HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Dump the Democratic Congress( was Re: The end of the Reagan Era)
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:59:59 GMT
 <1992Nov03.161142.1261@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Nov03.161142.1261@NeoSoft.com>, Doug Andersen writes:

> In article <uQnVr*re1@caleb.UUCP>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> > I suspect that most of them weren't millionaires when they first went to
> > Congress.
> > 
> > Remember Speaker Jim Wright?  He was a school teacher before he went to Congress.
> > When he left (in some disgrace), he was very wealthy.
>  
> I'm sure there are some Congressmen who made some decent money by using
> their campaign contributions, but to pretend that most got rich in 
> Congress is pretty intellectually dishonest.

Oh give me a break!  Compared to the average guy, almost ALL Congressmen are
wealthy.  Many were NOT wealthy before they went there.  I think that YOU are
being "intellectually dishonest" here.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Blockades
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:49:11 GMT

  Actually, I see a great deal of merit in the -idea- of "accepted rules
or warfare"; until we can convince everybody to stop fighting (don't hold
your breath!), establishing a principle that certain actions (e.g. wanton
abuse of noncombatants) is likely to yield extra punishment if you lose the
war does at least -some- good.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
Subject: Re: Blockades
Date: 21 Nov 1992 01:01:33 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Nov19.211207.4176@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov19.171602.2772@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
|> >International law? If a blockade is declared, you enter a blockade zone at your
|> >own risk. I believe there were instances where US ships were turned back from
|> >Germany in the early stages of the war. I do not know of any instance of a 
|> >US ship attempting to run the blockade. 
|> >
|> >What the Germans did that was fundamentally different from what most nations at
|> >the time were doing (though it would be copied later) was declare "unrestricted
|> >submarine" warfare. ANY traffic thought to bound for Britain and later the
|> >USSR was subject to attack without warning. Surface blockades are much more
|> >limited, and involve a warning to otherwise neutral shipping. They do not,
|> >however, necessarily appear to be less effective.
|> 
|> I disagree.  Surface blockades are less effective when you don't have
|> a surface blockadable fleet.  In World War I, German submarines attempted
|> to follow the "standard" procedures for a blockade, would surface, ask
|> for the ship to turn back, and then find their submarine being rammed by
|> the ship in question.  A submarine can be challenged.  A more conventional
|> ship can't.

Then they had an ineffective blockade because they were using an
inappropriate weapon.   Then there are two responses:

    1.	We'll find an appropriate weapon that we can use legally.

    2.	We'll just have to use our ineffective weapon illegally
	to make it more effective.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:20:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.141939.18483@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> I presume that you mean that oil has a relatively high price
> elasticity of demand when you say it is "economically elastic" (or
 
Yes, I'm talking about elasticity of demand. 
 
> Of course they aren't keeping the price of oil low out of the kindness
> of their hearst!  Who said they were?  They keep (and kept) it low out
> of ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST, because they needed us as friends.
 
And I'm arguing that they keep the price of oil low because they think
that's where they can maximize their profits.
 
> Secondly, Saudi Arabia hardly needs to "control" OPEC to drive down
> the price of oil on the spot markets or in delivery contracts.  This
> is why cartels don't work as well as they could, after all -- nobody
> CONTROLS them as an individual; everyone is out for their own good,
> and one or two members 'breaking' can keep the cartel from being too
> effective. 
 
That's right.  But Saudi Arabia obviously favors OPEC.  If SA wanted
higher production than any of the other members of OPEC, it would
obviously make sense for them to get out of OPEC since its unlikely that
other countries would sell cheaper.
 
> That turns out not to be the case.  If you study the records of the
> OPEC meetings, you will find that Saudi Arabia is invariably the
> member pushing for higher production.  In point of fact, it is well
> known (it was even in the newspapers) that several years ago when
> there was another attempt to squeeze the oil supply, that Saudi Arabia
> was selling us large quantities of oil at below the cartel price.
 
Yes, I'm aware of that.  But there is a very good economic advantage to
selling below the set price.  You don't need to bring factors like "good
will" into the equation.  
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN
Summary: The Willie Horton ads were fair.
Keywords: Willie Horton
Date: 22 Nov 92 06:04:21 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Nov13.201048.20903@news.nd.edu>
wlamonac@larson.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca) writes:
<In article <1119@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
<>In article <1992Oct25.174415.5558@leela.cs.orst.edu>
<>chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
<>>the cynical road is to assume most people don't even know how often Willie
<>>Horton-types are furloughed, and play it up, giving voters the impression
<>>that furloughs are some hideous plan cooked up by Michael Dukakis.
<>>It's crap.

As I pointed out below, the above is wrong: "Willie Horton-types" were only
ever furloughed in MA.

<>A. Only in MA could a person convicted of murder and sentence to life
<>without possibility of parole be let out for the weekend, as Willie Horton
<>was.
<>
<>B. Michael Dukakis signed his furlough.
<>
<>C. Michael Dukakis didn't sign MA's furlough plan into law, but he was on
<>record as supporting it (including as I understand it, by vetoing a bill to
<>change it, but I can't confirm that).
<>
<>In otherwords, it was a legitimate issue, and the ads were fair.  Sorry.
<
<Wrong!

What was wrong?  The only thing I said that is even arguable is that the
ads were fair.  I still contend they were.

<Most states (~45 or so) have furloughs.

True (and I think most people know that), but MA's was different than all
the rest.  Only in MA could Willie Horton have been furloughed (the law has
been changed, so it couldn't happen now, even in MA).

<In fact while Ronald Reagan was governor of California he furloughed two
<convicted murderers who then killed again while out on furlough.

I don't think that is correct.  I don't remember the details, but it wasn't
a convicted murder that was furloughed and killed, but a rapist or some
such.  And I only remember one case.

<In interest of fairness, George Bush should have brought that fact up too.

What rubbish.  Ronald Reagan wasn't running for office then.  And it is
hardly as if the Democrats bring up all the relevant facts in their
campaign ads.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:23:14 GMT

In <Bxtu6E.J30@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.144224.15439@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Nothing makes me think they do NOW.  Wouldn't YOU expect some changes
>> if we did away with bankruptcy protection?  I sure would.
> 
>Whether a company is worth more split up or whole has nothing to do with
>bankruptcy protection.  Besides, I suggested reforming the system, not
>doing away with it.

You lost me on that last turn.  Where'd this "worth more split up or
whole" bit come from?  Anyway, just how do you 'reform' the system
while preventing companies operating under bankruptcy protection from
competing with those who are not?  If they can't compete in the
marketplace, they aren't ever going to come out of bankruptcy.

> 
>> And just how many years running have the auto industry and the airline
>> industry been losing money?  What I am saying is not analogous to what
>> you claim at all, unless you can point to half a dozen or more years
>> in a row where there were huge losses in the auto industry as a whole.
>> 
>> [And the auto industry in this country IS in trouble -- did that
>> escape your notice?]
> 
>Fred, you haven't pointed out any huge losses in any industry because 
>you haven't contributed a single data point to this discussion.  You've
>only made assertions.

I've provided as many as you have, Doug, which is none.  Oh, you've
cited individual companies that were making some money, but you
haven't given any figures for the overall industries, either.  You've
simple tried to assert that since one company is making money that the
industry as a whole must be healthy.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24276 alt.politics.clinton:17690
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:02:36 GMT

In <Bxu4n5.2F0@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.171038.21117@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>>[to JFHII]
>>: I think it's high time you pulled your head out of your ass and
>>: started thinking instead of being what you are.  

>>YOU could do some head-pulling yourself.  JFH posts 100% from home.  He owns
>>rpp386, and runs his own feed.

>	And I need to pull _my_ head out of my ass. (Is is okay to flame 
>myself?).

No, it isn't.  When you do that, you deprive everyone else of a target
and everyone gets frustrated!  ;-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24139 talk.politics.misc:60901
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again
Date: 19 Nov 1992 17:45:22 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

There is a simple reason for "liberal" media bias.  The mainstream
national media lives in cities. Cities are almost never conservative.
Tolerance is a necessity in the city - without it, the city falls
apart.

In cities, you have millions of people of a wide variety of
races, religions, sexual orientations, and political beliefs.
Minority groups of any sort can band together to protect
their rights when their rights are threatened, or when they
realize that they have never been granted rights.

This is true, of course, only for the national media.  Local
media tends to be far more conservative.

Before the LA riots, President Bush had never talked to the mayors
of LA, Chicago, or New York.  Ignoring the cities and handing
over your party's convention to people preaching intolerance
is a good way to lose the attentions of those who live in
the cities, including members of the national press.

The fact is, in this election, even the right's commentators
had turned against Bush.  George Will and William Safire are the most
noted examples.  This was significant.
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:42:24 GMT

In <BxM6xv.B9I@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.144603.1361@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Propose how you think they should work.  How do you provide a company
>> the chance to return to profitability without letting them compete?
>> Or do you simply break them up, fire everyone, and sell off the
>> pieces?  That would probably work great for the folks buying up the
>> pieces, but you'd quickly see the industry drive itself into the
>> ground until there were only one or two providers left.
> 
>Anyway, what makes you think most bankrupt companies get broken up? 
>Continental was attractive enough to have at least two companies bidding
>on it. 

Nothing makes me think they do NOW.  Wouldn't YOU expect some changes
if we did away with bankruptcy protection?  I sure would.

> 
>> This situation is analogous to claiming that the auto industry in this
>> country has been profitable for the past several years because you can
>> point to Chrysler making money this year.  Given the HUGE losses by
>> both GM and Ford, the industry is still a money loser.  It works the
>> same way for the airlines.
> 
>And what you are saying is analogous to saying that since US auto makers
>are losing money now, the industry is going down the tubes and never makes
>any money.

And just how many years running have the auto industry and the airline
industry been losing money?  What I am saying is not analogous to what
you claim at all, unless you can point to half a dozen or more years
in a row where there were huge losses in the auto industry as a whole.

[And the auto industry in this country IS in trouble -- did that
escape your notice?]

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,soc.history
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:28:18 GMT

thf2@midway.uchicago.edu (ted frank) writes:
>thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
>>If there is anybody out there who has not been to the Vietnam Memorial,
>>I recommend it.  I am too young to have known anybody who died in
>>Vietnam, but the wall brought tears to my eyes anyway.
>...
>It's a good thing Ross Perot didn't have his way.  He fought kicking
>and screaming against having an Asian woman design the memorial, even
>to the point of having the members of the memorial selection committee 
>followed.

I also find it fascinating that Ross Perot and friends led the fight to
erect the "more fitting" statue of three soldiers near the reviled Wall.
Today, the statue interests few but the Wall moves one and all.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24140 talk.politics.misc:60905
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:04:11 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

Regarding the New Republic:

The only questionable articles that appeared in TNR during the campaign
were those written by Sidney Blumethal.  He wrote a long sequence of
hatchet jobs on various opponents of Bill Clinton.  When I read the
attack on Tsongas during the primary, it was clear what Blumenthal
was trying to do;  his attack against Tsongas basically amounted to
calling him a sanctimonious and arrogant Puritan.  This was clearly
with the goal of painting the opposite of Clinton's negatives as
a negative.  Obviously, nobody was ever going to call Clinton
a Puritan.  A very odd article.

During the regular campaign, Blumenthal went after Bush and Perot
with his hatchet.  It was Blumenthal who attacked Bush's "heroic
WWII" image with contradictions in his own story - perhaps as
a reminder that any story, when examined under a microscope,
can look like a scandal.  He also was relentless in smearing
Perot.

The rest of TNRs coverage still included the unrepentant Bush-supporter
Fred Barnes, and articles which portrayed Perot in a more
positive light.  There were almost no commentaries further to
left than Michael Kinsley.  (Does anybody else find it odd that
CNNs Crossfire had Michael Kinsley on the left and Pat Buchanan
on the right?  If you wanted to get somebody as far left as
Buchanan is right, you probably would have to search in
the staff of The Nation or Mother Jones or the likes...) 

The fact that a magazine had openly stated it's bias is refreshing.
After all, do we really think the National Review isn't biased?
The New Republic has been pushing the members of the Democratic
Leadership Council for a while now, and they endorsed Dukakis,
so I was not surprised that they gave space to plently of Clinton
supporters.  Still, the magazine did include alternate opinions,
something which will be rarely found outside of the letters pages
in The National Review or The Nation.

--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23918 talk.politics.misc:60384 tx.politics:7377
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:10:38 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
[to JFHII]
: I think it's high time you pulled your head out of your ass and
: started thinking instead of being what you are.  
: 
: And how did you explain YOUR posting volume of the past, which you
: lowered not because of WORK, but because of a pregnant wife?  Maybe
: YOU spend all your time at work posting stuff, but my postings are
: 99%+ from HOME.

YOU could do some head-pulling yourself.  JFH posts 100% from home.  He owns
rpp386, and runs his own feed.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
    "Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age" -- TMBG   "I Palindrome I"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:02:21 GMT

jbp@rti.rti.org writes:
>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>I also find it fascinating that Ross Perot and friends led the fight to
>>erect the "more fitting" statue of three soldiers near the reviled Wall.
>>Today, the statue interests few but the Wall moves one and all.
>
>Speak for yourself.  I think that statue perfectly summarizes the
>whole war and find it one of the most moving statues I have ever seen
>in my life.  

Actually, I like the statue too but the fact remains that the wall
is THE fantasmagorical part of the memorial. Nothing wrong with it
at all, Ross baby -- thank you anyways.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24124 talk.politics.misc:60870
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:52:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Nov15.143913.15262@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Perhaps, but if they had a huge, overpowering military, you don't
> think they would use it?  Oh, maybe nothing quite so crass as a direct
> invasion, but use it nonetheless?
 
I think the Saudi's are big proponents of stability.  Unlike most of their
neighbors (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon) they've been fairly peaceful.
 
> Well, not necessarily, because there is more to Saudi Arabias wants
> and needs than monetary profits from oil.
 
Oil, like most products, is economically elastic.  First of all, I don't 
believe that SA is keeping oil prices low out of the kindness of their
hearts.  Second, while SA is a strong influence, it does not control OPEC.
 
> Well, nothing is forever, but if you string together a lot of 'short
> term' things you get a somewhat longer term, after all.  It would be
> naive in the extreme to expect ANYTHING to last forever; hell, how
> much have the French gotten back for their assistance in our
> Revolution?  But then, they didn't interfere for 'rewards'; they
> interfered for their own purpospues.  Just like we do.
 
Fred, there simply isn't any evidence that SA is holding down oil prices 
to keep the U.S. happy.  If they were so interested in keeping us happy
they'd sign a peace accord with Israel or stop funding terrorist groups.
I think SA understands that oil shocks just push countries into increasing
their oil efficiency and looking toward alternative energy sources.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Re: Further proof that Clinton is bad for U.S.
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:19:16 GMT

In article <DOEL.92Nov20125839@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>
>As if we needed it, we finally have convincing proof that the Clinton's
>represent a very disturbing change at the top.  We no longer have a White
>House dog.  Instead, we're getting a damn cat.  I was all ready to give
>Clinton the benefit of the doubt on the issues, but once he showed
>favoritism for cats over dogs, well, he just killed his support from this
>citizen.
>
>I'll be he likes the designated hitter rule & artificial turf too!
>
>:-) for humor impaired
>
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>

Yup.  And I betcha he don't like pork rinds or pitching horseshoes
(without they're English-style).  Can't trust them Arkies.

nm


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc