HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: Re: Witless, in-dud
Followup-To: /dev/null
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:41:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.113927.3778@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.020057.3647@pony.Ingres.COM>, rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug26.130122.3753@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>
>>>..supply side economics is the best way to [ follow Mexico (!) to prosperity (!)]
>> 
>> This is a subjective conclusion, and is not supported by this evidence.
>
>	It is supported by the evidence.  If you have numbers that show
>otherwise, all you have to do is post them.

Ask yourself if the 'supply side economics' of the 80's worked.  For
numbers: Look at the prime lending rate.  Look at the unemployment rate.
Look at the M2.  Look at the housing starts.  Look at factory orders for
durable goods.  Etc etc etc.  These numbers are known as 'economic
indicators', and what they's indicat'in' ain't good.  In case you've
forgotten, Bush has spent his term merely perpetuating what Reagan started
(save a minor 'war' here or there).

Bush has done his best to make the situation look good for the upcoming
election, but even with this pressure it still looks pathetic.

>
>> Mexico is a third world country.  They are not starting with a populace
>> that is as [ economically ] sophisticated as that of the US.  Saying the
>> same approach will work for an economy as mature as that of the United
>> States is naive.  Try running an apple through an orange juicer.  goop.
>
>	"Not as sophisticated"!  This is rich.  Since when does it take a
>certain level of sophisitication to buy something?  Produce something?

Naw, it takes the same level of sophistication to produce software as
it does to produce pet rocks.  (hmmm, not such a good analogy...pet
rocks rely on a mighty sophisticated consumer, not to mention marketing;
but since this is a 'production' example, I'll let it stand).

Do you know what ideas these words stand for?

>
>	Look at the numbers.  Disprove them if you can.  From all appearances
>you're just venting hot air.

Appearances are easy to contrive.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15866 talk.politics.misc:43419 soc.culture.latin-america:3278
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: CUBA: World Assoc of Community Radios: End U.S. Blockade
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:52:34 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

[Via misc.activism.progressive from PeaceNet's media.issues]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 203       AMARC Support for Cuba 
hfrederick      media.issues     4:25 pm  Sep  2, 1992 
From: Howard Frederick <hfrederick@igc.org>
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject: AMARC Support for Cuba 
/* Written  8:48 pm  Sep  1, 1992 by radiohc@tinored in cdp:reg.cuba */ 
/* ---------- "Radio Havana Cuba, September 1, 199" ---------- */ 
From: tinored!radiohc (Radio Habana Cuba ) 
Subject: Radio Havana Cuba, September 1, 1992 

                !CUBANEWS FROM RADIO HAVANA CUBA 
                         September 1. 1992 
                 Email:  radiohc@tinored.cu 


RADIO STATIONS FROM AROUND THE WORLD EXPRESS SOLIDARITY WITH THE 
ISLAND 

Havana, September 1 (RHC)--  Close to 500 radio stations from 51 
countries have called for an end to the US blockade.  In a 
resolution adopted at the 5th World Association of Community 
Radio Stations Conference, participants agreed to send letters to 
the Latin American  presidents to mediate in favor of Cuba. 

The document also states that Cuba has the right to defent its 
sovereignty and should not be isolated.  One of the participants, 
the director of the US Kansas City Community Radio Station, KKFI, 
Ed Hasse announced that a caravan in solidarity with the island 
will cross US territory.  Hasse says the caravan will provide a 
forum for denouncing the blockade, while collecting medicines to 
be donated to  Cuba.  The meeting was held  last week in the 
Mexican state of Morelos. 

Meanwhile, the first encounter of Latin American and Caribbean 
Radio Announcers is underway in the Cuban capital. Participants 
at the event include some 60 radio experts from Mexico, 
Venezuela, the US, Argentina,  Colombia, Poland and Cuba. 

Alternative methods and means of communications is one of the key 
issues on the agenda.  The event runs through Friday. 
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15676 talk.politics.misc:42831
From: SML108@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:32:25 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Various brouhaha about who claims what deleted...

Here's how I see it...

Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...

Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...

Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...

Now here's the clincher.  The way I see it, Clinton was not lying because
he had already stated the criteria was bogus and was merely showing that
if you apply the same Bu1!$h|+ to Bush, he's even worse...

I'd love to hear a valid criticism of Clinton and Gore instead of the usual
idiotic litany of

1.  Arkansas, the high tax capital of the US...
2.  Gore, Mr. No More combustion engine is the end of the world...
3.  Clinton raises taxes faster than the speed of light...
4.  All those damned democrats do is spend spend spend...
5.  Clinton cheats on his wife, does drugs, and makes women
    commit suicide...
6.  Clinton can't do foreign policy because he's a redneck...
7.  Clinton didn't fight in Vietnam therefore he's a coward...
8.  Clinton's pro-choice, ultra liberal, pro-gay, gonna burn in hell...
9.  Hillary Clinton thinks kids can sue their parents!
10. F A M I L Y  V A L U E S!

Any takers?  I'll even take a valid reason to vote for Bush that isn't:

1.  Desert Storm, America's finest hour
2.  No new taxes
3.  Pro-Life, Pro-Bush
4.  George was a fighter pilot
5.  George Bush, The Harry S. Truman of foreign policy
6.  George Bush, The Abraham Lincoln of honesty
7.  Dan Quayle
8.  Barbera Bush
9.  NAFTA
10. F A M I L Y  V A L U E S!

You know, I'll bet that in this year of domestic anarchy, if our president
had decided to declare war on Congress and demand that they work together
to fix America's problems and truly tirelessly work at it, he'd win by
a landslide...  Just imagine the press he'd get if he went to Congress and
refused to leave until things started happening...  Oh well...

Scott
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: ae277@yfn.ysu.edu (Stewart Rowe)
Subject: Lies"Lies Work"
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:14:27 GMT


From Friday's Boston Globe:
 
 Bush campaign officials privately told the Boston Globe that they know
the President's charge that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in untrue. 
Asked why Bush continues to repeat it, one Bush campaign official said, 
"It works."
 
Governor Clinton said the article "called into question the character
of the Bush campaign" and asserted that not in all his years in
politics had he seen such "raw cynicism."
 
Clinton's aides said that the correct count was 59 times; on the same
criteria, they said, Bush had raised taxes 327 times.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Who Were the "Contras" ? (IV)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:14:18 GMT

In article <9209020622.AA08260@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>"There can be no doubt, on the basis of what we head and saw, that a
>PLANNED STRATEGY OF TERRORISM is being carried out by the contras
>along the Honduras border"

>        --Chairmen of Americas Watch and Helsinki Watch, after a...

This is sadly true (although there where many democratic Contra groups).

Now Harel, America's Watch also said that the Sandinsitas where
engaged in a strategy of terrorism with its own death squads. So do you
condem the Sandinsita abuses which where qualitatively the same in every
respect?

So far you have failed to condem human rights abuses in groups that
you like. The obvious conclusion is that you don't especially care
about human rights. This makes you just as bad as you claim the
Reagan administration is.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------233 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: nicaraugua "resistance"
From: jc@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 15:57:40 PDT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Nanaimo, B.C.
Summary: good example of slanted journalism

although I personally cannot sanction vengance as a national
policy, if I lived in Nicaragua during the freely elected and 
much attacked Sandanista era, I probably would have felt some sense
of justice if members of the murderous and US created "Contras" were
executed.  To grace these murderers of children and teachers and 
international aid workers as members of the "resistance" is to 
reveal either gross ignorance,personal complicity, or the 
political awareness of your average sheep....cheers

           jc@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (John Cross)
     The Old Frog's Almanac  (Home of The Almanac UNIX Users Group)    
(604) 245-3205 (v32)    <Public Access UseNet>    (604) 245-4366 (2400x4)
        Vancouver Island, British Columbia    Waffle XENIX 1.64  
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15457 sci.econ:7151 talk.politics.misc:41957
Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:58:09 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Tax enforcement vs. new taxes

In article <1992Aug25.164721.13623@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug25.175614.17397@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug21.141932.20456@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>> >> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> >
>> >> >Supply side economics?
>> >> 
>> >> 	"We reduced tax rates and we increased the tax base. ..
>> >                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> We've reduced tax rates and strengthened enforcement, and now we are
>> >> getting more revenue out of lower tax rates."
>> >> 	-President Carlos Salinas, of Mexico
>> >> 	quoted in Forbes magazine, Aug 17, 1992
>> >> 
>> >> The top tax rate was reduced from 60% to 35%. The capital gains tax rate
>> >> in Mexico is currently zero.
>> >> 
>> >> More revenues out of lower tax rates?  Yes, it happens. Believe it.
>> >
>> >"and we increased the tax base".
>> 
>> Yes, the tax base was increased because there was greater economic growth and
>> less tax avoidance.  *Not* because any taxes were added.
> 
> Increasing the tax base (such as in the 1986 tax reform) meant taxing what had
> previously been tax deductable (like consumer interest payments).  It was
> usually described as "closing loopholes".

	But here he is talking specifically about tightening enforcement.  As
in collecting taxes because they had been avoided before, not because they were
untaxed.  They even eliminated 13 Federal Taxes.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15604 misc.headlines:6043 alt.desert-storm:1726 talk.politics.misc:42517
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: U.S. "TO PROVOKE IRAQ" on MONDAY
Summary: Hmmmmm. Some things never change.
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:20:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Aug18.005907.22452@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
> 
> >Topic 31        -> U.S. TO PROVOKE IRAQ MONDAY <-       2 responses 
> 
> How does it feel to be consistantly wrong?

I resubscribed to this group (alt.activism) on a slow day here just to
see if things had changed any.  Looks like the articles (like the one
Mike quoted above) AND a lot of the writers are still left-justified :)

Good thing this is America where they can say anything they want, no
matter how silly it is. 


-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie. (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:46:53 GMT

dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman) writes:

>the united states has a higher infant mortality rate than all of the other
>'industrialized' states, including canada, japan, all the western european
>nations.

So? Please provide direct evidence that the infant mortality rate in the
US is directly related to the health-care system, and not some other factor,
such as high drug usage or population-stupidity.

You cannot pick an effect and link it to a cause just because you "will it"
to be so.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 08:47:48 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>But don't imagine you know what LaRouche's program or philosophy actually
>is until you have read it "from the horse's mouth". Media coverage of
>LaRouche's program is abysmal.

If you don't believe this, check out Time Magazine sometime in January
of this year, in which LaRouche was referred to as a "wild-eyed
libertarian".  This is a Big Lie in the Hitler style, kind of like
calling Rush Limbaugh a "wild-eyed feminist".

Since LaRouche is operating within the Democratic Party--and
successfully, too--it figures that The Media, with its pro-Democratic
bias, would want to disown him, so they spread the urban legend that
LaRouche is a libertarian.  This is the equivalent, for the libertarian
movement, of the "blood libel" (get a book on Antisemitism and look it
up in the index).

LaRouche is an even more rabid Prohibitionist than Bush (although
Gingrich would give him a run for his money); libertarians advocate
the total end of drug prohibition.  LaRouche is an even more rabid
protectionist than Buchanan and the Democrats; libertarians advocate
the complete AND UNILATERAL end of all trade barriers (LaRouche has
actually traveled overseas and told groups of workers there to lobby
for trade barriers to keep out AMERICAN goods!).  LaRouche yearns to
get his hands on the controls of the inflation machine (Federal
Reserve) created by the Repbulicrats; libertarians think the Fed is
a total crock.  LaRouche advocates concentration camps ("quarantine")
for AIDS victims; as for the libertarian opinion of this idea, every
curse you have ever heard is hereby included by reference.

LaRouche is thus ideologically much closer to the reigning Repblicrat
Party than to libertarianism.  He advocates massive State intervention
into the economy, and massive violation of individual rights of privacy.
That is close enough to Fascism for me.

I would not mind more accurate coverage of LaRouche, if only to stop
this idiotic rumor about how the creep is a libertarian.


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15456 misc.headlines:5962 sci.econ:7150 talk.politics.misc:41956
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:17:16 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <BtKC2n.AnJ@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.143712.3735@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <BtJp1n.M8y@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
> 
>>	July numbers have been thrown off by GM plant shut downs.
> 
>   And August's numbers are thrown off by Wang and DEC layoffs, etc.  Isn't
>   that the whole point; that American companies can't provide enough
>   employment?

	No, the GM layoffs are not real "unemployment" (see below).

> 
>>                                                          What those
>>numbers also aren't telling you is that GM makes up the difference between the
>>unemployment checks, and what they usually earn.
> 
>   Just out of curiosity, how does that work?  If GM is still paying them 
>   how are they eligible for ANY unemployment checks?  Does Michigan have 
>   some different law on this than other states?   

	It's in the contract.  GM must pay the difference (or 90% of the
difference) when they temporarily lay off workers.  Versus the general "you're
laid off, don't call us, we'll call you".

>>	Business optimism has been growing all year.  Consumer confidence is
>>largely a PR game.
> 
>   And business optimism isn't?   Anyway this is othogonal.  Business
>   optimism is generated by earnings and it's entirely possible that 
>   earnings and revenues can both grow quite well even while laying off
>   workers.   This (computer) industry is a good example -- rapidly
>   growing revenue and explosive growth in unit shipments, along with
>   steadily dropping employment ('88-'91, and probably '92 also, ac-
>   cording to EE Times).   Consumer confidence is down because every-
>   body's worried about JOBS.

	If you look at the various charts, business optimism is closely linked
to things like production, etc.  In other words they're confident because the
economic indicators for business have been rising.

	For the consumer, indicators can have little bearing on the reality
of the consumer.  For all the indicators, pundits can not tell what people will
do at Christmas time, for example.

>>     Higher taxes will definately kill new business, and make today's
>>consumer spending look good.
> 
>   I agree that higher taxes would be a bad idea at this point, but it's
>   a red herring.  The US has the lower taxes than plenty of other countries
>   around the world with higher growth rates.  There are more fundamental
>   problems with our economy than taxes.    

	Well, yeah.  Spending.  (Being careful not to name names :)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:32:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug25.143712.3735@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <BtJp1n.M8y@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:

>	July numbers have been thrown off by GM plant shut downs.

  And August's numbers are thrown off by Wang and DEC layoffs, etc.  Isn't
  that the whole point; that American companies can't provide enough
  employment?

>                                                          What those
>numbers also aren't telling you is that GM makes up the difference between the
>unemployment checks, and what they usually earn.

  Just out of curiosity, how does that work?  If GM is still paying them 
  how are they eligible for ANY unemployment checks?  Does Michigan have 
  some different law on this than other states?   


>	Business optimism has been growing all year.  Consumer confidence is
>largely a PR game.

  And business optimism isn't?   Anyway this is othogonal.  Business
  optimism is generated by earnings and it's entirely possible that 
  earnings and revenues can both grow quite well even while laying off
  workers.   This (computer) industry is a good example -- rapidly
  growing revenue and explosive growth in unit shipments, along with
  steadily dropping employment ('88-'91, and probably '92 also, ac-
  cording to EE Times).   Consumer confidence is down because every-
  body's worried about JOBS.



>     Higher taxes will definately kill new business, and make today's
>consumer spending look good.

  I agree that higher taxes would be a bad idea at this point, but it's
  a red herring.  The US has the lower taxes than plenty of other countries
  around the world with higher growth rates.  There are more fundamental
  problems with our economy than taxes.    


---peter