HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A Dearth of Jobs
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:35:17 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep7.031815.25831@athena.mit.edu>, bowler@athena.mit.edu (Bert Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Sep6.205327.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep6.223548.20021@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>> A little chart in this Sunday's NYT:
>>> 
>>> Change in private sector employment by Presidential term:
>>> 
>>> Carter:	+13.92%
>>> Reagan 1:	+ 7.30%
>>> Reagan 2:	+12.05%
>>> Bush:		- 0.04%
>>> 
>>> --
>>
>>     Based on this chart, we must have been living in Utopia during
>>the Carter years.  I sure wish that someone would have invited me to
>>that quadrennial jubilee.
>>
> 
> There was a tremendous amount of job growth during the Carter
> Presidency.  The big problem was that with the large numbers of baby
> boomers entering the job market the growth was not enough to keep
> unemployment down.  There was indeed a party, there just were too many
> guests.  
> 
> I don't think that anyone else could have done any better.  Now, on the
> other hand, a room full of monkeys could have done better than George.
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> -bert

     Are you referring to Congress with that 'room full of monkeys' 
quip?  The problem is Bush has to try to work with a room full of
monkeys (Congress), and the only power he has over them is the veto,
i.e. refusing them bananas.

     C. Perttunen

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4987 talk.politics.misc:44913 alt.politics.bush:4780 alt.flame:12749
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:16:58 GMT
Reply-To: nobody
Followup-To: alt.clinton.politics
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not ver organized

jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>It's based on what happens when you raise tax rates on the upper class
>and other such tricks that Clinton is proposing.  If my tax rates go up,
>I will be investing every spare dollar in the nearest tax-sheltered
>investment I can find.  Millions of other upper-class taxpayers are
>going to be doing the same exact thing.  That will reduce tax revenue,
>not raise it.
>
I heard some economist semewhere talk about this exact scenario.  This
is what was being done when tax rates for upper tax brackets were higher.
People were more likely to invest their money that put them into the
higher bracket.  Then when those tax rates were lowered (whenever that
was), the trickle down stuff was supposed to work.  So, now there was
less investment which takes its toll on domestic research and technology
which leaves the US to fall behind in those areas.

So, the scenario you describe improves investment which is a good
long-term (and some short-term I suppose) thing.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:18:35 GMT

In article <ART.92Sep15114846@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep14.141525.16077@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> 
>    In article <1992Sep12.014657.19620@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>    > 
>    > In article <1992Sep11.183734.6657@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>    > 
>    > |> We have had 12 disasterous years due to these sheep. Ronald Reagan presented
>    > |> them with flags, bombs bursting in air, mom, apple pie, and baseball and they
>    > |> bought it hook, line, and sinker. The sad thing is that they have been the
>    > |> ones to suffer the worst due to his policies and they are still falling for
>    > |> these substance-less smokescreens. And now, here they are falling for
>    > |> a brand new set of smokescreens.... (family-values, draft records,....).
> 
> Dr. You write statements like that and then turn right around and howl
> when we say you look down your nose at people less educated.  Those who
> don't agree with you are sheep, indeed.
> 
> 
> 

Jeez, you guys are thick....

If you would READ my postings you would see that I have already said that
this phenomenon is not a matter of intelligence or education, but attitude.
Furthermore, it has nothing to do with whether they agree with me. If they
study the issues and decide that they still want ot vote for Bush, I can
respect that. However, it is our patriotic duty to vote, and part of that
duty is to educate oneself and become informed. If you are too apathetic
or lazy to take this responsibility seriously, then you have earned the
label of "sheep".

I lived with this portion of the electorate and grew up with
them. Many of them were so sure that they knew everything, they just couldn't
be bothered. You may think this is harsh, but I challenge you to check it out
for yourself before you throw stones at me.

Norman (for you anti-intellectuals)

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4589 alt.rush-limbaugh:4440
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:36:43 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
 <1992Sep8.195306.22724@eng.ufl.edu> <bj9pb10m@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
 <1992Sep9.171323.14655@eng.ufl.edu>

In article <1992Sep9.171323.14655@eng.ufl.edu>, jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason
Nadrowski) says:
>
>
>The legal system is the one wasting the money.  Needless lawsuits &
>exorbitent claims.  Clinton does not address this at all.

Wrong on both points.  First, the effects of the legal system in health care
are estimated to be relatively small, especially compared to the
administrative waste.  Malpractice insurance and related defensive medicine
costs might account for about $20 billion of the U.S. health care costs.
Administrative waste is estimated to be 100 billion or more.

Second, Clinton's health care plan does include a call for malpractice
reform, similar to the one proposed by Bush.  Clinton just doesn't regard
it as being important as Bush does.  Most health policy experts agree that
reform of malpractice is necessary, but is not the highest priority.


>high because malpractice insurance is high.  Malpractice insurance is high
>because doctor's get sued a lot more than they should.  The people who sue
>are... lawers!  Besides the most preferred option... killing all the lawers,
>what needs to be done is limit the amount sued for.  Thus malpractice rates
>will drop and thus doctor's cost.
>
>Making a socialistic style of health care will not make the world a happy
>place, as infered from above.  It would lessen the quality of health care.
>No longer would doctors have an incentive to produce more.  They will be
>paid a flat salary (as understood from Clinton's proposal).  What is
>their incentive to do more?  Sure being humane is a reason, but it only
>goes so far.  Do you think they want to be on call 24 hours a day?

Most experts agree that physicians in the U.S. do too much anyway,
particularly in surgical procedures.  Studies of HMOs indicate that
when doctor's are paid on salaries health care costs go down and no
effects of the quality of medical care OR patient outcomes can be found.
In any case, Clinton's program does not require that ALL physicians are
paid on salary.

By the way, most American business men are paid on salary.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5176 alt.politics.bush:4926
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Halcyon Predictions (was: Halcion
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:11:22 GMT
 <mjenkins.716221276@cunews>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <mjenkins.716221276@cunews>
mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

> Just recently there was a report in the papers from a psychiatrist or
> a psychologist who claimed Bush was on a major downer, suffering from
> clinical depression.

Doesn't anyone know for sure? For something this important, it's
worrisome.

Fred
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:4818 alt.rush-limbaugh:4536
From: jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Nobel Laureates
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:20:35 GMT
Organization: EE Dept at UF

>Seems to me that the government is the biggest money-waster in all of
>this mess....

Sure!  That is exactly true, that is why republicans try to encourage
private sector action versus government action.  However there has
to be at least a minimum government in existence or else anarchy would
break out.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5015 alt.politics.homosexuality:5917
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:50:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: -

In article <1992Sep9.050324.16807@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> [Much deleted]
> You will note that jews didn't go
> around in the old testament to non-Jewish areas and kill homosexuals
> because they were homosexual.  They may have killed the homosexuals
> if they were threatening the Jews, but they did not go out of their way.

Gee john peter, the implications of what you are not saying here are
quite interesting.

So, then why did the Jews go around in the old testament to non-Jewish
areas and killed homosexuals?  And were there like tribes or bands or
gangs of homosexuals that wandered around in biblical times and
occasionally threatened Jews?  And you also seem to be implying that
there weren't any homosexuals that were also Jews.  (Of course if
there were, luckily they had another tribe they go join.)

Jim - (who realizes that most of this was just sloppy attempt to
explain biblical history on john peter's part)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.elections
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:39:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.155916.9636@technology.com>
richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
 
>
>In article <16862726D.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>>
>>Continued nonsense. There was no "massive military buildup". Spending was
>>only 0.6% more in the 80s than in the 70s, and it was 2.2% less than in
>>the 60s. Insignificant. All the significant growth in spending was in
>>social spending, government administration, entitlement payments and the
>>like which certainly do *not* fuel growth.
>
>What planet are you from? From the OMB, "Budget of the United States, Historical
>Tables, FY 1988" comes these numbers:
>
>Composition of Federal Expenditures
>
>                      FY 1982          FY 1986
>Defense                 23.2%            27.6%
>Human Resources         27.0             21.5
>SS & Medicare           26.4             27.2
>Physical Resources      10.5             5.9
>Interest                10.1             13.7
>Other                   2.8              4.1
>
 
Wow- a massive increase amounting to 4% of the federal budget. Certainly
impressive. It's also in keeping with the figures I published with my
posting.
 
>As for the Reagan landslide, no "fooling the people was required." How many of
>you would be willing to bet that Reagan would have beat Carter if the
>hostage rescue had worked....
 
Dream on. The "misery index" was the deciding factor. Nothing else was
needed. How old were you in 1976?
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5473 tx.politics:5234
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:28:51 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep14.131935.5875@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Yes, but when you look at the whole picture, you will find that one of
>the better things to do with your money is to invest in long-term
>investments, due to the targeted capital gains tax in the Clinton plan
>(as opposed to the one in Bush's plan, which simply spurs more paper
>profits rather than real investment in the economy).  This creates a
>larger capital pool, which spurs the economy and raises tax revenues.

No, many investments won't ever be made.  New technologies, which are
far more "valuable" from a long term perspective, are also far more
risky.  With higher marginal rates and the higher risk, investors are
likely to stick the money in T-bills.  New technologies will go begging
for credit and we'll wind up losing still more industries to the rest
of the world.  Sure, you can argue that all of the money rushing into
banks for CD's is going to make borrowing easier, but who is going to
lend money to a brand new company with some whacky idea?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:17:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.065435.20154@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.155846.13922@athena.mit.edu> jfed@athena.mit.edu.UUCP (Jude G Federspiel) writes:
>}
>}What percentage of people growing up with constant exposure to and use
>}of illegal narcotics like cocaine, for example, would kill or rob for
>}them?  I don't pretend to know, but I bet it's a hell of a lot more than 
>}would kill or rob for money, which _everyone_ lives with.  But nice try.
>
>Then why wasn't this a significant problem prior to the prohibition of cocaine?
>Prescription cocaine costs about $7/oz., street price about $10Kper kilo.  Who
>would need to steal for their coke habit at a free market price, which would
>be less than the prescription price?  A lot less than do now, that's for sure.
>
>
Ok, I'm not American or anything (though you can't imagine how much I
envy you guys south of the border) but I must say that none of the
presidential candidates (or any other world government) has actually
produced a drug strategy that could actually work.  I think the closest
we ever got to this in America was Bush's promise in his previous 
campaign to use the death penalty, which is sort of extreme by any 
standard.

A better plan would legalize drug distribution at rates high enough to
deter some of the curious but affordable enough to kill drug related
crime.  Furthermore, narcotics would be distributed by employees of the 
Department of Health (or whatever it is you call it down there) to
licensed addicts.  Rehab services could also be offered at the same
distribution sites, though enrolment in such programmes would remain
the choice of the addict.  First time users could receive licenses to
acquire narcotics after completing a one-week information session on
the effects of these substances on the body, most particularly the 
nervous system.  To control drugs, steps need to be taken to eliminate
the criminal element, restrict their spread and limit the amount of
money leaving the country.  It has to be harsher than the Dutch system
(which is a bold attempt but pretty stupid anyway) yet more leniant
than a total limit on personal choice.

I know that such a system could work.  I think the only reason
American governments have not done anything substantial on drugs and
AIDS is because they don't want to.  Both are excellent means of
destroying the lower class, which means less unemployment.  Maybe 
that's not such a bad idea in itself.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca

ps. Canada's a disgusting country... don't even *visit* here!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:13:03 GMT

In article <BuD6LG.J5u@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  1.  ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN are not really that liberal.     Possible, depending
>      on one's defintion of "liberal", i.e., a western European Social
>      Democrat would certainly find them "conservative", but personally
>      I think they are liberal by US standards.

I think that they are actually very much in the middle by US standards.

>  2.  The viewers are not so conservative.   Maybe the general public
>      is conservative but the the viewers are a liberal subset.  Or maybe
>      the general public is not so conservative as Quayle, et al, think.

There is some evidence that this is so.  For example, two years ago or so,
Money magazine made up list of roll-call votes on various tax issues.
They surveyed their readers for opinions on these issues, then rated
senators and congressmen for agreement with their readers.  Despite the
fact that Money's readers (and staff) are overwhelmingly Republican,
and consider themselves conservative, it was the Democrats who agreed
with the readership more.  The Money staff didn't really know what to
make of this.  The big loser, by the way, was Jesse Helms, who immediately
began howling about the liberal bias of Money.

Other cases: opinion surveys consistently show strong popular support
for abortion rights (although also support for parental notification laws)
and gun control.

>   4. We have a flawed definition of "liberal" and "conservative".  What-
>      ever the viewers are, and whatever the networks are, the networks
>      are giving people something which resonates with their world-view
>      and values.  

I agree with this.
-- 
Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Content of Recycled Paper (Was Re: A Dearth of Jobs)
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:52:33 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Sep10.162019.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.175943.4971@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep8.080701.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>> I would not recommend Gore's book to anyone with a weak stomach.... it's
>>> printed on recycled paper, or in layperson's terms, it's printed on other
>>> people's old garbage.  
>>> ... it is quite possible that the pages in Gore's book are made from old
>>> toilet paper.  
>> 
>> What kind of a person would say such a thing?
>> 
>Mr. Borden,
>
>     I think you have the makings of a *great* reporter for one
>of the big three networks, oh yeah, and NBC also.  You are
>unable to recognize a joke when you see it, and then you delete
>out the contents that made it a joke.  (I guess the Yankee elite
>have no sense of humor. :-)  Read my original followup -- you 
>might learn something about the actual content of 'recycled' paper!  
>
Maybe your humor wasn't as evident as you thought - since I'm not the only
person to have missed it at first.  It's a generally good rule of thumb that
parody is harder to identify on the net, at least on this newsgroup (possibly
because there are so many extreme viewpoints).

As for the actual content of recycled paper:  I know about factory scraps
versus actual "post-consumer waste".  Both are commonly in use; real recycled
paper, (the latter type, for those who aren't familiar) is often more
expensive; paper made from factory scraps is nothing new and doesn't really
qualify as recycled.  I don't know what type of paper Gore's book was printed
on.

 - Dave Borden
From: boyd@ansjem.anes.tulane.edu (Victoria L Boyd PhD)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 10:13:43 CDT
Organization: Consultant
Reply-To: "Boyd, Victoria L" <boyd@tmc.tulane.edu>
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <ART.92Sep11024425@world.std.com>, Allan R. Thompson, Ph.D. writes:

[a bunch of drivel from Dr. Thompson deleted]
 
> Yeah, well, bucko so did I.  I lived in poverty too.  I spent a lot of
> time too.  Big fucking deal.  You're a snotty asshole who thinks he knows
> something.  Shit man I wouldn't dream of signing my postings with my
> Ph.D.  

See any of your previous postings and you will realize that this is a lie.

> In fact the only time I ever mentioned it on the net was in
> response to your snooty shit.  Its clear that your are one of those
> nitwits who thinks because he has a Doktorate that he is somehow
> superior.  

Being proud of your achievements doesn't mean that you think you are superior.

> The fact is that I once thought that myself about myself.
> Life has taught me different (if I can be allowed a little grammar
> license).

What you probably mean is that listening to 12 years of Reagan/Bush has taught
you that when you can't defend your position you attack the person.  Then
there is the anti-intellectual vice-president attacking the "cultural elite"
and of course you don't *want* to be associated with *those* people.  Sort
of like being embarrassed of your background.

> 
> Do you know, you asshole, that you criticized somebody else's spelling
> with a sentence that included a mispelling?
> 
>    By the way, the smiley you ignored is there for the humor-impaired like
>    yourself.
> 
> On the contrary I am not humor impaired, just ask anybody who knows me,
> like bzs.  I chose to ignore it.  Why?  Because it's people like you who
> like to make "nigger" jokes and then include a smiley and think that
> makes it all right.

I would find it easier to believe that you, Dr. Thompson, would do this and 
not Dr. LaFave.

> 
>    Dr. Norman J. LaFave
> 
> Allan R. Thompson, Ph.D.
> 
> 

You can call me Vickie or you can call me

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria L Boyd PhD

boyd@vax.anes.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit