HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ai260@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (J. Fisher)
Subject: Re: What Jimmy Carter Accomplished in his 4 Years (app: home power)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 05:20:47 GMT



> In article <1992Aug3.082520.29092@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
> bc151@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Fisler) writes:
> >
> >...another part of Carter's Energy
> >Conservation program, one which allowed anyone-- businesses or
> >private citizens-- to produce and sell electricity. This was done
> >by requiring that electrical power companies buy electricity
> >produced by their customers.
> ... [text deleted]
> 

On Sat Aug  8 00:21:11 1992, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
replies:
> Ok, Carter's bill became law. The utilities have been required to
> buy back customer generated power at the top market rate now for
> 13 years. 

I never said 'top market prices'. Your blind ideology is
affecting your ability to read. 

> Why aren't you rich? 

Is this the Republican litmus test for all policy? 

> That is to say, if it's such a good idea, why isn't it being done
> on a large scale? The answer of course is that it isn't such a
> wonderful idea after all and that economies of scale really do
> generate cheaper electricity.

It isn't being done on a large scale because this legislation,
like so much other good legislation, was gutted by Reagan before
it was given a chance. Your critical powers don't seem to me to
be nearly astute enough to discern what the future might have
held for small-scale electrical generation had it been given a
chance. I would imagine that, if PCs were a Democratic idea, you
would want everyone to use only mainframes.

> Gary
---
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:                                                               :
:                It's not a supply-side problem.                :
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:                            - J F -                            :
:              Bitnet:   ai260%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm     :
:              Internet: ai260@cleveland.freenet.edu            :
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39731 alt.politics.clinton:1940 alt.politics.bush:1588
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:58:56 GMT

In article <adams.713816568@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>
>>In article <sd6mm_a.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>>All of this talk about Clinton's National Police Force and his plans for
>>>disarming us of our assault weapons, the only weapons protected by the 
>>>Constitution, reminds me an awful lot of Adolf Hitler, his SS and the
>>>mesmerization of the German people during his intitial rise to power.
>>>
>>>Very dangerous man, indeed!
>>>-- 
>>>Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
>>>(415) 903-3832 wk  "The Demos have to go!"   (408) 253 4541 fax
>>>
>>>"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
>>>public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
>>>
>>>It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
>>>seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
>>>disarm the public, and enlist the aid of the media to 
>>>make all believe that they need to cooperate with the 
>>>new order blindly.
>
>>Disarming some assault-rifle touting ultra-right religious fanatics
>>and put them in concentration camps seems to be a good idea.  Pat
>>Roberson can be the camp spirital leader.  
>
>And who defends you when they come for you??
>
You mean the National Police force will be running amok just like
the DEA and the "Tatical Drug Squards", breaking down my door when
receive an anonymous tip, beat me up, press an Uzi barrel on my skull,
confiscate any money in the house 'cause they could be used in a
drug trade, refuse give me a hearing in the Courts?  Can the National
Police do any worse than that?  

My, my what a horrible idea.  Now if I keep an assault rifle in the
house, it will be justified to blow my brains out on the spot.  

Take a look at the Canadian RCMP, they are NOT a SS squad of the
Federal Government.  Of course, you will say that since it's
government adminstrated just like the Canadian Health system,
it's not a good idea, a socialist idea, a communist idea, an
UnAmerican idea, etc.  Perhaps you should start a private
Bounty Hunter company and give the command to Clint Eastwood/
Aronald Schwartznagger.    

> -Steve
>--
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                        -------------------
>     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
>     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:04:28 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug13.001507.1590@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.025352.7653@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>>  Again, I ask, what's to prevent the WG Army from using it's power to run
>>  roughshod over the weaker nations? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as

>What's to prevent the American military from using it's power to run
>roughshod over the civilian population? Answer: Absolutely nothing..except,
><perhaps> that nebulous concept you Yanks call democracy. 

I don't think you understand us very well.   There's a lot more to it
than that.  

For example, it is generally believed by most people in the military
that if they give orders to take over the government those orders will
be disobeyed.  It doesn't matter if they are right or not - as long as
they believe this they won't do it even if they want to.

Another point is the prevalence of guns in the generl population.
Governing a US that was in a state of low-level revolt would be a
nightmare.

Finally, there isn't a perceived need to take over.  Give us four
years of hyper-inflation or a nation-wide LA riot for a few weeks and
you might see a military takeover.

>If it won't work
>for a WG, it won't work in the United States. Do you really have so little
>faith in your own government process that it's ultimate failure is accepted
>as a matter of course?

Of course no democracy ever falls to military takeovers because the US
doesn't right?  Please tell that to the Haitians and the Chileans and
the Bolivians.

It kind of suggests that there are differences between different
democracies and that some are more stable than others.  Now what makes
you think tht your WG will be the stable kind of democracy?

>>  Such as? And what do we do about nations that refuse to go along? How much
>>  force is this nascent WG willing to expend on 10,000 Bosnias?

>What do you Yanks do about states that won't go along? (Show how that proves
>that democracy cannot function, and get ten more points)

Well, we fight massive wars.  The Civil War killed as many Americans
as WWII.  But I thought the WG was supposed to prevent war.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41249 alt.activism:15268 misc.headlines:5843 sci.econ:7045
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:11:41 EST
 <1992Aug20.221458.7673@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> 
 <1992Aug21.110731.3675@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug21.184816.14428@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug21.184816.14428@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.110731.3675@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
...
>>	Define "everyone".  Obviously Gary doesn't believe the media
>>revisionism.  Nor do I.  Nor do many people.
>>
>>	The Laffer curve is real, supply side works.  When you examine the
>>countries with the most improved economies, they have switched from
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
>>socialist/interventionist economies to supply side economies.
> 
> This is simply false. Germany and Japan have highly interventionist
> economics and are kicking US butt.

	Interventionist does not rule out supply-side.  It merely hampers its
effectiveness.  S. Korea and Taiwan are also interventionist, but also
supply-side, and fall in the "most improved".  Japan and Germany have slid
recently.

> The nations with the highest
> "quality of life index" all have socialist/interventionist economic
> policies.

	Quality of life?  Sure, if I had access to 100% of the revenues, I
could make people comfortable also.  As long as I had 1) increasing population
2) captive audience and 3) no free elections.

	As people in Sweden and France found out, socialism sounds great, but
then the bill comes in.

> But of course you have the blinkers on and are blind to
> what goes on in the rest of the world because examining this would
> be "unamerican". Have you seen the posts comparing poverty,health
> wellbeing,employment,equity rates, in the USA as compared to countries
> with socialist/interventionist economies? (USA#1 for all the wrong
> reasons) I think you, Gary and all the other net reaganomicists
> should have them mailed directly to you. You still there HAREL?

	H*r*l prefers email, remember?

	You seem to be confusing what government spends its revenues on with
maximizing revenue intake and economic growth.  Like France and Sweden found
out, all those cushy programs sound great (mainly because people use FREE when
describing them), then the tax bill arrives, and the stagnant economy forces
individuals to shoulder an even greater burdern.

	As many Swedes put it: those programs are nice, but I got tired of
paying 35% of my income for them.


Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41035 alt.politics.bush:2366 alt.politics.clinton:2454
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Do I believe this?
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:54:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Aug20.172759.20427@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>In article <MATT.92Aug19164743@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>>
>>It seems that the Republicans have come out with a list that purports
>>to be a list of 128 tax increases which Clinton passed; this list is
>>grossly padded and dishonest.  For example, one item is listed twice;
>>three of them aren't items at all (just places where the description
>>took more than one line); some of the items aren't tax increases at
>>all (one item, for example, was a bill lengthening the season for dog
>>racing); and others of them involve counting the same thing many
>>times.  (A tax increase on alcohol, for example, was counted five
>>separate times: beer, wine, wine coolers,...)
>>
>>So if you hear anyone use that number 128, just remember: this number
>>has no basis in fact.
>
>According to Michael Kinsley of CNN crossfire, counting the same way
>there had been 132 federal tax increases since 1988.

almost like ...he is just saying whatever it takes to get elected...again.
course...he only went along with those tax increases cause his back was
against the wall...yea yea...i've read those lips before...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: The rights of an employer .vs. an employee wrt free speech
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 02:08:45 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <onsvef0@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >Oh, fuck you phil... I'll answer your stupid question.
    >
    >If any anti-abortion group wanted to put fliers all over the
    >SGI cafeteria announcing their existance, I would support
    >them in this right.

Do you then believe that the right of an employee take priority over
the right of the employer (to say yea or nay on any such flyers)?

Doesn't a company have a right to say no?



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41318 talk.abortion:32991
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Mulvihill vs Chuck Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: yeah, right
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:18:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <4784@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>	However, I am not trying to argue the moral case for abortion.
>I'm arguing abortion as an issue regarding sexual responsibility.

That don't add up, Mr. Chuck. If this were truly the case, that you had
no moral case to argue, why on earth would you be anti-abortion? 
Pregnancy as punishment for being irresponsible? That's good for the
child that results, isn't it? (But we'll only punish those that
deserve it, right? Not victims of incest or rape, just those that
do the dirty deed and don't want a child.))

If you want to argue for people to _take_ greater responsibility, I'm
all for it. Anti-abortionists want to cram it down people's throats.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:54:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Aug17.192953.9526@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>> |> >lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>> |> >	My solution to the US public schools' problems:

>> |> >	Get rid of all the bureaucrats!



>> |> US Public schools have FAR more administrators than
>> |> private/independent schools. But US public schools do a much
>> |> worse job of educating America's kids.

>> |> We outspend the Japanese by 2-to-1 on money spent per student,
>> |> yet their students are far more educated than ours.

>> |> On an international basis, we rank last among 13 nations in
>> |> math/science.

>> |> Its time do do something - I support school choice.

>> Interesting.  The Japanese don't agree with you.

>the type of school system has nothing to do with it. overall
>(i know there are exceptions, i am one) students do well
>because of parental involvement. our students would be best
>in the world too if parents spent hours learning the lessons and
>doing the homework alongside the children.

If one has a monolithic school system, it can vary from atrocious to
good, and it may even depend on the students and parents.  The American
system was far from perfect, but was far better before the educationist
changes starting about 60 years ago changed it from a curriculum-oriented
system with the idea of absolute standards to a social-adjustment system
with the subject matter adjusted to the perceived level of the class.

There was a period of about 20 years where elementary school students 
were not even allowed to take home schoolbooks; they were afraid that
the parents would contradict the teachers.  The old scheme did not do
a very good job of teaching understanding, and it is even questionable
that it can be done, but it did a reasonable job of testing it.  This
went by the wayside--if we do not know how to teach it well, it should
not be taught.  So only rote is taught.  Etc.

Many countries are moving in the direction of our system.  If we want to
teach everyone the same thing, we can teach little.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40680 alt.politics.elections:10983 alt.politics.clinton:2262 alt.politics.bush:2178
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:36:12 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas


Richard, maybe this guy's talking about 30 million jobs created south of
the border or in asia or wherever our manufacturing base took them?


	Bye, Judy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ernie@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ernie Corley)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers Love Clinton (was: National Health Care)
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 12:54:03 GMT

In article <26608@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>
>On alt.politics.clinton, someone posted a speach Clinton gave recently
>(to "Southern Leadership Conference?  Something like that). Anyway,
>one paragraph speaks to David's objection:
>
>| There are all kinds of other things we need to do to reduce medical
>| liability costs, have alternative dispute resolution mechanisms,
>| give doctors some accepted practice guidelines all across the
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>| country that will raise the presumption that they perform properly,
>| if they follow those practice guidelines.
>
>The phrase "alternative dispute resolution mechanisms" sounds to me
>like what David Olson was saying was lacking. I haven't read anything
>more specific than this, but clearly Clinton is thinking about it.
>
>At the beginning of this thread, Ernie Corley claims that Clinton is
>against tort reforms of any kind. I think the above quote refutes
>that claim.
>						- Lee Campbell


In this "trojan horse" campaign, I'm sure you'll find a Clinton quote to
satisfy most any position.  His stump speeches are filled with "and I've
got a progam for <whatever this crowd wants to hear>."   What really 
scares me in the above quote is the portion I've underlined.  Sounds like
more government regulation and bureacracy to me.  

Would violating the government's "accepted practice guidelines" open
a doctor up to a lawsuit?  Would creative practices of medicine be stifled?

-- 
        --Ernie.Corley@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40574 alt.politics.elections:10930 alt.politics.clinton:2231 alt.politics.bush:2114
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:56:42 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Aug18.151018.27120@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Aug17.190813.1645@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>]Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
>]poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
>]years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
>]opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!
>
>You seem to have forgotten the 30 million new jobs created during those
>twelve years.
>

I don't think she has. However, can you tell us how many of these jobs are:

a) Low paying, in some service industry, and have little stability
b) High paying but directly driven by defense spending rather than capital investments

I'd also like to know specifically which Reagan-Bush policies led to the this massive
job creation, besides defense spending. If there were 30 million jobs created,
I certainly don't see any of them here in Texas......
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Found!  Bush's new October Surprise.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:49:29 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Place you bets!

In article <1992Aug17.182458.24879@rat.csc.calpoly.edu>, dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
> 
> 	U.S. CHARGES DRUG LORD ESCOBAR IN JET BOMBING
> 
...
> Sounds picture perfect to me.  Come October, the president gives Stormin'
> Norman a ring and says "How about a sequel to Operation Just Cause?"  Call it
> Operation Storm the Polls ("Were going to war with Poland?!?" Dan Quayle is
> heard to ask).
> 
> I see little or nothing in the way of George Bush using the military to
> invade Escobar's hideout (wherever that is), to kill a bunch of people, and
> (maybe) to come away with Escobar himself.
> 
> Clinton will be taken by surprise and will immediately endorse the military
> effort (maybe even claiming he'd have used more force sooner), but to no
> avail.  Bush will rise in the polls, pacifist democrats won't bother to vote
> at all, Bush will come in ahead at the wire and Clinton will see victory slip
> away like a drug lord in a Colombian jail...
> 
> Mark my words.  I'll be prepared for the big "I told you so" come November.

	Ok, so we have 2:1 odds on Serbia
	3:1 odds on Iraq
	4:1 on "a foreign country"
	7:1 on Haiti
	10:1 on Escobar
	50:1 on Cuba
	umm, anyone else making bets?  Don't bet what you can't afford to lose.
:)                                

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re:      Canada Has Pneumonia!
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:53:47 GMT

In article  , GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu         writes...
>Message-ID: <1992Aug19.202256.28603@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>


>>this is very funny. you just mentioned a set of countries EVERY one of which
>>has a healthier economy than the US as well as being more socially advanced.
>>how are these societies stuck or declining. AND THE USA IS NOT !?!?!?!?!
> 

>     I visited Toronto last weekend.  Totally illuminating!
>     Cool phrases on Canadian news channels like:
> 
>       " And the Art Museum of Ontario may reopen next year "
>       " with the petitioning of the Toronto Symphony for
>         bankruptcy "
>       " if layoffs continue at their present rate, 1992 will
>         supersede the 1990 all-time record for layoffs "
> 
>    11% unemployment!?
>    $7.40 for two ice teas and fries!?
>    $10 / hour for PARKING!?
> 
I might have a partial answer for this. In the latest issue of Rolling
Stone magazine they have an article (p33) that says: 

	"Canada has lost an estimated 460,000 jobs since signing
	a free-trade agreement with the United States in 1989."
			William Greider

It doesn't come out and say that the job loss is directly because
of the free-trade agreement, but it sure does imply it (the article
is about the expected job losses from the NAFTA).

Garrett@Ingres.com