HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:45:57 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

: |> To the best of my knowledge, there is no law requiring local cable systems
: |> to carry local TV stations.  The cable company must inform its customers
: |> if there are any non-low-power stations in the market that they do not
: |> carry, and if a customer so desires, the cable company must provide
: |> some sort of mechanism (an A/B switch, for example) to permit the
: |> customer to hook up his/her own antenna and receive that station off
: |> the air.  
: 
: This is stupid.  If a person wants both cable and regular TV, it should
: be up to them to provide their own A/B switch and to find out what else
: is available.  I see no rational reason why this should be the cable
: companies responsibility.  Now if the cable company wants to charge a
: fee for this service, I would have no problem with them providing it.

There is no rational reason.  Since when have FCC regs had anything
to do with rational reasons?  :)

: |> However, the cable company is not required by FCC regs to
: |> carry local stations.  Whether or not cable companies are required
: |> by their franchises/charters/whatevers with local governments to do so
: |> is a different matter.  :)
: 
: Haven't 'must carry' regulations been ruled unconstitutional in a
: lower court?

I don't know about that, but the condition I imply in my last quoted
sentence has not much to do with regulations.  I was suggesting
'must carry' contract terms with the local government, not 'must
carry' regulations.  It's a minor difference, but if such regs
have been ruled unconstitutional, then it's an important difference.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10453 tx.politics:6053
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:55:38 GMT
 <1992Oct13.152023.1550@NeoSoft.com> <21713@rpp386.lonestar.org>
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <21713@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.152023.1550@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
>>Thanks John, I'm well aware of the financial calculations.  What you don't
>>note is that the longer the period to maturity, the less sensitive the
>>bond is to interest rate changes.  ...
>
> The problem with the current national debt is that it is so high that
> a rise in interest rates to Carter levels will make the interest
> payments so large that the deficit will skyrocket out of control.  We
> can't afford Bill Clinton pretending he is Jimmy Carter and Lyndon
> Johnson all at the same time.

	John, with this I heartily agree.  Clinton is already wanting to 
add several new programs (which supposedly won't increase spending, how's
that work?)  Does he really think that government subsidy of health care 
works (like in Canada?) and that "Health Care is a RIGHT, not a privilege".
Gee, don't recall seeing that in the Constitution in my government class...

	About 50% of the current budget is for Medicare/Medicaid and other
social programs.  People complain about Bush's throwing all this money at the
drug war will little effect.  Well, folks, even MORE is throw at social
programs, and look at where we are today.  So we should throw more of your
dollars at it?

> -- 
> John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10848 alt.politics.bush:9432 alt.politics.elections:17217
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Response to BUSH SPEECH
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:15:49 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications

In article <1bi98nINNmkv@fido.asd.sgi.com> aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer) writes:
>	HOLLAND, Mich. (UPI)
>
>	"If you listen to him," Bush said referring to Democrat
>	presidential candidate Bill Clinton, "and to some degree 
>	Ross Perot, you get the feeling that America is a nation 
>	in decline.
>
>423,000 people filed for first-time Unemployment benefits last month.
>
>	"Of course we've got our challenges, but we should never 
>	forget our people are still the best educated."
>	
>Nationwide, the high-school dropout rate is 29%.  
>In 1991, verbal SAT scores reached an all-time low.
>
>As an aside, Arkansas has the highest high-school graduation rate 
>in the nation.
>
>	"When it comes to steering America through the new global 
>	economic challenges, America needs a driver who knows the 
>	highway"
>
>Bush's remarks here come in the shadow of reports he plans to install 
>a new economic team for the next term, and drop Treasury Secretary 
>Nicholas Brady and Budget Director Richard Darman.  These are the 
>same advisors who wrote his campaign proposals, including Bush's 
>"Agenda for American Renewal."
>
>Bush also announced this week that James Baker would abandon his role
>in the State Department (regardless of the effect on Nuclear reduction
>talks with Russia) to take over as his domestic advisor.
>
>	"You know the global economy, and we're in a global economy, 
>	is in transition."
>	
>Ross Perot noted in his 30-minute special that the U.S. lacked an
>energy policy, a high-technology policy, and several other key policies
>that will be critical in a global economy.
>
>	"In the Bush years farm income and family incomes 
>	averaged the highest of any president"
>
>Average Family income has fallen $1600.  
>
>Allan
>-- 
>Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
>aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
>aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
>For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992

Could you site some sources on those figures, especially the last one..
I'd like to send them to Rush Limbaugh and raise his blood pressure a
little.

-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:26:06 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	Money.  They've been trying to get the FCC to make cable companies pay
>for redistribution for years.  This bill will result in that coming true. 
>Cable customers will soon being paying more for basic cable because of it.  The
>network argument is that anyone "rebroadcasting" their signal should pay them.

What section of the bill contains this provision?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:28:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.170431.17854@webo.dg.com> lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:
>There is no right that heterosexuals have with regard to marriage that
>homosexuals do not have.  Homosexuals *choose* not to marry, because
>they are not attracted to people of the opposite gender. 

Many homosexuals *choose* to marry. This is just a fact. Happens all the
time. Whether society considers them "married" is open for discussion but
the homosexual couple certainly consider themselves married.

>Heterosexuals
>living with people of the same gender do not have "marriage" rights
>either, because a marriage is currently defined in our society as a
>special bond and legal contract between 1 man and 1 woman.  There is
>no statement of sexual orientation anywhere, though it is certainly
>implied.  But the law does not state the homosexuals cannot marry.

I beleive you're right about the laws. However insurance companies seem to
take a different view!

Stan Knight
|"All minority groups have had to fight for their rights in this country, why|
|should the homosexual community be any different?"                          |
|                            ---Comment send to"NEWSWEEK"---                 | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Tax Numbers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:41:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.061435.25471@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>are in the upper 2% -- those making over $200,000.  Bush says Clinton
>>can't possibly raise his $150 billion by only taxing the upper 2%.

>He's right.  Clinton can't.  

We already knew that but it is good to see your learning.

>Of course, Clinton never proposed to do so.

Yes he did. For example, there was that guy in NY who asked Clinton
where the money would come from, Clinton's reply was: by making the
rich pay their fair share.

>First of all, the $150 billion is over four years.  

No, Clinton said he would cut the deficit in half over 4 years. That
means that in 4 years Clinton must either raise taxes $150 billion per
year (and convince Congress not to spend it; which won't happen) or cut
spending by $150 billion per year. Nothing short of that will cut the
deficit in half.

>Second of all, that figure doesn't include $105 billion in tax cuts.  

No it doesn't. In fact, taxes will need to go up even higher on somebody
to pay for those tax cuts (or he just adds to the deficit).

>Finally, much of the
>money comes from taxing foreign corporations, and closing loopholes that
>allow tax credits for sending jobs overseas.

Fine. Let's toss another $20 billion for that. It doesn't make any
difference.

Think for yourself. Add up the numbers yourself and you will see that it
just won't work. The interesting question remains if Clinton knows it won't
work or if he thinks he can fool you (in other words, is Clinton a fool or
does he think you are a fool).

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10378 alt.politics.elections:16741 talk.politics.misc:51711
From: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Subject: Re: Clinton
Reply-To: yount@crchh473.BNR.CA (Jeff Yount)
Organization: BNR
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:34:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.023835.27105@nntp.uoregon.edu>,
eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
|>In article <1bam2dINN9v6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
ab269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John  Laws) writes:
|>>
|>>If you want the truth on Bill Clinton, read this book. You are
|>> not getting the full story from the news media. This book provides
|>>the information you need to make a fully informed decision on whether
|>>to vote for Clinton or not. Don't wait until it is too late (after
|>> election day) to find out the truth. This book is alao available
|>>in your major bookstores or can be ordered through those stores or
|>>the publisher.
|>>
|>
|>If you feel you really need another right-wing smear, then check out this
|>book.  It will require a high tolerance for distortion and mud-slinging,
|>but then the right wing of the Republican party does not let that stand in
|>their way.
|>
|>Clinton and Perot make a  very compelling case for how Limbo George has
|>blown his presidency.  Bush is a cripple in these debates.
|>
                   
If you really want to know about Bill Clinton's track record, read
"Clinton - Young Man In A Hurry" by J. Moore. This book is much
closer to reality than the right wing propaganda above. By the way,
Mr. Moore is a Republican who claims Bill Clinton is the only
Democrat he has supported. This support is based on Gov. Clinton's
actions in Arkansas.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!! [Bush 35, Congress 1]
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 10:20:17 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <Bvu1qM.72A@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
|> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> : 
|> :	The broadcast networks are the only ones who are failing to make huge
|> :loads of money off of cable.  But now, Congress has handed them the golden
|> :goose.  They can simply charge each cable company for "rebroadcast" rights. 
|> 
|> Of course, the cable company could then decide not to carry those local
|> stations.
|> 
|> To the best of my knowledge, there is no law requiring local cable systems
|> to carry local TV stations.  The cable company must inform its customers
|> if there are any non-low-power stations in the market that they do not
|> carry, and if a customer so desires, the cable company must provide
|> some sort of mechanism (an A/B switch, for example) to permit the
|> customer to hook up his/her own antenna and receive that station off
|> the air.  

This is stupid.  If a person wants both cable and regular TV, it should
be up to them to provide their own A/B switch and to find out what else
is available.  I see no rational reason why this should be the cable
companies responsibility.  Now if the cable company wants to charge a
fee for this service, I would have no problem with them providing it.

|> However, the cable company is not required by FCC regs to
|> carry local stations.  Whether or not cable companies are required
|> by their franchises/charters/whatevers with local governments to do so
|> is a different matter.  :)

Haven't 'must carry' regulations been ruled unconstitutional in a
lower court?



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.021420.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
>(God bless you) <-- The easiest way to offend a liberal, mention God. (Gasp!)

A statement that clearly demonstrates the "ARCH-Conservative's" deep
knowledge and understanding of liberalism.

--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
From: cossett@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Email Addresses!!!
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:10:59 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

I would be interested in getting Clinton's email address. If anyone has it could you forward it to me. Thanks.

              Tim Cossett

P.S. I would not mind getting Bush and Perot's either. ;)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: Amazing!
XXXDate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:44:11 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A700AD5BC1020642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:54:00 GMT

In article <92286.122240STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> Stan Horwitz, STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
writes:
>You know what's most amazing about this race for Predent? Its the fact that
                                                  ^^^^^^^
>so many American citizens don't have the good sense to come in out of the
>rain or to abandone a sinking ship. Only fools would stay in a burning house.
>Do you see where I'm going with this message?
>
>The condition of our nation with respect to overall quality of life is in many
>ways, horrible and shameful. The fact that health care reform takes such a low
>priority with Bush and his ilk illustrates the fact that most of his friends
>can afford good health care and he cares nothing for those who cannot afford
>health care. Our economy is in a dither thanks to Reagan spending so much and
>Bush following suite. Bush continues to blame the entire situation on
Congress.
>This is foolish. Has he forgotten what his hero Truman once said? Sure, our
>congress isn't perfect, its far from it, but apparantly Bush failed to see
>that his job is to be a leader. His job is to lead our citizens, our
businesses
>and our congress in the proper direction to foster his agenda. Bush says he
>will have a new congress soon. How does he know this? Last election, the Reps
>took a beating in Congress if memory serves so why would this electrion be any
>different. Bush must be psychic. Too bad he can't use his psychic powers in a
>practical way. Oh well, my lunch hour's up and Bush supports will probably
>continue to bury their heads in the ground and ignore the suffering squalid
>conditions all around us. By the way, don't assume I support Clinton or Perot.

I just pointed out one spelling error here. There are several others. This
message points out the sad state of affairs that our workforce is in due to
the public schools system. I take it that since you mention a lunch break
you are either at work or at school. Pretty miserable situation when you
are stuck in an economy where so many can afford to go to school and the
majority of us are working (92.5% at last count)! But of course there are
those who must wallow in negativity.

BTW: it doesn't take a psychic to tell you that Congress will be very
different next year when some 120+ congressmen (and women) are retiring
or quitting this year due to scandals, redistricting and other events. De
pending on how we vote this should be the biggest revamping of Congress
in decades!

Seriously, I don't care who you vote for in the presidential race, but
if you have a chance, vote out an incumbent congresscritter this year!

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Been to Arkansas lately?
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:07:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

hartlemp@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Michael P Hartley) writes:

>   I just returned from a trip to Ark. and would like to let those who haven't
>been there know what 'Clintonomics' has done.  It seems the most flourishing 

>   Now, anybody from there like to comment?

What was Arkansas like 12 years ago?  Better or worse?  You are blaming
Clintonomics on the state of the State, but are you assuming that
what you are seeing is a decline of the state, when in fact, it may
be an improvement?

Gotta look at these things from both sides.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
From: zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Reply-To: zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:46:28 GMT

I wrote:
   "The real way to stop dad-kid-divorce abuse is to bring it above ground
   -- MAKE IT LEGAL [MAKE IT NO-FAULT]
   -- and advertise against dad-kid-divorce  =ABUSE= (NOT use)."

Shankar Unni replied:
> Drug abuse [is] in the purview of one adult, or
> two consenting adults.  "Dad-kid divorce" is *NOT* - there's one
> helpless, unwilling and definitely non-consensual party involved.

The child should be taken care of -- BUT NOT BY SOMEONE WHO
DOESN'T WANT HIM.  Children can and will be taken care of
despite (or rather "due to") dad-kid-divorce.

> Almost by definition, the problem of supporting kids in a divorce is
> nearly insoluble.  Support of the child is a joint responsibility, and
> is not something that can be easily achieved when the parents are
> going their own ways and (often) have it in for each other.

It is only "insoluble" because people like you wish it that way.
Raising a child is NOT a joint responsibility -- only Bush`s
family police would say that.  The person or persons who
most want to raise the kids should be granted that MOST
COVETED RIGHT.

> "Easy" solutions, like the ones being bandied around here ("Dad-kid
> divorce" indeed!) . . . are unworkable.

It's totally workable -- it's best for EVERYONE.
If you hate "easy things" then run off somewhere and
play with yourself -- but don't inflict your "hard things"
on others.

> Solomon himself would be hard put to solve this one in these days of
> deadbeat dads and child-abuse cross-allegations.  Chances are, if he
> brought out the sword, both parents would rather the kid be halved
> than let the other have it.

Solomon IS the answer to today`s sick legislation.
The one who said "let the child be halved" (Mr Fathers-Rights) 
was the one who king Solomon DENIED custody to.  The courts NEVER
NEVER split the child in half.  They always grant
"Primary Custody" to =ONE PERSON=. Even the biggest dolt
knows that there must be only ONE person with "Primary Custody".

> Certainly *I* have no easy solutions to what is a giant national
> tragedy.  I do have long laments on the alarming rise in the divorce
> rate, and the totally casual attitude that most Americans have towards
> divorce . . .

It's easy to not war against Russia -- we hate easy things
beacuse we LOVE WAR.
NO FAULT DIVORCE -- even for dad-kid-divorce -- IS WONDERFUL.
It's wonderful for the dad, the mom, the society and the kid.
You can't wage war against forced-fathers and expect anyone
to win.  Forced-fathers join the underground and they regularly
kidnap and kill their kids -- ALL BECAUSE YOU LOVE TO WAR --
YOU LOVE TO WAR AGAINST FORCED-FATHERS.

GO PLAY WITH YOURSELF AND LEAVE THE FORCED-FATHERS ALONE!
GRANT FORCED-FATHERS NO-FAULT-DAD-KID-DIVORCE.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9782 talk.politics.misc:50985 alt.politics.bush:8673