HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:55:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <Bx8ALt.1n@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.193322.4300@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Reducing the number of competitors has nothing do with with movement
>> toward a monopoly?  Hmm, maybe I AM in the wrong discussion.  I
>> thought we both knew what one was and were talking about progress
>> towards one.  Now I'm left feeling like perhaps you DON'T understand
>> it; understand it even less than I thought you did, I mean.
> 
>You were talking like the US airlines are the only ones that determine
>whether or not we have a monopoly.  Ok, they are losing market share.  Who
>is gaining market share?  Is it just one or two carriers, or is it spread
>out over a dozen?  From what I've heard lately, there may even be an
>increase in companies as more Pacific Rim companies look into getting into
>the business.  A monopoly is highly unlikely.

And who are they buying their airplanes from?  

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Filibuster-proof Senate?
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:42:40 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Nov5.074003.18722@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

[in re US Senate seats, filibuster-proof majorities etc.]

|> You're also forgetting Tennessee, which is going to need a new Senator.
|> How does it work there?  Does the governor get to appoint one until next
|> November, when they have a special election?

But the Governor of TN is a Democrat, so no worries there for the Dems.
until next November. 

|> 
|> Also, North Dakota is going to have to hold a special election, though
|> I'm not sure when.  Quentin Burdick died and his wife was appointed to
|> fill his seat by the governor.  (Or is that South Dakota?  I can never
|> tell them apart.)

North Dakota, I believe, and it's next month. Kent Conrad is running, for it,
to be vacated by Jocelyn Burdick. Time permitting, the GOP should be able to
put up a candidate who can hammer Conrad on the fact that he got out of
the Senate the first time because he wasn't able to get anything done about
the deficit. But it's probably a long shot.





-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: lorenzen@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Lorenzen Peter Jonathan )
Subject: Top 100 Votes
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Distribution: ucb
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:16:06 GMT

Greetings,

This may have been address earlier. . .if so, I apologize: Does anyone know
where a list, containing the top 100 people to receive votes for President of 
the United States for this recent election, may be on line?

Thanks in advance!

Peter Lorenzen

-- 
lorenzen@berkeley.edu

Nullum Gratuitum Prandium

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: The Filibuster-proof Senate?
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 23:17:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.032518.19085@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>	I just heard on ABC that if the Democrates win both
>Senate races in California and the one in Washington, they will have
>a Filibuster-proof Senate.
>	[Feinstein has a comfortable lead in California, the exit polls
>say. And the other two races are too close to call right now.]
>	After 12 years, the Republicans might be just an after-thought
>in Washington politics (at least for 4 years). We might have the most
>progressive government since 76-78.
>
>Garrett@Ingres.com 

Well, they didn't.  I think the ABC pundit probably thought Yeakal and
perhaps another Democat would pick up seats in the Senate and they
didn't.  The numbers are now, i believe 58 Democrat Senators to 42
Republican.

But all this talk about a "filibuster-proof" Senate is/was kinda reaching,
I think.  With 60 seats, all the Democrats would have to unamimously
agree to kill the filibuster without a single dissenting vote.  I don't
think they would be able to pull it off consistantly enough for it to be
quite the threat the media has made it out to be...

-- 
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.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:14:43 GMT

In article <1den96INNom2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>
>  Wow!  Now we have a real "education" President in Bill Clinton.  Someone
>who uses proper English words like "How're" when communicating to millions
>of Americans in his campaign commercials (How're you doing?).  Maybe he
>wants the Arkansas dialect of English to become the official language of
>the US.

Better than Bush's tortured syntax, and Quayle's spelling.

>I can see it now.  In six months the White House is going to look
>like the set from The Beverly Hillbillies.  Chelsea will have all her
>"pets" living on the White House lawn and in the swimming pool.   (^:}

Whoa!  Richmeister resurrects the Arkansas-is-full-of-hillbillies
steroetype.  How clever!  How sublime!



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:31:33 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <6931@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:

>Walsh is a Republican, so arguments that he was pro-Clinton don't add up.

Do you know this for a fact?

This would be relevant if Walsh were still in charge of the investigation.
He may still have the title, but the day to day running of the investigation
has been taken over by Brosnahan for quite some time now.

Brosnahan is a very active democrat.  His name has also been bandied about
as a possible judicial appointment, not very likely though under a Republican
administration.  Much more likely now.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
From: rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis)
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.091134.19656@nuscc.nus.sg> tim@iss.nus.sg (tim poston) writes:

>Why shut up Willie Horton and let out George Bush?

Short memories are so convenient for the Democrats!  Did you forget that
it was none other than Al Gore that started using Willie Horton as a
political topic to make Dukakis look bad, for his own political gain in
the primaries in 1988?  As far as the Republicans picking up on it and
using it, they didn't air the ad nationally anyway.  However, what if they
had?  What's the big deal about telling the truth about the criminal
justics system in Massachussetts? 


******************************************************
CAUTION: The above comments are rated C (Conservative)
and may annoy people who still "just don't get it".
******************************************************
-- 
Robert D. Davis            |  VAX/VMS is a text-only adventure game.  If       
rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu  !  you win, you get to use UNIX.  If you fail, 
uunet!mystica!rdd          |  you get to use an IBM-PC running MeSsy-DOS
Telephone: 1-410-744-7964  !  with MeSsy-Windows or an Apple Macintosh.  
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23462 talk.politics.misc:59560 alt.politics.democrats.d:447 alt.politics.clinton:16827
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Call for Radical Tax Simplification
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:33:55 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Sun Microsystems

>
>For most Americans, the federal income tax process should be paperless and
>require no intervention.  I believe this strongly, and I think a lot of
>people would get behind this idea if they believed it possible.  I am a
>well-educated professional in a technical field, and I still find it almost
>insanely complex each spring to navigate the morass that our tax system 
>has become.  Sure, you can hire somebody --- but that is symptomatic of
>the problem at hand!  I certainly don't mind paying taxes (much), but I
>mind the headache and inconvenience considerably!
>[...]
>Use your voice - call your senator/rep:  radical tax simplification and
>reform is needed NOW.
>
Hear, hear!

Remember the "tax simplification" act of 1986?  I remember following very
closely the tax reform, and the only simplification was to get rid of most
of the tax brackets.

What do I care if I have to look at a table of three brackets or fifty brackets?
All the other crap (loopholes, meaningless deductions, idiotic credits) were
not only left in, THEY WERE MADE WORSE.  The actual size of the tax laws got
bigger.

No wonder it was renamed (by real humans, not congressmen) the "Tax Accountant's
Survival Act", among other things.  I thought we would no longer need an acct.
to do our taxes.  Wasn't that the idea?

What has to be done?

Let's start over.  Go back to the simplest tax system, with a hint of fairness.
Make a steeply bracketed tax table, possibly starting at -n%, if the govt. feels
it wants to give credit to the poorest families.  No deductions, no credits.

Then see what is really needed.  Probably personal deductions.  Possibly R&D
incentives.  There's probably a couple of deductions that can't be gotten rid
of without devastating impact.  The mortgage interest/tax deduction, for instance.
Without that, I expect that millions of people would be unable to afford their
houses.

The tax laws should only be a small booklet, not volumes.  Easier taxes means
easier enforcement.  No need for tax court.  No need for IRS agents who spend
their entire careers looking at ambiguous phraseology and catching taxpayers
who interpreted it wrong.  More compliance.

All of this adds up to more money for the fed. govt.  Plus, states benefit,
since their income tax laws are based on the fed tax laws.

Where's Jerry Brown when we need him?

--f2

-----------------------
  "You may wait in the sitting room,
   or you can sit in the waiting room."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000)
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 00:19:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
: Horseshit.  Where have I said that "making a profit is 'evil'"?  You
: need to get those reflexes checked, John.  That knee jerking like that
: is going to dislocate something one of these days.

Why then do you support the forced redistribution of wealth?

: Real income dropped and working hours went up over the past 4 years.
: I note that you picked TWELVE years, which at least gets you to those
: figures being relatively flat.

Whatever.  It's not the government's problem or responsibility if you're
working harder for less money than 4 years ago.  By the way Clinton didn't
say "than 4 years ago" he said "than ever before".

: >: We INVENTED most of the technology that other countries turn
: >: into products and beat our brains out with.  Why do you think that is?
: 
: >Because we are business idiots apparently.
: 
: Yeah, because the market isn't working.

What market?  We protect ourselves right out of the world market in this 
country.  That's why they're beating our pants off.  That and the fact that
American workers are lazy and uninspired :-)

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"When you're following an angel, does it mean you have to throw your body off a 
 building?" -- TMBG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mind the Gap)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:07:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.150537.24001@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.023236.28906@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Don't forget the plus or minus three percent in the polls.  "Perot got 7%"
>>is really "There's a 95% chance Perot got 4% - 10% of minority votes."
>
>	The +/- 3% is for phone polls. Does anyone know what the margin for
>error was on exit polls? They were calling races much closer than a 3% margin
>based on the exit polls. I would think that exit polls would be more accurate
>(given the same sampling size), because the people definitely did vote and 
>can't change their mind.

Sorry.  When you hear "+/- 3%" that's *solely* based on the sample size,
not on the polling technique.

There's no reason to think exit polls would be more accurate than phone
polls.  If anything, they're more likely to have problems, because they
involve face-to-face contact.  Studies have shown that whites interviewing
blacks on a set of questions get completely different answers than 
when blacks interview blacks on the same set of questions.  It's not clear
whether this is due to the interviewer's selection of interviewees, or 
interviewees' giving different answers.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23472 talk.politics.misc:59578
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:08:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.041832.17175@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Let's try and follow through on the thought a little bit.  Obviously
> any nation which doesn't plan on engaging in some sort of system of
> conquest would prefer not to expend too large a portion of its wealth
 
I don't agree with that.  Some countries spend a lot of money because they
intend on become an aggressor.  Other countries spend a lot of money on
defense because they happen to be unfortunate enough to live next to an
aggressive country.
 
> could happen.  One is that someone much more inimical to our interest
> than the Saudis could wind up sitting on top of all that oil -- which
 
The Saudis aren't stupid.  If we made it clear that they could no longer
depend on us they would make sure that they spent the needed amount to
protect themselves.
 
> would be a very bad thing.  Another would be that the Saudis would
> find it necessary to get the additional resources to do all this stuff
> themselves from SOMEWHERE, and would wind up paying the price and
> having no say at all in the policies -- which would be a bad thing.
 
No say in WHAT policies?  We clearly don't have any influence in whether
or not SA (and OPEC) plays around with the price of oil.  We clearly don't
have any influence on democratizing SA.  We haven't managed to get SA to
sign a peace accord with Israel.  So what "say" do we have now?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Sad comment on democracy
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:18:25 GMT


<<< Please note the redirect(s) in the "Followup-To:" line. >>>

In article <BxI6r5.7qp@rice.edu>, 
byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) said:

> I don't know of any commercial banks that automatically cover
> overdrafts for which there is no savings backup.  Otherwise, it's
> not an overdraft, it's a loan.

Yup, it's a loan, based on the bank's pre-agreement to give you a
certain line of credit whenever you want it.  I use a bank called
Baybank of Massachusetts, which gives me a $2,000 line of credit on
checking overdrafts regardless of the fact that I have about two
dollars and eighteen cents in my savings account.  If I ever "bounce"
a check and get this automatic loan, I'll have to repay it with
interest, of course, but the bank will honor the check.

(The line of credit that the House Bank unofficially extended to its
members was, of course, virtually infinite rather than limited to two
grand, and there was no interest charged.  Nonetheless, there was
nothing corrupt about this -- you could get a deal like this too, if
you could find enough other people willing to go along with it.)

> I'm not sure anyone is saying check-bouncing was bad because someone
> got stiffed.  The point is, that the same people that we give up to
> 34% of our earnings every year cannot even run their own finances
> responsibly.

I keep asking this question and not getting an answer: How is it
irresponsible to write a check that you know won't bounce?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Does anyone have corrected vote total forFulani?
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:18:41 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

According to AP, with 99% of the votes tallied, 

Marrou has 283,790
Fulani has  80,595

I can post the entire list of candidates/totals, if anybody cares.

--f2

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com (Randy Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Results for other than Demopublicans or Perot?
Originator: rkw@zuni.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:35:52 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Nov6.172447.24327@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> In article <aelman.720861320@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>, aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes:
|> >jkp@cs.hut.fi (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Why aren't results from the U.S. presidential election for others than
|> >>the governing party and the court jester told?
|> >
|> >Frankly, the reason is simply that there are no other candidates
|> >receiving significant portions of the vote.
|> 
|> And the reason no other candidates receive significant portions of the vote is
|> that they don't receive adequate press coverage.
|> 
|> And the reason they don't receive adequate press coverage is that they don't
|> receive significant portions of the vote and don't have $billions to spend.

Or maybe it's because 99% of all voters have absolutely no direct experience
with Libertarians as part of government on any level. You can't just pop up
and say "We'd like to run the government now, please elect us President."
Get yourselves elected to some city councils, and state legislatures (no
$billions required), establish a track record of how Libertarian philosophy
would be implemented in a real government in the real world. Once we've all
seen how well it works, you'll have a hard time staying out of office. True,
this approach will take several decades, but it is the only way it will ever
happen.

-- 
Randy Whitehead         And now, back to your regularly scheduled day...    
SAS Institute Inc.                     
rkw@unx.sas.com                        
                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
Subject: Re: The "education" President-elect
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:04:51 GMT

In <1dfu58INNgkh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:

>BZZZZT! Wrong.  *We're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc. are all "proper" 
>English contractions.  *How're* is NOT (pronounced "hower").  Of course 
>they were trying to contract "How are".  However, it is not proper and is 
>considered "broken" English.  Check any reputable dictionary.  In fact,
>your news program might have a spell checker built in.  I'll bet you it 
>accepts *we're*, *you're*, *I'm*, *hasn't*, etc., but rejects *how're*.

My dictionary doesn't have 'bzzzzt' in it.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel)
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Organization: Unix in NYC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:48:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.202406.18220@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>There is plenty of evidence that people want a less intrusive, less
>expensive, more responsive government. 

There is also plenty of evidence to the contrary.  Propose cutting some
government program or other.  Then sit back and watch the fur fly as 
the "conservative" electorate scream bloody murder because their favorite
piece of pork is going away.  The American electorate has become used to
getting what they want and, for the last 12 years at least, without having
to pay for it.

                        Jeff Markel

Jeffrey Markel | uucp:     jpradley!argos!markel   | Argos Computer Systems Inc
KD2HN          | internet: grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com | 110 W. 32nd Street 
(212)594-5400  | amprnet:  kd2hn@kd2hn.ampr.org    | New York, NY 10001
===============================================================================
	The New World Order is ... "Shoot to kill!"
===============================================================================
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Who won Georgia?
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:54:23 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Clinton.

Clinton 1,005,889 - 44%
Bush      989,804 - 43%
Perot     307,857 - 13%

with 99% reporting.

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