HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency)
Subject: Re: Poverty in the 1980s
Summary: Statistics
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:43:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.161520.6544@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)                             writes... 
>In article <1993Jan12.024343.8830@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>> In article <markp.726768433@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)                         writes...
>>>>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>>>>With the collapse of Reaganite ecconomics [...] 
>>>>>The Free-Market ideology of Regan/Bush plunged the country into an
>>>>>ecconomic failure unparalleled since the last time deregulation was tried in the
>>>>>twenties. On this basis the New-Right Libs need a hefty dose of new thinking.
>>>>>
>>>Reagan came close enough to free-market policies to produce an unprecedented
>>>economic boom that DID "lift all boats."
>> 
>> Never mind that there was more poverty in 1989 than in 1980. Also, never mind
>> that he morgaged all of our future's.
> 
>	Here are some facts to intrude on your fantasy world:
> 
>[Source: Statistical Abstract of the US, page 458-9.]
>[1988,89 % computed from 1980 census figures]
> 
>Year	% below poverty line	number below poverty line (millions)
>====================================================================
>1980	13.0			29.3

[years deleted]

>1986	13.6			32.4
>1988  	12.8			31.7
>1989	12.7			31.5
> 
>	As you can see, both the total number of people under the poverty line
>declined and as a % of the total population declined. 
>	Far from the massive increase in poverty some would have you believe

Well I guess it's a good thing that I don't believe all numbers that are
given to me.
	I'm looking at numbers from an almanac that are taken from the
census bureau. They tell a slightly different story:

year		# below poverty level		% below poverty level
			(mil)
1980		29.3				13
1986		32.4				13.6
1989		31.5				12.8

>	For those of you still unwilling to admit it: Reagan's full program was
>not in place until the final tax cut in 1984.

	Seems like a pretty irresponsible president that takes 
4 years to get his economic agenda in place (or an excuse).
> 
>Brett

-Garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.activism
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:16:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.025829.11030@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	But some enterprises _have_ to be big, and much too big for

Why?

>the sort of romantic individualism that Libertarians and certain
>others profess. How does one keep them from misbehaving?

First, convince me that the MUST exist, then I will try to address it.

>
>	"Contrived counterexamples that have no basis in reality"?
>More like "I don't want to hear about unpleasant facts like the
>occurrence of monopoly and near-monopoly capitalism".

When this occurs, it is due to state protection or privilege granted to one 
company that has state sanction.
>	Many of the "robber baron" capitalists of that era deplored
>competition, which is something that Libertarians always seem to
>expect to exist under capitalism. I'm not objecting to genuine and
>fair competition when it happens, but when it doesn't happen, then
>what?
>

What do you suggest?

>	Although there are certainly some things that capitalism is
>very good for, there are other things that it is not. 

Like what?


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:56:33 GMT

In article <markp.726768433@joplin.wri.com>, markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
writes:

|>>In article <C0nIDp.oy@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill
|>Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>>>
|>>>With the collapse of Reaganite ecconomics [...] 
|>>>The Free-Market ideology of Regan/Bush plunged the country into an
|>>>ecconomic failure unparalleled since the last time deregulation was tried in
|>the
|>>>twenties. On this basis the New-Right Libs need a hefty dose of new
|>thinking.
|>>>
|>
|>Reagan came close enough to free-market policies to produce an unprecedented
|>economic boom that DID "lift all boats." Bush produced the collapse by
|>abandoning Reaganomics for re-regulation, accelerated spending hikes, and
|>tax hikes.

More Liber[al-Utlili]tarian (sniger) bullshit.

Regan produced a non sustainable bubble. It was no more a genuine "boom" than
the "Barber boom" of the sixties. Everyone knows that it is possible to produce
a boom by spending more than your income. Regan effectively devalued the dollar
to half its intrinsic value. What happened was that the credit lines ran out and
it was no longer possible to maintain spending. The inflationary pressure due to
twelve years of living beyond means is the current problem that has to be
faced.

The Reganite deregulation caused the second biggest financial disaster in US
history. the biggest disaster being original reason why regulation was originaly
introduced.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 02:59:35 GMT

Yamanari (rsrodger@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan4.095030.6902@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.ED
U (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

[baseball analogy deleted]

: >As to baseball, I think being left-handed is a more appropriate analogy.
: >It is obviously deviant by *your* definition.  Do we lock up lefties and
: >deny them basic rights?
:
:    Unlike homosexuality, left-handedness does not affect interpersonal;
:    interaction.

The hell it doesn't.  My left handed sister has to sit at one of two ends of 
the dinner table or she bumps elbows with the person seated next to her.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66358 ca.politics:10519
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:52:48 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan5.000353.13996@cs.ucla.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> In article <1993Jan1.173311.3334@cs.ucla.edu>, bigoldberg@igc (Billi Goldberg) writes:
# #"Some of the patients may have gotten the virus from other patients who 
# #had been taking AZT and who are now transmitting the resistant virus,"
# 
# #"This concern emphasizes the urgent need to quickly develop other anti-
# #HIV drugs for clinical use," the study said.
# 
# It also spells out some widespread irresponsibility.
# -- 
# -Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Gee, I get flamed for suggesting that widespread promiscuity played
a major role in spreading AIDS.  What sort of flames will Mr. Wiener
get for pointing out that people who were taking AZT, and therefore
*knew* they had AIDS, were irresponsible in passing on an AZT-resistant
strain of AIDS?

Why does the AIDS situation increasingly smell of people CONSCIOUSLY
try to spread this disease?

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:04:53 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1iv4ugINNs59@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

|In article <90228@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>  
|mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> In <1iuiriINNjie@transfer.stratus.com>  
|jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
|> |But some degree of regulation is needed here.  First off, the
|> |government must make sure that you don't have criminals running
|> |a taxi organization and mugging every third customer.
|> 
|> This is ludicrous.  If you knew that a given company was in the
|> habit of mugging it's customers, would you use that comapny.
|> I wouldn't.

|And how are you going to know this?  I consider licensing
|akin to consumer protection laws, which most of us support.
|(That is, since most of us support them, we have the right
|to collectively, via the governemnt, ask the government to
|check up on potential taxi drivers for us.)

Ah, once again, if the majority want it, it must be right.

(excuse me while I heave)

Just because you are to lazy or to stupid to do a little basic research
for your self, you find it easier to take away everyone else's
freedom in order to make your life a little bit easier.

|> 
|> |Second,
|> |the government provides some resources: most cities have taxi
|> |stand areas, where cabs can park but where cars cannot. For
|> |both these reasons, the government has to exercise some kind of
|> |control over cabs.
|> 
|> Another ludicrous argument.  Because the city provides a subsidy to
|> some taxi companies, the city has the right to control all taxi
|> companies.  Get rid of the taxi stands.  If some company like a  
|hotel
|> or an airport wants to provide stands as a service to their  
|customers,
|> then let them.  The city has no business providing such a service.
|> 

|And what about taxi stands in other areas of the city, where
|they are a service to the citizens as a whole.  The people
|(through the government) have decided they want this service,
|and want to take part of their city area for this service.

You have not demonstrated why you think these so called stands are of
a benefit to anyone other than a few taxi drivers.  It is my contention 
that the government should not be providing this service in the first
place.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66713 ca.politics:10543 ba.politics:8139
From: rlm@surfcty.com (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 07:16:53 PST
Distribution: ca
Organization: Surf City Software, Orange, Calfornia - DUDE!

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

> In article <1993Jan6.192918.23108@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. T
>     >In article <1993Jan6.184325.5487@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com
>     >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
>     >>If a group calling itself "Republican Steering Commitee"
>     >>calls for "sending all niggers back to Africa", and there are
>     >>no outcries of repudiation from Republicans in general, would
>     >>it not be reasonable for most people to think all Republicans
>     >>are racist assholes???
>     >>
>     >Yes, but you have to take action (ie join) the republican
>     >party. As far as I know, you still don't have to send away
>     >for your Queer Card. --
> 
>
> [stuff deleted ]
>
> Like David Duke and his definite, swift, and strong denunciation by the
> Rupblican party when he "became" a Republican, I am unaware of any equivalent
> reaction by, if not the legions of homosexuals, at least the other
> homosexual organizations.
> 
> That is - "Hi, I'm David Duke and I'm now a Republican, not a NAZI".
> Reaction? "Republican party to David Duke: Go to hell".
> 
> And that is - "Hi, us homosexuals want to contribute tainted blood so we
> don't feel bad".
> Reaction - "None that I'm aware of".

Which is not entirely true.  There were a very few voices in the 
wilderness during the dark early days of AIDS who preached moderation
in sexual contacts, sexual activities with barriers, blood bank 
screening, etc., who did come from gay quarters; Larry Kramer is probably 
the most famous of these.  However, the point needs to be made that
because of the Gay Liberation's demand that homosexuality implied
multiple-partner sex, the gay press of the day reviled him by using the
word "monogamist" as an epithet!  Kramer later recalled that in his 
office, he kept a copy of one such group letter published in a San 
Francisco gay magazine; as the signers contracted AIDS and died, he 
crossed their names off.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:51:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.143304.25938@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu
(Yamanari) writes:

>	Nope.  I need do no such thing.  If it is a possibility 
>	(and it is) that the behavior is learned or reactionary (to
>	abusive treatment, say) it is more than enough of an argument to
>	keep it out of schools. 

It is possible that homosexuality is caused by heterosexual teachers
and role models.  Therefore, by your reasoning, no heterosexuals 
should be allowed to teach.



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:07:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.203105.17338@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}
}>Reality check: The data was given as to the scheduled destination of
}>the aircraft. 
}
}Yes. The airport was in a town that is also the resort. The new media
}are often sloppy about this. The airport is NOT the same as a resort.

So I used the data available.  Please provide the information which differentiates
between the twon, the resort, and the airport.  I know of many "resort towns", and
I know of airports that are in the towns.  The news reports are not differentiating.
Why are you?

}>Hence, I said "going
}>to", which was what they were doing in the plane.
}
}You said "going to a resort" which is not the same as "going to an
}airport in a town that is also a resort".

Which, as you pointed out in your first paragraph, was what was reported.

}> And since the data was not
}>available, I chose the one that corresponded to reality, as opposed to
}>ones wishes. 
}
}No, you chose to assume that they were going to a resort, an
}assumption with no basis in reality.

No, I reliably quoted from reports, rather than make it up as I go.

}>It would be nice if you learned to differentiate between documented,
}>verifiable reality and your opinions, wishes, and dreams.
}
}And it would be nice if you learn to read what I wrote, stop
}misinterpreting my words, and stop making insults.

And it would be nice if YOU were to read what you wrote.  Read what you claimed
the "new media" said and do not make invalid assumptions.  


BTW:  5 of the 53 want to go back to Cuba, and a crew is coming up from Cuba
to fly them and the plane back.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:23:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.173125.875@uoft02.utoledo.edu> sbrack@jupiter
(Steve Brack) writes:

>	Hang on a second...  you just linked man/boy love to child 
>	molestation using what has been called the "welfare argument."

I'm not convinced that NAMBLA is really about "man/boy love"
(if this means adults with teenagers) and not child molestation.
Roy Radow certainly seems unwilling to state this.
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:59:14 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan11.174250.5872@hellgate.utah.edu>  
thomson%jensen.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Rich Thomson) writes:
> However, in the case of a taxi business, I think you will find that
> most governments regulat the taxi business so comprehensively that
> competing with the existing suppliers is nearly impossible.  This  
is
> an example of how regulation limits competition.

But some degree of regulation is needed here.  First off, the
government must make sure that you don't have criminals running
a taxi organization and mugging every third customer.  Second,
the government provides some resources: most cities have taxi
stand areas, where cabs can park but where cars cannot. For
both these reasons, the government has to exercise some kind of
control over cabs.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:34:08 GMT

In article <13804@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]In article <58172@dime.cs.umass.edu>, rjudy@dime.cs.umass.edu (Judy Ruot) writes:
]] 
]]    Great, you're not only apparently a homophobe but sexist as well,
]]    Clayton:  "The average homosexual: he"... uh, I got news for you
]]    homosexuals come in both genders.  You seem to spend a lot of
]
]But most are men.  The average homosexual is a man.  The 10% figure
]is not only false, but false in suggesting that men and women are
]homosexuals at comparable rates.  See the recent surveys done in 
]Britain & France.

As has been repeated literally dozens of times: the recent surveys
done in Britain and France are *nothing* more than lower bounds. They
cannot prove the number of homosexuals, or the ratios of homosexual
men to homosexual women. 

If you want to claim that the surveys accurately represent that
proportion, then you must support this claim by proving that there is
no social reason for women to be less likely to admit to/participate
in homosexual activities. If you cannot justify this claim, then the
results of the survey are completely open to question, and do not
constitute a support to your claim.



]]    time trashing gays, Clay;  I can't help but wonder if you fall into
]]    the 70% range of folks on the Kinsey continuum of sexual identity who
]]    aren't exclusively homosexual or heterosexual. I also can't help but
]]    imagine that because of societal reasons and pressures, you have
]]    chosen, instead of loving and accepting the part of yourself that
]]     is homosexual, to turn homophobe instead; why else would you go
]]    on and on as you do with such bigoted homophobic tirades? 
]
]No, it's because of the hard time that homosexuals have opposing
]child molestation.
]

Again, provide some evidence for this. The homosexuals who argue with
you have no problem with opposing child molestation. You keep making the
claim, but you ignore any request for justification. Put up, or shut up.

	<MC>

-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     || "There is no such thing as a problem 
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||  without a gift for you in its hands. You
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||  seek problems because you need their 
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  gifts" - _Illusions_, by Richard Bach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship
From: harry@hershele.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
Subject: Re: ARF's racist remark was:Re: Treason vs. Espionage
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:04:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.101822.27928@Princeton.EDU>
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

	Schmidling, your post was stupid because it made no sense.

	(1) There is no such thing as "African culture."  Any more than
	there is such a thing as "European culture."

	(2) African-American's are not by definition promoting African
	culture at all.

	(3) When you say they are "promoting a different culture," what
	do you mean?  Different than what? Different than
	non-African-Americans?  Sure.  But Italian-Americans promote a
	different culture than non-Italian-Americans, and you never seem
	to be complaining that Italian-Americans can't sustain "our"
	civilization.


In article <BzH0nu.82o@ddsw1.mcs.com>
arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) responds:

	First of all, I said culture not civilization.

As explained in a concurrent post on this subject, the two words are
synonymous and this distinction is meaningless.


	In fact I said nothing other than changing what someone else
	said I said to reflect what I would have said if I were asked.

Perfectly clear.


	I couldn't agree with you more...

First, Mr. Schmidling states that Afro-Americans are "by definition"
promoting African culture not American culture.  Now he couldn't agree
more with the statement that they "are not by definition promoting
African culture at all."  Moreover, he seems to be totally unaware of
the contradiction!


	...and that simply proves the idocy of the term African
	American.

What Mr. Schmidling sees fit to agree with or disagree with simply does
not prove anything except for his own idiocy.


	It is meaningless, Madison Ave mush.

Yet based on this meaningless mush Mr. Schmidling was able to conclude
that some people were intent on promoting un-American culture.


	I happen to have been born in South Africa and am white as the
	driven ssnow.

Based on Mr. Schmidling's own admissions to having a Jewish mother, it
must be stressed that in some circles his claim to lily whiteness would
be scorned.


	Therefore I am an African-American, right?

Well, it certainly does not make him Irish, does it?

What is most bizarre about this statement is Mr. Schmidling's
child-like belief that the color of his skin somehow isolates him
from any contact with influences in his immediate environment.

Mr. Schmidling may reject his African heritage, but how far can he
escape from it?  Culture is something that takes root in the human
psyche at a tender age and is very difficult to eradicate even when it
is consciously rejected.  Besides which, there seems to be many people
out on the net who feel that Mr. Schmidling is indeed promoting South
African culture quite zealously, to the detriment of American culture.


	Need I go on?

The world certainly has no need for Mr. Schmidling's muddled and
senseless thoughts, but we are afraid he will certainly go on no
matter how we answer this particular question.

Harry Katz
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: No US President Ever Survived an Energy Crisis
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:24:45 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


An interesting fact for y'all:

No U.S. president who had an energy crisis on his watch has ever made
it through the end of a second term.

Nixon:	First Energy Crisis, 1973. 	Forced to resign, 1974.

Carter:	Second Energy Crisis, 1979. 	Defeated for second term, 1980.

Bush:	Third Energy Crisis, 1990. 	Defeated for second term, 1992.

This should suggest something to somebody...

- Steve (masticol@cs.rutgers.edu).