HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: Lots of new millionairs
Organization: NRAO
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 23:05:35 GMT

In article <mykes.0cb4@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>IMO, too much emphasis is placed on the fact that the number of millionairs
>increased from 4,000-6000 to 64,000 during the 80's.  I can come up with
>ONE blatant and obvious way that a significant number of them became millionairs.
>And you can't blame it on Reaganomics or the S&L crooks or anything like that :)
>
>Consider the state lotteries...  If 10 states gave away $1,000,000 per week for
>10 years, the lottery would have made 5,200 new millionairs.  Here in California,
>there are several weekly lotteries that can make a person a millionaire.  And
>often, there are big prize lotteries that have multiple winners (share millions).
>
>Could it be that as many as 1/4 of those new millionairs are lotto winners? :)

There is also Publishers Clearing House and the like.  But yet...

I don't know how the California lottery works and New Mexico does not
have one.  But I have always thought that in at least some cases, one
does not actually win the lump sum, but rather one wins an annuity which
pays out periodically some amount until the number of payments times
the amount equals the prize.  It could take a number of years for the
full pay off.  Does such a situation make one a millionaire for statistical
counting purposes?  If I would win the Publishers Clearing House "million"
I would definitely not quit my job;  at least not until investments
derived from their annual $25,000.00 check paid an annual dividend
greater than my current salary plus expectations of raises.  (All of
you must have received one or more mailings from PCH.  Have you ever
read all of their "fine print" before tossing the stamps etc.?)

It was also my thought that those big multi million dollar lotteries
were roll over monies from previous lotteries in which no one won the
big prize.

You made an interesting and valid speculation but since I don't have
any information one way or the other I would doubt that state lotteries
inflated the ranks of the millionaires.  One would think that _USA Today_
would keep a "box score" on the various state lotteries.  Does it?
I wouldn't know.

One other source of "instant" millionaires are the winners of
lawsuits which have ridiculous payments.
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:22:25 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 713712371@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu, aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>In <1992Aug12.164449.27090@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>>In article 27597@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>>If the only way to eliminate the debt is to raise taxes,  then we need to 
>>>do it.   We can't afford to keep pouring tax dollars down the "debt interest
>>>rathole".
>>There's one other way to fix the deficit....INFLATION
>	Why, liberals presume that inflation is the "solution" to 
>everything.  After all, what prosperous country would not choose to
>follow the gleaming example of Brazil?

I wasn't advocating inflation.  I was merely pointing out what many conservatives
and liberals have been saying.  Inflation is ONE solution to the problem.

If one is prepared for inflation (i.e. high debt, high leverage, etc.) then
inflation can be a very wonderful thing.  It's not all bad.  Many people got
very rich during the high inflation of the '70s.

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4505 alt.rush-limbaugh:3631
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:59:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug18.184507.13355@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>Whether you agree with the content or not, Buchanan gave a hell of
>a speech.  I mention this because (1) it's true and (2) because it's
>what all the news commentators said after speeches by Cuomo and 
>Jackson.  Unlike the Dem convention, however, I did not hear any
>major network commentator say this about Buchanan's speech.  Also,
>I don't recall either Cuomo or Jackson's speech receiving  the sort of
>instant counterpoint given to Buchanan's.  On CNN, for example, Mike
>Kinsley was given an immediate opportunity to explain all the supposed
>"factual misstatements" in Buchanan's speech.  I guess this must be
>because speeches by Cuomo and Jackson contained no exagerations or 
>misstatements. (NOT).

Might it be that Buchanan's speech was full of attacks against
homosexuals, feminists, illegal immigrants, people of color, women
in battle... You name it... Personal attacks on Hilary Clinton... I
love it.... Continue like this and the total women's vote will go to
the democrats. Freedom, that's what the USA stands for but
Buchanan's freedom spells quite differently... It won't allow
homosexuals to have equal rights to heterosexuals, it won't allow
women to have the same rights as men have had for centuries, it
won't give religion its freedom to express itself unless the
religion happens to be a christian religion, it won't accept the
suprem court's decision that prayer in schools is unconstitutional.
It blames immigrants for the poor working perfomandce of the
american work force, its numerous jobless and homeless people. War
should be totally reserved for men, women on the other hand should
stay home and if they happen to get raped or if their own life is in
danger during a pregnancy, they should be prepared to bear the child
even if it will kill themselves or destroy both the woman's and the
kid's future. A grim word... freedom... to hear this come from the
mouth of Pat Buchanan.

Pim van Meurs
-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:51:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

In article <1828@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <37048@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>>
>>It might be a minority view but it was given prime timne coverage.
>>Even the republican plank on abortion for instance is
>>ultra-conservative. The whole conference seems to be leaning to the
>>ultra right.
>
> That is incorrect. The conference went to right on a few social issues.
>Some of these issues are currently being debated as to whether they actually 
>represent loss of freedom. The economic issues are for small government.
> Pat Buchanan said what he thought was important. No one can control him.
>He gives me the impression that he is responding to attacks initiated by
>other people on his way of life. I have had this happen to me personnaly
>to. Dont eat meat, Dont degrade women, Worship Militant Environmentalism,
>etc, etc, etc. 

And I have had the same thing happen to me when I got fed up with the
Fundamentalist church I used to go to.  A coworker said to me, "and I
thought you were a Christian", because I disagreed with Jerry Falwell's
statement that God favors the U.S. over all other nations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:20:12 GMT
Organization: UB

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>In article <BswB7J.J03@acsu.buffalo.edu> mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>>	Not exactly.  He also mentioned large segments of the population 
>>that are not included in the calculations of individual incomes: the self
>>employed, government workers, retirees etc.  This makes individual income
>>an unreliable statistic, hence his use of family incomes, which are more
>>reliably calculated.

>	I doubt that self employed people make up "a large precentage",
>and the government is well known for paying less then the private sector.
>talking about family income ignores the point that many familes are working
>2 or 3 jobs to get that extra 5%, hardly a big plus in my book.

	Can you cite figures?  Your argument is valid only if 1. You can show
that the percentage of self-employed people in the work force is negligible
OR that their incomes have gone down.  2. Government pays less than the private
sector.  (Beware Simpson's Paradox: Total Average Government Pay could be less
than the private sector, and yet the government could be paying comparable
salaries in given fields - they have to be close to make people want to work 
for the government in the first place.)  3. There is a significant increase in
the number of families working extra jobs to make the desired income.
-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush is a Conservative! (Re: more predictions)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:45:29 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 12038@athena.cs.uga.edu, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>>>Bush keeps saying that he is a conservative.  Is he lying?  I've not 
>>>heard him use a disclaimer (like "read my lips") before he says it.
>>
>>He's not only a conservative, he's a right-wing conservative at that.
>>Just look at his stand on choice and his choice of Clarence.
>Mitch, I implore you to download the post by Mr. Russ Anderson, where he
>went to great lengths to show in detail the economic differences between
>Reagan and Bush.  He also included the severe hatred that Bush appointees
>have for Reagan ideas and appointees.  
>Please, take some time to go over the figures...

I understand your frustration regarding Bush's stands.  He is not in strict
adherence to the right-wing dogma but he does bow down to the right wing.
We, to the left view it has a right-wing sellout.  You to the right view
it as a left-wing sellout.  Can this man win?

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:18:01 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1812@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.230209.6397@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>->You see, your solution is arbitrary.  Arbitrary laws cause nothing but
>->dissent.  Would you be happy if the line were arbitrarily drawn at six
>->months?  8 months?  I venture to guess not.  So why should someone who
>->does not believe _human_ life begins at conception be happy with your
>->definition?  The only real solution is a solid definition of when life
>->begins, that can be challenged based on science, not dogma.
>
> The main issue is giving arbitrary control to government. If We The People

The government already has arbitrary control.   And in every case it's
exercised, we have goofy problems.  

>through a vote decide that life begins at conception, then government will
>have no arbitrary point of reference to make. We could also just assume

If we the people decide through a vote that all people over 85 should be
shot, would you be satisfied?  Or, closer to home, suppose We The People
decide life begins at birth.  Happy now?  I didn't think so.  You're
swinging a double edged sword there, and it's razor sharp on both sides.

No thanks, no pure democracies for me.  With your "vote", all you've
accomplished is to show that the majority favor an arbitrary position.
It's still arbitrary.  We need desperately to be objective here.  That's
why any decision should be based on science.  It's the most objective
thing we've got.  It's also changeable as our understanding grows.

>it is so just to insure that government dosent get in to the buissness of
>choosing when life starts.

> Never sell your soul to Big Government !

Care to define what "selling your soul" entails?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 23:13:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

In article <19AUG199213222412@jetson.uh.edu> wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter) writes:
>We are in the midst
>of a crippling attack of NICENESS in this country...

Would that we were ... this so-called "niceness" only goes one way.
It's mandatory "niceness" for Politically Correct groups and people,
but anything goes for the non-PC.

As for Ice-T, I saw him on Arsenio, and that dude has Charles Manson
eyes. <helter-skelter> <helter-skelter> 
-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:43:06 GMT

In article <1823@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

|>  Im shocked Russ. You have attacked the messanger without addressing the 
|> message. Pat is not the nominated one. Clinton is.

	I like this. What your saying is that any democrat can attack
bush on any issue, regardless of whether or not the dems are guilty of
it, because Bush is the candidate and they arn't, right?

	Of course, the difference between Pat and Bill is that Pat lost 
and Bill won, so it would be OK, I presume for Ted Kennedy to chastize
George Bush for womanizing, right?

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Total Freedom from Statism ? (Re:Conservatives on Personal Free..)
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:40:14 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood


 It looks like the debate here might be heading toward the age old
argument of, How much Freedom from Statism can we acheive and still
prosper socially and economically ? The liberals and Libertarians 
seem to be steering us this way via the drug legalization issue.
The conservatives are steering this way via the free market issue.
Lets take a look at the small government types of both sides and
contrast this with the Libertarian view. I use the term "Free
Market Liberal" to describe a current day liberal democrat who
believes in a more free and open buissness market. Example -
Paul Tsongas. I use the term "Free Market Conservative" to describe
a modern day republican who main issue is a free market. Example -
Jack Kemp.
               
 FREE MARKET LIBERALS ?                FREE MARKET CONSERVATIVES
  {Near Total Social Freedom}            {Some Social Restrictions}
  {Some Economic Restrictions}           {Near Total Economic Freedom}

                       LIBERTARIAN
                        {Total Social Freedom}
                        {Total Economic Freedom}

 The dichotomy of both sides is how can free market liberals justify
total social freedom but not total economic freedom ? How can conser-
vatives justify total economic freedom without total social freedom.
This is one area I have been personally exploring intellectually and
maybe some of you have. Just how much freedom can we acheive in both
areas without causing undue hardship or complications ?
 If we do restrict one area which one should be restricted and what 
type of minimum restrictions are required ?
 Sorry if I insulted your intelligence.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Is Rush just a teenie bit inconsistent ???
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:21:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.070442.5412@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> Gosh,  Rush complained that those gosh darned liberals, feminazis, and
> animal rights wackos just can't take a joke.   
> 
> Then, about 5 minutes later, he complained how unfair it was that the
> liberal press makes jokes about Dan Quayle (aka Mr. Potatoe Heade).
> 
> Stop sitting on half of your brain, Rush, and then make up your whole mind... 
> is it okay to make jokes, or not?    Or is it only okay to make jokes
> about liberals, and not about conservative sacrede cowes?
> 
> (from the Limbaugh Dictionary - Liberal - n - anybody who is moderate, 
> centrist, left, or occasionally liberal with whom Rush disagrees)

	If fair treatment is the issue, then their jokes are certainly unfair.   
When was the last time you heard a Clinton/Flowers joke in the news?  Or did  
you EVER hear one?  How long does such a joke usually last, when a candidate  
makes a mistake (especially when the mistake wasn't his to begin with?), and  
how long has this potatoe-heade joke lasted?  I'm frankly sick and tired of  
hearing the joke over and over, although it was funny when it first started.  I  
may start posting the potatoe-heade jokes I hear, but with the schoolteacher  
who gave Quayle the card as the butt of the joke.  It'll be interesting to how  
long it takes for someone to start accusing me of being unfair to someone who  
made a simple mistake.  Of course, school may take too much time, we'll see.
	Speaking of spelling boo-boos, how many of you heard that the NEA  
misspelled "Capitol" on their tour buses earlier at their national meeting?
						Erik Powers

	How do you spell liberal? C-L-I-N-T-O-N-E!
	NEAE!  Thee educatores ofe oure childrene!
	(Sorry, I have a gripe against the NEA, and I would just as soon see  
them go down in flames.  They have opposed the validity of my education for  
years, and my family had a scary couple of years there because of the NEA as  
well as the Texas Education Agency.  Forgive my rages.) 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4559 alt.rush-limbaugh:3670
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: My religion is great, yours is Bullshit
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:16:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:


>	I was interested to hear Rush poking fun at an Ill. state prisoner
>who is suing the state, claiming that the state has denied his him religous
>freedom. I would expect Rush to be a staunch defender of the indivuals
>rights, claiming family values and all that. After all, if family values
>and a christian education can save the country, then religion should 
>certainly be favorable in a prison environment.

>	I guess family values only includes the cool religions.

	Rush had stated on previous occasions that he believes that religion
must subordinate itself to the laws of the state. (The case of the Indians and
peyote (sp?) comes to mind.)  This prisoner was suing on the grounds that the
prison was not permitting him to worship in the nude, a violation of prison
regulations, if not decency laws.  It was not an evaluation of religion per
se.

-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: The "Dittohead" Label (Re: Tax Fairness)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:33:50 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>And for what it's worth, I seriously try to be a gentleman and avoid calling
>people names...  If I do not succeed, I certainly apologize!  However, there
>is a HUGE difference between name calling and labeling someone.  And if I,
>for example, mention the derogatory (<- subtle humor, folks) Liberal - it
>is a label of significant description.  If the shoe fits, wear it.  And DEFEND
>your position.  Name calling gets ME nowhere...

    I *do* defend *my* positions. Yet, though I consider myself to be 
fairly liberal, you may have noticed that my positions are not always those 
of the mainstream Democratic party. Thus when I hear you or Rush offering 
your most recent portrayal of the liberal agenda, I don't always feel 
compelled to jump up and defend it because your version of liberalism is 
not the same as my version. I have disagreements with my political allies
in the same way I'm sure that you have them with your allies. Thus when you 
make a claim about how liberals believe X, you'll find that some liberals 
really do believe that, but the rest probably think that you have distorted 
or misunderstood that position in order to make a point. That's the aspect 
of name-calling that *really* gets you nowhere, when you try to apply the 
name to a bunch of people to whom the name doesn't stick.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh