily agrarian since, oh,
>>	the late 19th century. 
>>
>>	A "second-rate agrarian colony" would have been hard
>>	pressed to win the Spanish-American war, for example.
>>
>>
>
>       Our military spending is in direct proportion to our 
>   becoming a world power.  Sorry the analogy was too much to 
>   handle.  I'll tone it down.

No.  US military spending was a relatively small portion of GNP even
after American acquired an overseas empire.  Pre-WW1 spending is
around 1% (I'll get the actual figures if you want.  I don't have them
handy right now.), and America was quite unprepared to enter the Great
War.  If you consider 1917 to be when the US became a Great Power, you
still have relatively small spending.  The US military was
disassembled after the War, to be rebuilt in the late 30s, early 40s.
Even after WW2, the military shrank drastically, even though the US
was the predominant world power.  It wasn't until Korea that the US
rearmed permanently, as per NSC68.


--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70503 alt.activism:21514