HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: GOP Cowardice at Penn State and Elsewhere
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:24:04 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

David Veal) writes:
|> => 
|> =>  Son, this time Bush is not running against Dukakis. Sorry to let you know
|> =>that.
|> 
|>      Bush isn't running against Dukakis in the same way that Clinton
|> isn't running against Reagan.
|> 
I think this deserves the "stretch of the day" award.  Last time I checked,
Dukakis had not served 8 years as president setting a national agenda,
and leaving his partner in crime (i mean office) to carry on his work.
I can't think of any similarities other than the fact that Clinton and
Reagan were in separate parties as are Bush and Dukakis.

Clinton running against Dewey would be a better analogy.  And a waste
of resources.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 13:38:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.235319.4749@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.165944.10756@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.202926.21348@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>>|> In article <1992Sep30.094011.1440@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>
>>    To me, the deficit is just not that much of a problem.
>>
>>Let's analyze this statement.  Either this person is quite wealthy,
>>planning to move out of the country, or (I really hate to say this) is
>>quite old. (explanation: My grandmother is not concerned about the
>>deficit either.  I figure she thinks she will die before they come to
>>take her Social Security checks away from her).
>
>Wrong, wrong, and wrong.  DEFINITELY not wealthy, not planning
>to move (what, and leave all this rain?), and not especially
>old (OK OK I'm FORTY, are you HAPPY?! *sob, boo hoo*).
>
>The context of my quotation about the deficit was that
>of HRP's severe plans to eliminate the federal budget deficit.
>My point was that the deficit as it now stands is not 
>as disastrous as HRP's plans to end it.
>
>There is nothing inherently wrong with a deficit; it
>depends upon how the deficit is funded and what the
>money is spent on.
>
>The deficit has been used as an all-purpose gobblin by
>all political parties for many years.  Remember back 
>in the late 1970's, when that free-spending Jimmy Carter
>ran up budget deficits as large as $40 billion (gasp!).
>The message we were given over and over and over again
>was that the double-digit inflation currently going
>on was a direct result of the federal deficit.
>Ronnie Reagan's campaign in 1980 was (partly) based
>on the notion that if you balance the budget then
>more capital would be freed up for the private
>sector and good times would roll.  Well, after a few
>bad years the economy did improve somewhat, the price
>inflation rate did go down; but this happened when
>budget deficits reached record highs.
>
>Clearly, the relationship between federal budget
>deficits and <X>, where <X> is any social / economic
>malady, is complicated.
>
>I could provide some references to back this up,
>but I'm not in graduate school anymore.
>
>>
>>Of course, the person who said this could just be kidding?
>>
>>Yeah, that's gotta be it.
>>
>>Doug
>>
>
>No kidding.  
>
Well, unless you can find me some references, or something more
substantial to back up your statements I don't think you have many valid
points.  Curing the deficit, actually not just the deficit but the DEBT,
may not fix the economy.  I agree they are seperate issues.  But they
BOTH need to be addressed in a way which shows a course of action which
will work,IMHO.

Doug>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy)
Subject: Colorado ballot proposition
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:17:21 GMT

Here in Oregon there is a really noxious ballot measure known
as Ballot measure 9 which makes discrimination against gays
_mandatory_.  I heard that Colorado had a similar thing on the
ballot and I would like more information.


-- 
Michael Sandy
michaels@m2xenix.psg.com
"No Blood for Oil!" ?  But Blood is a renewable resource, Oil isn't!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Economic Questions
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:54:51 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Stupendous Man writes:
>
>	Can't speak for the Bushies, but no Democrat seems to be able to cope
>with the fact that Mr. Reagan provided the biggest peacetime expansion in
>history.
>	Mr. Bush is no Ronald Reagan.
>

I don't think anyone will discount the growth. I actually can't remember
anyone doing this, so this is a straw dog. Most Democrats point out the
rather unfair nature of the expansion, and dispute the link between a 
teensy rise in gross wages and an actual increase in the wealth of the
lower classes: if your schools and neighborhoods are going to hell,
are you better off now if you make some teensy dollar amount more?
Also what people dispute is the long term salutary nature of the cost of 
this expansion. Quadrupling the debt etc. _AND_ Reagan had a working majority 
in Congress for all of his first term. Had he wanted to submit a balanced 
budget it would have had clear sailing. So, the economic questions remain:
did the tax cuts do the trick or simply unbridled, nominally-discredited-
by-Republicans, Keyenesian stimulation? Plus, Reagan's unwillingness to
close the deficit (didn't want to kill the boom) takes some of the 
lustre off of his expansion. It's the current addiction to "pain free"
economics that is Reagan's lasting legacy. 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:32:17 GMT

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>>>       Well, for your information, (and I know this might shock you)
>>> I am NOT the only person in the world who stands up for the right to
>>> live. 

>> I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
>> on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
>> the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
>> an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.

>         Stupid lady.

john peter wagner, you appear to have fallen 'way behind on your
evolutionary path.  Kindly crawl under a rock and resume where
you left off.

In other words, FOAEvolve!

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48727 alt.rush-limbaugh:6262 alt.politics.bush:7271 alt.politics.clinton:7909 alt.politics.elections:14718 talk.abortion:39569 alt.sex:31410
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:17:22 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep24.015639.28562@news.acns.nwu.edu>, an exceptionally
stupid person posting as dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) wrote:
> 
> I have yet to see anyone on the pro-abort side say word one about adoption.

You would certainly do well to learn to read, in that case.

> I tend to believe that sex needs a deterent...

...and you're just the man for the job, eh?

I can just picture you, skulking in the woods in Evanston, setting off
firecrackers underneath cars parked in out-of-the-way spots.

> So we aren't likely to see adoption mentioned.  Fine.  My aunt and uncle 
> have been waiting 2 years to adopt and the list gets longer behind them.

I assume that your aunt and uncle have specified that they want a _white_
child without birth defects.  Invite them to broaden their standards. 
Their wait will shorten appreciably.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: Motorola Panther Project, Chandler, AZ
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:51:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.155015.16932@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.232325.22775@panther.mot.com> ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen) writes:
>
>>*side note*  In AZ this week a 16 year old high-school student was given a 5 day
>>suspension for passing out KKK literature/membership cards.  The KKK 
>>asked THE ACLU!!!!! for assistance.  They felt the boys civil rights where
>>violated.  Don't you love it when the KKK asks the ACLU to make sure they
>>have the civil right to promote the denial of the civil rights of non- whites!
>
>They do, though. The ACLU has taken such cases before, and was right to
>do so. You can't play the same kind of tricks the Klan themselves do, and
>take away the legal rights of anyone you don't like... no matter how
>justified that dislike may be.
>
>>Ron Feigen
>>ronf@panther.mot.com
>
>	-Nora
>-- 
>"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."
>

Nora,

  I didn't say they (ACLU) shoudn't take the case.  You are correct, they should.
However it always burns me (I am from Skokie IL, remember the Nazi march in the
later 70's), when these "group" go to the ACLU (whom they hate) to get them to
protect the same rights they wish to deny others!!  In fact if given their way
they would deny the ACLU the right of free speach (probably much more).


-- 

>
Ron Feigen
ronf@panther.mot.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49690 alt.politics.perot:1876 alt.politics.elections:15263
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Perot DONATED land for FW airport.
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:32:06 GMT
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Oct5.174833.3537@sequent.com>, jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say Noe" Kramer) writes:
|> On a slight tangent, there was an interesting article on Perot in the
|> Oregonian (yes, that bastion of journalism) that went in to some details
|> of Perots' highly successful business dealings. One of them smacks of
|> hypocrisy. This was one about how he successfully lobbied for the FAA to
|> approve the building of an airport in Texas. It just happened to be close to
|> some 17,000 acres of Perot owned land. Strange that once approval was 
|> granted, the saleable value of the land doubled? 
|> 
|> If this article is correct, then isn't this surely an prime example of
|> the special interests that HRP complains about, the same ones that control
|> the Government? In this, some $200 million of Federal money was invested
|> in the project, adding further to national debt.
|> 
|> Can anyone explain this somewhat extraordinary set of contradictions?
|> 

At the request of then president Reagen, Perot DONATED the land on which the
airport was to be built to the federal government.  He subdivided a larger
property to do this, so of course he has land adjacent.  This issue was covered
pretty well in the Fort Worth Star Telegram last spring by a now-famous
female reporter whose name escapes me at the moment (Molly Ivans?).  

As you so clearly stated, this airport was/is an investment by the federal
government into "infrastructure."  The term investment implies an expenditure
intended to net positive return over some period of time.  Anyone in Fort
Worth care to ellaborate on how this investment has affected the local economy,
possibly offsetting the loss of defense industry jobs?  

Wouldn't it be interesting if Perot created more private sector jobs by
this than Bush has in the last four years?  (Under Bush, this number went down, 
so I created more jobs than Bush too ;^)  .
 
BTW,  I think this group already had an active debate on this topic.  Anyone
care to post an (unbiased) summary?


-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot to be on CNN 9/28 Larry King 9pm, live from Dallas
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:59:15 GMT

In article <BvAFsu.F8G@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1a1op9INN30v@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
>>
>>   Peter, your other responses I won't even bother responding to, but:
>
>  ( these were the charges that the Consumer's Union, publisher of 
>    Consumer Reports is owned by a Japanese Corporation)  Of course
>    you won't respond to this, because you can't!
>

So what?  The real question is does the publisher have any editorial
authority over the contents of the magazine.  Do you have any proof
of this, one way or the other?

Dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: case@infonode.ingr.com (Bill Case)
Subject: Brer Bush and the hide-away thicket
Keywords: Brer Willy and the tar baby economy
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:32:54 GMT

I used to wonder why Brer Bush would ever want a second term.
Then I wondered why he would stick with a VP who has been lampooned
beyond redemption.  Why wouldn't Bush replace Quayle,  or guit  being
photographed at the golf course?  Why has he not made a speech that
doesn't sound like a Dana Carvey impersonation?  And Quayle speeches...
well,  "good grief!"

I now think his pleas to not throw the Republicans into the thicket sounds 
sorta familiar.  Could it be that economic Armegeddon is a known,  and this 
is all orchestrated to make damn sure the demo's are sitting in the hot seat,
holding the baton of blame when it all comes down?  

Maybe they don't want to screwup and win!

Bill "and it comes with easy payments of two gadzillion bucks a month" Case
...uunet!ingr!b11!casey!case    (UUCP)
case@ingr.com		        (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:27:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.070843.14122@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>
>  Term Limits are Constitutional, Study Shows
>

George Will's new book _Restoration_ discusses the Constitutionality
issue in some detail, including some references to the fact that the
original Articles of Confederation had a term-limits provision. Will
uses this fact to help support the idea that the framers were, at the
very least, not *opposed* to term limits.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 10:05:03 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <9469@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In <1992Oct5.165241.850@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> 
|> In article <Hp3-g8B@engin.umich.eduJH:, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct3.133846.9484@aio.jsc.nasa.govJH:, walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker) writes:
|> DW: There are several issues related to the deficit and debt that are rarely
|> DW: discussed, and yet are very important.  The first is level of debt.
|> DW: Debt by itself is not a problem, it is the amount of debt relative
|> DW: to your income that can create a problem.  If you earn $20,000/year,
|> DW: it would probably be unwise to purchase a $400,000 house.  However,
|> DW: if you earn $200,000, the mortgage on the $400,000 house isn't so bad.
|> DW: For the U.S. the important thing is what is the ratio of debt to GNP.
|> 
|> JH:    WRONG!  WRONG!  WRONG!
|> 
|> JH:    GNP is not the governments income.  Governments income comes from
|> JH:    taxes, tarrifs and the like.  Unless of course you find a 100% tax
|> JH:    rate acceptable.
|> 

Watch your attributions.  I (the JH, above) made the comment about
debt as a percentage of GNP, Doug Walker (DW) made the 'WRONG WRONG WRONG'
comment.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR ROSS PEROT!
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:45:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct1.011128.1473@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>> I'm not American, I object to Perots demand for Europe and Asia to pay $200
>> billion a year tribute to pay for US overspending.
>
>  If you don't want American troops on your shores, Phill, tell your lawmakers
>to send them back.  If they need us that badly, they should have to pay for our
>services.


   No, no, no.   They are *US* troops, not some mercenaries from
   _Soldier of Fortune_.   Their presence overseas requires US
   policy.   They should only be there if they are serving US interests,
   in which case why should foreign nations pay us?   Nations can *ask*
   us to station troops on their soil but we don't have to comply.  Why
   doesn't Perot want them to just come home PERIOD?  


---peter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.headlines
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 07:40:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>	To some women, pregnancy is a wonderful thing - the creation of
>life - something sacred. To others it is an inconvenience. 

And to others, it is life-threatening, and can destroy their financial,
social, and planned futures.  The freedom of women to grow in this
society is tied directly to their freedom to choose where their lives
will go, on an individual basis.

>			Bruce

.....jeff

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Letter to Ross: Contract to Recall.
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 12:19:55 GMT

In article <01GP70F05Z40000Y1H@utarlg.uta.edu>, B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN
TICE) writes:

|>                    = How Everyone Can Be involved =
|>
|>        (copy of handwritten correspondence sent to Ross Perot)

Pretentious chappie eh? Perhaps I should post the correspondence I have with
politico types. Question is not what one writes to politicoes but whether they
reply.

|>        Need you to publically agree to a legally binding contract
|>        to submit to =Recall= when elected. The recall option
|>        if ever needed, would be put in effect by general consensus
|>        through mail-in "votes."

There could be no binding contract in US law with the constitution written as it
is at present.


|>        We'll negotiate the terms collectively, but tentatively:
|>        1. supermajority concurrence sufficient for ousting/resignation
|>        2. =ANY= citizen or resident may participate
|>        3. you fund the count and authentication, if you're ousted

Ah a line to ensure that nobody who is not a billionaire can ever again stand
for President. How about Ross prommissing to make up the buidget deficit out of
his own pocket if he fails to close it during his term?


|>        Most importantly, by being open to =everyone= in America,
|>        it does more to overcome "alienation" than any other gesture.
|>        Kids and Foreign Nationals included.

Good heavens! Tice offering me a vote in the US. Err no thanks old chap, like
the New York marathon I prefer to speculate than participate.

Ps just come back from a conference where amongst other things we discussed the
SSC data aquisition system. The consensus was that its a problem we can solve
with no significant difficulties using todays technology.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker