HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sug6@amber.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: You get what you deserve
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.180847.21401@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <16862DB86.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>In article <BuKF4I.HFz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
>>jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>> 
>>...proving that he never read a newspaper before 1981 ;-). The first S&L
>>deregulation bill- note that's S&Ls, not banks- was signed by President
>>James Earl Carter in 1980. There was no banking deregulation bill. The only
>>changes in laws that facilitated the issuing of credit cards were the states
>>that repealed their obsolete "usury" laws.
>> 
>
>	I've heard this before, and it's a bit misleading. Didn't Reagan
>sign another S & L deregulation bill in 1982? Which one do you think is
>more responsible for the S & L's failure?
>


  Well, any detailed look at the S & L's failure really has to start
well before even 1980.  Starting at their creation and tracking the
effects of high inflation upon the industry is a good start.

  However, from a political standpoint, it really involved both bills
combined.  The 1980 bill immediately increased the US governments
liabilities by $150 billion dollars.  The 1982 bill allowed the S & L's
to do some silly things with the extra $150 billion dollars (in an
extreme nutshell.)  The total cost was about $300 billion or some
other extremely huge, but not yet specific number.

  For me, the real political killer is the 1986 bill.  This is the
bill that Reagan came out of his regulatory coma to send to congress
to put a stop to the then $15 billion S & L problem.  Jim Wright
and his congressional cronies ensured it didn't get passed.  The
problem then ballooned into the huge problem we have today.  Jim
Wright and his buddies had more than a few dollars in S & L campaign
contributions.  

  Actually, the story goes even further than that.  Congress was
continually hindering the regulatory agencies including Mr. Wright's
attempts to spread rumors that one of the few effective S & L regulators
was gay.    (I know the agencies were technically under Reagan's control
and congress shouldn't be able to effect them, but it just isn't that 
simple in real life.)

  I have several sources, but for a bit of detailed analysis, you
may want to try "The Seven Fat Years".  Bartley does a reasonably good
job of covering the issue.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:05:23 GMT

neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:

>In article <1992Sep10.062620.17652@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>But you are leaving out one major point: Switzerland has the loosest
>>gun laws in Europe. In fact, citizens are requires to keep fully
>>automatic assault rifles and ammunition in their homes, and are
>>incouraged to go to rifle ranges and practice.

>Encouraged ? I get sent to prison if I don't practice. You might call that
>encouragement, I call it forcing.

All a matter of your point of view, I guess:-)

>>It is absure to say the Switz don't have access to firearms.
>>Since their crime rate is so low, but guns are available, perhaps 
>>this means crime is a result of social factors, not access to guns.

>It's certainly to a large degree a result of social factors, but access to
>handguns is *very* restricted. Recently, a newspaper article mentioned that of
>the more than 300'000 inhabitants of Zurich, only 200 had a handgun carrying
>permit. Illegal carrying, of course happens relatively often.

Could you clarify this?  Does this mean that only 200 people in Zurich
own handguns, or that only 200 people have a permit to carry a loaded
pistol for self-defence or other reason.  Here in Australia, for instance,
I carry my guns to and from the range, but I'm not licenced to "carry"
in the self-defence sense.  Indeed, only in exceptional circumstances
would private citizens other than security guards be so licenced.  For
comparison, Canberra has slightly fewer inhabitants than Zurich, and
would probably have about 500 licenced pistol owners (excluding security
guards, who are covered by their firm's licences);  this is basically 
the membership of our two target pistol clubs.

I'm also intrigued by your comment about illegal carrying.  How do you
know? 

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra  ACT  2601

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Clinton gaffe of the day
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:30:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.223409.7288@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
 
>
>   There were not "so many" reports on friendly fires. In fact, there were
>major cover ups on friendly fires. We all know now the majority of causalties
>the allied troops were from so called friendly fire. When firepower kills
 
Do you really believe that? The majority of US casulties came from one
lucky SCUD hit. Remember? TV? News coverage?
 
>people, there is no "friendly" fire.  Same deadly fire !, be it from the
>US army or from Saddam's republican guard, and the republican white house
>(of George Bush and Ron Reagan) should find some responsibilities for these
>casulties, for they armed Saddam in the first place.
>
That last sentence appears, in its convoluted way, to suggest that the US
armed Saddam, another classic and foolish error. The vast bulk of Iraq's
arms, including all his fighters, bombers and most of all, his artillery
and rockets were Soviet in origin. And artillery (including rockets) is what
causes the greatest number of casulties in modern warfare.
 
Perhaps a part of the blame can be placed at the feet of those who practiced
accomodation of the USSR for years, letting it continue to expand and to
arm despots like Saddam.
         --mike
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5059 alt.politics.clinton:5335 alt.politics.elections:13082
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Hold on to your wallet!
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:45:52 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <caV4qB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> born@scepter.raleigh.ibm.com (Christopher J. Born) writes:
> 
>   [mulac stupidity deleted...]
> 
>>
>> Hey Richard, who pays for your funding?
>>
>> I just can't stand people who are on the dol(sp?) who complain about taxes.
>> Being on the dol(sp?)  includes the president, people who work for NASA,
>> a member of the military, a county garbage collector, a teacher, etc...
>>
>> I could never understand, how,  someone who is on the dol, complain about tax
>> cut taxes 50%, can we cut everyones dol by 50%?
>>
>> Christopher J. Born
>>
>> born@ralvm48.vnet.ibm.com
> 
> You've pegged Mr. Mulac quite effectively.  He doesn't want Clinton because he
> knows that Bush, like Reagan before him, is the best thing to help Big
> Government.  These borrow-and-spend Republicans are really lending a hand to
> welfare programs like the defense budget and the space program.  Just pump more
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> money into both, and don't really worry about trivial things as getting the
> most for the buck or direction of the programs.
> 
> 
> 
>>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<

     With the underlined statement as a premise, here is a list of
some famous American "welfare" recipients over the past 30 years:

     Colin Powell
     Sally Ride
     Norman Schwartzkopf (sp?)
     Neil Armstrong
     John Glenn
     Anyone who served in the Persian Gulf War
     etc.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4782 alt.politics.clinton:4993 alt.politics.elections:12889
From: gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:00:54 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Sep4.030847.21548@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.222615.4507@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>>All this about Christians killing and hating etc. is very interesting. I guess
>>we all know that the Atheists never persecuted anyone. They never sent
>>people to siberia, or tortured them for holding different views. They never
>>put people in mental hospitals because the had different beliefs. It's
>>only the Christians that hurt others. And you know all Christians are alike.
>>What a crock!
>
>Many atheist publicly stated there disgust with Russia. Where are the
>Christians opposing the OCA in Oregon? Where were the Christians opposing
>the inquisition? 

Those who opposed the inquisition were usually fried at the stake.  What
everyone seems to forget is that the Roman Catholic Church is but one
line of movement.  There were many other smaller Christian groups who
were not then, and never have been, involved in any thing remotely
similar to the inquisition or the crusades.  Do a little historical
reading on the Christians and you'd know this.

As for the OCA, explain please.

>If Christians remain silent when people kill in Christs
>name they have only themselves to blame for any misconceptions that
>result.

Most of us are busy doing what we were called to do -- feed the hungry,
care for the sick and infirm, visit the imprisoned, clothe the naked,
and more.  However, there are many of us who have raised our voices in
protest, but that wouldn't make for good news copy, now would it!? ;-)
Unless of course we happened to be opposing something that is considered
by the majority of non-Christians to be politically correct -- then the
media has a field day with it -- "See, there are Christians who believe
thus and so, why can't the rest of you!!"

Oh, well, preaching to deaf ears accomplishes nothing.  People will
believe what they want to believe about Christians.  There are none so
blind as those who will not see, nor so deaf as those who will not hear.

Regards,

Gene 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5017 alt.politics.elections:13051 talk.politics.misc:45286
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Keywords: Tree huggers, Bud-chugging-hairy-backed-red-necked-conservatives
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:12:59 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep12.070447.11974@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner) writes:

>	Actually, trees do NOT produce air pollution they clean it
>up.  They take in CO2 and give off O2.  We and our factories/cars/etc
>do just the opposite.  You may be thinking of decaying trees, that

Why do you think CO2 is the only form of pollution.  Trees emit hydro-
carbons, hydrocarbons react with sunlight to form smog.  The presence
of NOx will enhance this process.  Here in Atlanta, the hydrocarbons
given off by trees, greatly out numbers the amount given off by cars.

>-Jason
-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:5315 alt.politics.elections:13270 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3845 talk.politics.guns:21021 talk.politics.misc:45744
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 4 Sep 1992 21:59:13 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

Edelman speaks very positively of the "high-growth high-employment"
1980s. He laughs atv the Democrats who (I guess because they were
out of power) suddenly became allergic to the monster deficits which
began then.

So, I'm confused. Now it's the 90s, and because we borrowed so much
money  in the 80s, we have to make a lot of repayments.

Are you suggesting that we run even higher deficits? Are you suggesting
that the deficit is not all that important and we should budget what we
want anyway? Do you feel that the deficit is not related to the current
weak economy, that it's just cyclical?

If I use my Visa and Mastercard like mad for a few years, I'll have a
pleasurable high-growth experience, but not for long.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: fay@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: This is getting annoying
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:29:43 -0500
Summary: Doctor v Doktor
Keywords: please knock it off
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

AL AND NORM

WHY NOT JUST KISS AND MAKE UP 
OR STEP OUTSIDE
OR SOMETHING?





Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4269 alt.politics.clinton:4256
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: "Family Values" humor
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:58:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>I'm sure the Republican party is strong on Family Values, I just get the
>feeling that the "family" is the Corleones.
That's a funny thought. Dan Corleone [sic] telling George (in voce Brando):
"mange your-a broccoli. Mama made it just for you. <Safety of a machine
gun uncocks> ..."
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my life.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:4435 alt.politics.clinton:4476 alt.politics.elections:12655
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton makes Quayle look like a genius (was Re: A few things)
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:20:37 GMT
	<6BqRqB1w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
	<1992Sep8.144927.25874@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <1992Sep8.144927.25874@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>   Even if he doesn't intend to appoint him, how can he say that Cuomo
>would make a good justice after earlier saying that he's tied to the mob.

Did he really say that? As far as I remember, the mob thing was merely an
ethnic slur, without Clinton wanting to imply that Cuomo had actually anything
to do with the Mafia.

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
   "There once was an Age of Reason, but we've progressed beyond it."
                                   -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:20:37 GMT

bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:

>Rush is fun to listen to, but I can't think of a single time
>that he has honestly presented the liberal position on _anything_.
>His entire show consists of setting up straw dogs and shooting them down.

Yes, this is very true. His show >is< funny to listen to at times. Other
times, though, its fairly monotonous. Not to mention Rush's constant
hypocrasy. 

It would appear that anyone with a political agenda
to promote which professes ideals he doesn't agree with is "in it for the
money". This label isn't strictly used for liberals or people like Anita
Hill, either - he labels fellow Republicans with the same stroke. Just 
before the Republican convention, he labelled the organizer of
Republicans For Choice (Anne Stone, I think her name is...) as also
being "in it for the money". It would appear from Rush's statements
that only Rush can have strong ideals for certain political positions.

Personally, I love the fake commercials and various updates, but the
consistancy of his argument tends to get boring and I just tune out. I
haven't listened to him in weeks now, and like a Soap Opera, without a
doubt next time I tune in I'll be able to pick up right where I left 
off.


>Most of
>his listeners, however, don't care too much about the facts.

With an audience of something like 6,000,000 people, that's a broad stroke,
and not too accurate. Although Rush doesn't present "balanced" opinions on
his show (he *IS* the balance, after all, and a hefty counterbalance at 
that! :-)) people getting their information from his show is no different
than someone getting their information from NPR (or, is a source like
NPR "okay" in your book?)


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: ira2p@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Iain Robert Asplin)
Subject: Re: The Power of USENET
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:33:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.200054.24025@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.000355.377@athena.mit.edu> bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep4.210152.8537@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>Since usenet really isn't a significant distribution media, ignoring
>>>it isn't necessarily "clueless" and doesn't imply that the Repubs don't
>>>want to spread the word about their campaign.
>>
>>Why not?  An estimated 2.5 million people worldwide are USENET readers.
>
>First approximation - non-US readers don't matter.
>
>>And 110,000 read the talk.politics.misc group.  (Data from news.lists
>>for Aug 92.)  That's many, many voters.  Not to mention the untold
>>numbers that get forwarded files from people that read USENET.
>
>How many of those voters are open to being convinced?  That's the
>relevant number, not the total number, regardless of the position of
>the rest of the people.  What's the marginal benefit of reaching
>them via the net instead of by other means?

Well, if they're reading the miscellaneous group as opposed to either
the Bush or Clinton group, then they are probably going to be more flexible
in their voting I would think.

And don't think that the effects of UseNET postings are limited to just
the people reading the posts.  The posts are read by a great number of
people, and then whenever one of those people's friends brings up
politics, the opinions expressed on the groups will no doubt be figured
in whatever the postreader says to his or her friends.

To me the true power of UseNET is not just its availability or
spontaneity, but rather the fact that we are essentially participating
however we please in a newspaper of sorts.  
Significance?  well, personally, I learn a *LOT* more by reading something
and the details which can be conveyed in written postings than I get
out of television sound bites or even newspapers.  
UseNET is the ultimate poll.  It doesn't just ask a person's opinion
and then tally that number in a percentage as part of a scientifically-
based random sample, we actually get to read the thoughts behind
the points, i.e. people's reasons for voting the way they will as
opposed to just how they will vote.



Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:18:41 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <uqkRqB5w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
]mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
]
]> >1.  He's pro-choice with restrictions.  He's not abortion on demand.  While
]> >a minority view, it's one that could give him trouble with the NOW folks.
]>
]>    Pro-choice with restrictions is a view held by the majority of people in
]> this country.
]
]Really?  I've already read someone claim that abortion on demand is what people
]want.  As I said, it's all in who takes the poll.  It's a chancy position in

No, it's also in how you interpret it. Polling data shows that
there is one group in favor of unrestricted abortion (<30%), another
against all abortion (<20%), with the rest inbetween (50%). The
pro-choice folks add the 30% to the 50% and say that 80% of the populace
is "pro-choice." The pro-life folks add the 20% to the 50% and say
that 70% of the population is pro-life. In reality, it is TRUE
that most people are for limitted abortion availability (some availability
and some restrictions).
]
]>
]> >2.  He's for raising taxes.  Minority view, if you ask the GOP.
]>
]>    Again, a majority of eligible voters are in favor of raising taxes on
]> upper income folks.

Sick, isn't it, since upper income folks already pay far more than anyone
else. I think it would be fair to say that voters on the average are in
favor of higher taxes for anyone making MORE money than them, as long
as they don't have to pay it.

]Look at the GOP spin on the Clinton tax plan.  They claim that it'll go down to
]people with incomes in the $70K range and how it's really a middle-class tax
]increase.  Which is it?

$70K IS middle class if you have a family to support.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Definition: invertebrate ::= George Bush - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The big flaw in Clinton's Vietnam scenario
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:45:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush

mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>...  I don't doubt that Clinton is a very smart man, just a bad
>candidate for president.  Why is it that in their eagerness to get rid of
>Bush, people are willing to elect the ultimate car salesman?  Tsongas would
>have been the best Democratic candidate (I would have voted for him and I
>voted for Bush in '88).

Same here. Tsongas couldn't get the nomination because 1) he wouldn't pander
to the special interest groups, as Slick Willie has, 2) he doesn't look (or
sound) good on TV, as does Slick Willie. 3) He campaigned on the most important
issue - the defecit - that both Slick Willie and Bush are running from, 3) he
did not have the backing of the power left of the Democratic Party, as does
Slick Willie.

I voted for Reagan 4 times (twice for governor, twice for President) and I still
would have voted for Tsongas, if I had been given a chance.

>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov


				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush