HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:51:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.224143.1745@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>Sorry to jump in the middle but...  Deregulation is not the major cause
>>behind the S&L problem.  The devaluation of real estate due to the 1986
>>federal tax law changes is the instigating and sustaining cause.  The
>>S&Ls, like ordinary citizens, saw real estate as a good investment for
>>a myriad of reasons.  Unfortunately, the Democrats saw people succeding
>>and put an end to that.  More unfortunate is that ReagAn signed the dang
>>bill, for that he deserves derision but not for deregulation per se.
>
>Wow, what a statement.
>
>Could it possibly be that real estate devalued simply because it had
>become overpriced?  Nah, too simple, must be a Democratic conspiracy 
>to impoverish this country.

Not to impoverish the country, to transfer wealth from those who worked
for it to those who have been convinced they have a right (entitlement)
to it.  That's another argument.

I liked your train of thought on the cause of the S&L failure and neither
of us can estimate what portion of the problem each item caused.  However,
your entire well thought out scenario failed to even mention the tax law
change devaluating real estate, why?

This tax law, you must admit, did effect real estate and not just for 
S&Ls but for everyone.  An abrupt change in the environment of any
animal can cause extinction and similarly the abrupt change in the
environment of S&Ls and citizen investors in real estate is the cause
of this recession (in concert with the largest tax increase ever in 91).
>
>This is the scenario.  
>
> 1 through 6 deleted but nice stuff.
>
>IMHO, the devaluation of real estate was a correction from the inflated
>values of the mid-'80's.  S&L's failed because they took unwise (20/20
>hindsight) risks.  And with federal insurance, we are left holding the
>bag.
>
I submit that the investments were unwise because Congress can't keep 
their hands off the tax code, now why is that?  (talk about corrupt
behavior, driven by money! You'd think it was a Republican controlled
House of Reps).   The S&Ls should have known better than to invest in
anything because if it's big enough for the Congress to get wind of...

Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Public Apology
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:49:36 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Jul23.084426.14546@walter.cray.com> toma@cray.com (Thomas Arneberg) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.144106.15273@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>===============================================================================
>>William Crosmun
>>crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com
>>===============================================================================
>>"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
>>... the  government  runs  into a  probable loss.  We  do not wish to make the 
>>United  States Government liable  for the  mistakes and  errors of  individual
>>banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
>>                                      Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
>>===============================================================================
>
>Wow, what a quote! Obviously, FDR was 100% right -- the S&L fiasco today is
>due to the government's guarantees.
>
>But wasn't it FDR's "New Deal" that got those guarantees going? If so, it
>doesn't make sense that he would do something that he knows will result in
>a "probable loss." History is not my strong point, so please straighten me
>out if necessary.
>
>Thanks,
>  - Tom A.

Yes, the guranteeing of bank deposits began during the New Deal, so obviously
FDR became more "enlightened" later in his term.  The S&L fiasco wouldn't be
so bad except for two things. 1) the increase in the guarantee from 10,000 to
100,000 dollars - For this you can thank Fernand St. Germain (Democrat), head
of the house banking committee who engineered it. 2) The deregulation of the 
banking industry was half-assed.  Either deregulate and eliminate the 
guarantee, or keep the guarantee and the regulation.  Eliminating the 
regulation and keeping the guarantee was begging for trouble, which was promptly
delivered.  For this you can also thank the incompetents in Congress who
either can't or won't understand the consequences of the laws they pass. 



William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
Life is a mystery and it's an unsolvable one.  You simply live it through, and,
as you draw your last breath you say "What was that all about?"
                                                          - Marlon Brando
===============================================================================
"The computer industry is journalists in their 20s standing in awe of 
entrepreneurs in their 30s who are hiring salesmen in their 40s and 50s and 
paying them in the 60s and 70s to bring their marketing into the 80s."
                                      - public relations wizard Marty Winston
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:41:43 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>Sorry to jump in the middle but...  Deregulation is not the major cause
>behind the S&L problem.  The devaluation of real estate due to the 1986
>federal tax law changes is the instigating and sustaining cause.  The
>S&Ls, like ordinary citizens, saw real estate as a good investment for
>a myriad of reasons.  Unfortunately, the Democrats saw people succeding
>and put an end to that.  More unfortunate is that ReagAn signed the dang
>bill, for that he deserves derision but not for deregulation per se.

Wow, what a statement.

Could it possibly be that real estate devalued simply because it had
become overpriced?  Nah, too simple, must be a Democratic conspiracy 
to impoverish this country.

This is the scenario.  
Correct me if I am wrong (as if you need permission |-)

1. OPEC doubles oil prices in the late '70's.  Inflation at 12%.  Interest
   rates at 20%.
2. S&L's having problems.  They are stuck with low-interest mortgages from
   the '50s and '60s and cannot pay high enough interest rates to keep
   depositors interested.
3. Reagan deregulation:  S&L's allowed to invest in riskier ventures.
   Interest rates lower, S&L's back in business.
4. Money freed up by deregulation fuels development boom.  Real estate
   values skyrocket as S&L's pump more and more money into riskier and
   riskier projects.
5. Banks and S&L's looking for more capital, convince the goverment to
   increase the deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000 per account.
6. Eventually, many areas overbuilt.  Office space values tumble due to
   too much supply.  S&L bailout fiasco begins.

IMHO, the devaluation of real estate was a correction from the inflated
values of the mid-'80's.  S&L's failed because they took unwise (20/20
hindsight) risks.  And with federal insurance, we are left holding the
bag.

There's too much blame here to lay it on one political party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:04:15 CDT


In article <1728@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> In article <nate.364@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>  - text deleted -
> > The growth of the budget deficit
> >was just as alarming and out-of-control under Reagon as it's been under
> >Bush.
> 
> If you index the yearly deficit as a percentage of GNP, it was going DOWN as 
> reagan left office. Congress's post reagan spending spree and the S and L
> bailout has caused the yearly deficit to increase substantially as a per-
> centage of GNP under Bush. 

                         1980              1989
                         ----              ----
GNP                     2,732.0          5,200.8
yearly deficit             73.0            152.0
% of GNP                  2.67%            2.92%

National Debt             907.7          2,857.4
% of GNP                  33.2%            54.9%

-------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES: (World Almanac, 1991)
GNP - US Commerce Dept.
deficit, National Debt - US Treasury Dept
-------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Intellectually Challenging moments in Modern history
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:00:30 GMT
Keywords: From: decay@

In article <1992Jul27.172042.297942@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

Just a few points:

>It may come as a surprise to you, but most people don't
>vote as single-issue voters on abortion.

You would never know this after watching the Democratic convention.  If
Clinton was not for abortion on demand what do you think his chances of
winning would have been?  My guess is that if both major parties had
platforms similar to the Republicans then a third party would have been
formed.  But this is just speculation on my part.

>Pathetic.  A woman's right to bodily autonomy should depend
>on geography, Schwartz?  

Well, Susan, lots of things in this country are geography dependent.
This is by design.  A major concern of our constitution is to guarantee the
rights of states (and within state constitutions the communities) to
make laws that best represent the populace within their boundaries.
Only issues surrounding the basic freedoms are to be left to the Federal
government to ensure equal treatment.  The Supreme Court has (at least
for the time being) only given this type of treatment to the first
trimester (Roe) and with the new ruling trimesters (given advancing
medical knowledge) have been dismissed as unworkable.   

We don't live in one big state but rather fifty different states with
different values and attitudes.  The constitution tries to safeguard
(again within a framework of basic rights) the rights of these citizens
to live in a world that reflects these values and attitudes.  The
government should be as close to the people as possible.  The only
question is whether abortion is a fundamental right.  Only a broad
interpretation would see it that way.  Nothing intrinsically wrong with
a broad interpretation but it certainly leaves much open to honest
argument.  

Tim
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Naked Gun 2.5
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:18:57 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

I just saw this movie for the third time - but the first in the last couple
of years (it seems).  Anyhow, I thouroughly enjoyed the comedy in the movie.

In particular, there was a scene where Leslie Nielson and Priscilla Presley
meet for the first time in years at a restaurant.  Nielson makes some comment
about how she had gone off and gotten involved in the movement to save the
endzone layer :)  Then he told her how he had spent his life savings to buy
100,000 acres of Brazilian Rain Forest and had cleared it all away so they
could build their dream house there.  He said "You think it's easy to move
whole tribes off your land?" :)  All great jokes.

And the scene took place in a restaurant that had the glummest (is that
a real word? :) atmosphere.  The singer was singing the blues, and the
pictures on the wall depicted great disasters of the last century -
the Hindenburg in flames, the Titanic sinking, and a picture of Mike
Dukakis :)  Additionally, there were many many jokes about how bad a shape
the democratic party was in - one even suggested the party was VERY close
to self-destruction.

Seeing how movies tend to reflect society at the time they are filmed,
this says a lot about how far the Dems have been able to rebound in a
short time.  It also shows how bad people felt about the party in general.
Boy do times change?  I say NOT.


--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:01:22 CDT


In article <1992Jul24.194217.18412@wuecl.wustl.edu>, dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter) writes:
> <1992Jul24.082924.17016@hemlock.cray.com> (Russ Anderson) :
> >> Hmmm...  If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
> >> support that decision too?
> 
> <Brwp1E.CMB@solbourne.com> (William Kucharski) writes:
> > I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.
> 
> I don't want to pick on Russ and William specifically here, but has
> anyone given any thought to how Dan Quayle's daughter might feel
> about being used in this way?

Has Dan Qualyle given any thought to how my wife (or future daughters)
might feel if forced to bear a child against her will?  This difference 
is that I'm not trying to force Dan's wife or daughter to do anything 
they do not want to.  

>                                   This is getting about as bad as the
> Dukakis debate question about someone attacking his wife.  I'm sure the 
> Quayles have gotten used to being treated as symbols rather than people, 
> but that doesn't mean it's right to continue.  Isn't there some
> other way we can discuss the VP's comments?

Sure.  Dan can keep the *HELL* out of my families decisions.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:00:51 GMT

paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil) writes:

>Of course Mrs. Quayle said her daughter would carry the baby to term...

The two were asked different questions.  The vice president was asked
about an adult daughter, and Mrs. Quayle was asked about a 13 year old
daughter.  

They both answered very consistently with their beliefs.  It
is not up to 13 year old to decide on matters such as this (of course
Mrs. Clinton would argue the opposite side even if the child were 5...).
And as far as the vice president is concerned, instead of making this
into a referendum of abortion, why not substitute the following question
and see how *you* would answer it?  "Would you support your daughter if
she make a terrible mistake and robbed a bank?"  

This has nothing to do with whether or not he agreed with her decision--just 
about strong family commitment and love.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
                        
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<LARRY.92Jul20092224@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> <Brpxz8.HGw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:21:02 GMT

In article <Brpxz8.HGw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
    [...]

   If Clinton gets in our lifestyle certainly will change.  How would you
   like to live in Arkansas for the rest of your life?

Could be worse, Tim. Like Texas. :-) (I'm smilin' when I said that,
partner!!)

You should have said WHEN Clinton gets in. I'm afraid the Repubs don't
have a snowball's chance in hell now...

	BZZZZzzzzzzZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz!! 

Oh, sorry. Oops. I seemed have triggered the "Gloat-o-Meter". (My congrats to
Rush for yet another Grand Entertainment concept! That guy kills me. I'll
remain a fan, no matter how much I disagree with Rush..)

Obviously, I don't agree with you Tim, about Clinton. I think he'll make a
good president. The Democratic Congress, well, I admit that they need
something (maybe horse whipped)..

But I do tend to agree with your comments [deleted, sorry] about the
investment in defeating world communism. For that, we all should be truly
grateful. I am.

Now if we had just finished off old Sodomy Insane when we had the chance,
I would have a lot better attitude about George. (I know, I know. No world
mandate, etc. But, it would have been the proper thing to do, instead of
just stomping the life out of several tens of thousands of poor Iraqi
solders. [My opinion. Death to Saddam. Instead of Death of Iraq.])

I'm sure Swarzkoff would be willing to do it, still.. Why don't we ask
him? Speaking of the General, it's too bad that we couldn't have
Bush/Swarzkoff running, or even Bush/Powell running for the Repub ticket.
I'd have trouble not voting for such a combo.

(I enjoyed your comments, Tim.)

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
I admit the deed! Tear up the planks! It is the beating of his hideous heart!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:05:04 GMT

While reading article <1992Jul31.041543.8655@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, I noticed that
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) said the following:
 >If abortion is murder,  then isn't murdering one's own family the most heinous
 >crime of all?   And Quayle would support her, even if she chose to commit
 >the heinous crime of family murder?

That silly family values stuff again.

Would I expect him to be very, very upset with her and just generally feel
disgust towards her?  Yes.

Would I expect him to still love her and pray for her and for her salvation?
Yes.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Carter & BCCI (was EQUITY and Barbara Jordon)
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 22:02:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.202937.22607@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> 
> 	I think that the big complaint about October Surprise was that
> no investagation was ever made. Various witnesses have appeared (with
> varying amounts of credability) and made accusations, most of which
> were only ivestigated superficially. It has been argued, more or less 
> sucessfully, that an investigation into October Surprise would be a waste
> of time and a political circus, so the whole thing looks DOA.
> 
> 	Iran-Contra, on the other hand, has resulted in several convictions, 
> and may result in more - it seem clear that laws were broken there. 
> Regardless of how one feels about the high cost of the investigation,
> several people have been convicted and jailed by juries, this isn't a
> question of proof.

Iran-Contra has resulted in maybe two convictions of essentially political
flunkies who lied to Congress.  All of the big names (North, Pondexter, Regan,
etc.) have either had their convictions overturned, not brought to trial due
to a lack of evidence, or are just now being brought to trial just under
the statue of limitations.  Not a very good track record after spending what
$100 million dollars now?  And this is after how many years?  Plus as far as
Bush is concerned, there has never been any talk of charging him under 
Iran-Contra, JUST LIKE CARTER NOT BEING CHARGED IN CONNECTION OF BCCI!

> 
> 	Carter and BCCI have been investigated quite throughly, and the
> probe continues, although Carter appears to be pronounced clean at this
> point. Unless dramatic new evidance appears, there is little reason to
> suspect that Carter did anything illegal, and even the ethics of the 
> situation are only vaguely suspect. There is no basis to claim that
> the Carter/BCCI connection has been ignored or covered up, as there 
> isn't anything left to sift through.
> 
>

My whole point from the very begining was that Carter was connected to BCCI
due to the sponsored travel and the large donation, AND HE KNEW IT, and not
that he did anything illegal, just unethical.
 
> 
> -- 
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
> 
> 					Alex Crain
> 					UMBC Academic Computing Services
> 
> 

Don Palmrose



========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Carter & BCCI (was EQUITY and Barbara Jordon)
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:19:55 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>My whole point from the very begining was that Carter was connected to BCCI
>>due to the sponsored travel and the large donation, AND HE KNEW IT, and not
>>that he did anything illegal, just unethical.

>       You said that. I'm just not clear on why the BCCI donation was 
>more unethical then, say, a big donation from Exxon.

    Or taking $2 million from the Japanese for a post presidential lecture
circuit (as Reagan did after leaving office)? Of course, we know the 
Japanese are far too honorable to try to curry favor with one of the most 
influential men in America by offering him a large lump sum of cash, but 
did Reagan's acceptance of their money also constitute unethical behavior?

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