HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: RE: Depression on 90-92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: kd1hz@anomaly.sbsrisc.net
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:13:48 GMT

	I must ask for the forgiveness of the readers of this group.
It seems I had an ugly debate with a certain net reader and to get back
he is repeatedly reposting my original post without identifying himself
as the "postie". If you are as tired of reading this post as me then 
let "kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net" know that he is being annoying. 
Thank you for your time.

Garrett@Ingres.com 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 1992 20:47:51 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

OlsonDL) writes:
|> In article <26282@life.ai.mit.edu>, elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
|> } Oh yes it is! In 1980 the top tax bracket was about 50%. In 1990 it
|> } was about 33%. The fact that the highest bracket pays a bigger share
|> } of all taxes in 1990 than in 1980 only proves that the rich got
|> } richer!
|> 
|> As I asked in a previous article, if the proper role of a tax is to raise
|> money for government functions, and rich people end up paying more taxes,
|> why should you care if they become richer in the process?
|> 
I only care if the government uses the tax money to create an unfair
advantage to the rich to help them get richer.  My vision of the US is
not a feudal society where the rich own everything and serfs/share-croppers
are allowed to use, but not benefit from, resources.
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: POLL for non-U.S. residents:  Is U.S. envy of world?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:52:38 GMT

Steve Davis writes
>   I think an informal poll might be in order, primarily targeting those
> posting from outside of the U.S.:
> 
> ****   Is the United States of America the envy of the world?  ****
> 
> Please send replies either through direct email or by posting to  
> alt.politics.elections.

May I as a european may vote despite the fact that I've lived here since a few  
years ?

If so, take me down for a resounding

     YES !

There is a reason why so many of the brightest and best from the rest of the  
advanced world have moved to this country.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dave_barry
From: klm@gozer.mv.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Organization: GhostBuster Central - Southern NH Usenet Access, Nashua, NH
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 14:52:54 GMT

cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

> Darrin P Cardani writes
> > Hate to break it to you, but Dave Barry has said in
> > interviews that he's an anarchist. He's said that he
> > would rather just do away with government. I don't know
> > how serious he is, considering he's running for
> > president :-) 

> Are you sure you are not just making this up ? :-)

> Anyway, I'm glad to hear it.

Dave has also been interviewed in the newspaper of the Libertarian
Party and his columns are now being published there as well.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Quayle's finances (was: Clinton's bravery)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:45:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.134123.24024@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug13.112903.9719@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
>sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) said:
>
>> This whole story was yet another in a long string of stories in 1988
>> that the media more or less "made up" concerning Quayle.  The other
>> big story is that he is worth $600 million.  This is also not true.
>> In 1988, he was worth less than $1 million and probably the third
>> wealthiest of the four running for President with virtually no
>> inheritance in his future.
>
>I'm willing to believe this, if only because real life is full of
>unexpected little stranger-than-fiction elements, but I'm curious as
>to _why_ this is -- after all, Dan Quayle is the scion of a family
>that appears to be very rich (what with owning several newspapers,
>etc.), so why wasn't _he_ very rich as well in '88?  And why was/is
>there "virtually no inheritance in his future?"
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
>


  I nearly missed your post.  In the future, you may want to e-mail
me to make sure I get the message.

  The reason there is "virtually no inheritance in his future" is,
quite simply because his grandfather, Eugene C. Pulliam, did
not believe in inherited wealth.  At _most_, Quayle could
receive the income from 1/12 of his grandfather's trust and he
cannot receive this until after the death of his step-mother
and mother.  At that time, he would receive roughly $76,358 a year.

  As far as his wealth, a more detailed view from Price Waterhouse
shows that in 1988 he was worth $859,700.

  His primary assest is his $500,000 house, which he has a $150,000
mortgage on.  The rest of his wealth is stock in Central Newspapers,
several small bank accounts, investments, and a retirement plan.

  So, while Quayle is doing rather well by _my_ standards, he 
is certainly not nearly as wealthy as the media has reputed him to be.

  Not even close to the $600 million that was reported in 1988.


  This was just another in a long line of incorrect reports on Quayle.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:31:09 -0400 
From: Alison Rebecca Colman <ac10+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: politics
	<1992Aug18.161401.7479@wuecl.wustl.edu>
Distribution: usa

>Don Porter

>Both parties have made a calculated exclusion of a targeted group in
>the hope that the exclusion will attract more of that group's enemies
>than an attempt at inclusion would attract members of the targeted
>group.  The Republicans are excluding homosexuals and the Democrats are 
>excluding pro-lifers.  Respectively, they hope to energize the
>religious right and the abortion-rights lobby to come out in droves
>on Election Day.  In the process, they are throwing away the single
>issue gay and lesbian rights supporters and the single issue right-to-
>lifers, again respectively.  I expect these maneuvers will mostly cancel 
>each other out, since I imagine these two groups are of about the same 
>size, both very vocal minorities.

Not only are the Republicans excluding homosexuals, they are excluding
pro-choice Republicans as well.  I have heard pro-lifers and pro-life
Democrats complaining because Clinton isn't giving them the time of day,
would not permit them to speak at the convention; but on the other hand,
the Republican party and President Bush are giving pro-choice
Republicans the same exact treatment, if not shoddier treatment. I don't
exactly see Bush allowing someone from the Republicans for Choice speak
at the convention. Personally, when I hear pro-lifer's whine about how
badly the Democrats treat them, black pots and kettles come to mind....

>Contrast this with the Democratic convention where speaker after speaker
>stood up for a "woman's right to choose".  (Choose what?!  For goodness
>sake, if you can't even say it, how can you support it?).

Choose abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby. Stop playing dumb and
quit being so picky.  

>The clear
>message to pro-lifers was "Take a hike!"  We will see if the Republican's
>message is equally clear to homosexuals as the convention progresses.

It seems pretty clear to me so far. The clear message to pro-choicers as
well as homosexuals from Republicans is also, "Take a hike!" There is no
reason for a Republican to play holier-than-thou in this instance.


Alison Colman
From: saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Liberal v. Conservative
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:35:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley


In the last decade, the word 'Liberal' has become a derisive word
used to label someone as out of the mainstream. Now suddenly we find
that Clinton has taken a centrist ground on many issues, and that
Bush is taking a extreme right-wing view of many issues. What
is especially sad is that he is not advocating the views of the
Goldwater-right that believes in small gov't, but rather the
views of the religious right that wants to impose their narrow views
on everyone on social issues. 

							Saurav Chatterjee

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ "I'm on a five year plan - BA, MBA, BMW"              ** ** saurav@usa   @
@                                                       *  * (.ece.cmu.edu)@
@ 49'ers III-Peat! - never mind                         *  *  saurav@ocf   @
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** *  saurav@cory  @
@      Copyright (c) Chatterjee Enterprises, 1992        * *  saurav@ohm   @
@             All Rights Reserved Worldwide              * *(.berkeley.edu)@
@ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ** **              @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.misc,ne.news
From: dqk412@kepler.unh.edu (David Q Kennard)
Subject: Re: TRIM 4-102 for Dick Swett NH
Keywords: TRIM 4-102 for Congressman Dick Swett 2nd Dist. New Hampshire
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Distribution: ne
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:34:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.171538.11289@cbfsb.cb.att.com> wkm@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (william.k.mcnally) writes:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TRIM 4-102 for Congressman Dick Swett 2nd Dist. New Hampshire
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Source: National TRIM (Tax Reform IMmediately)     
> an adhoc committee of The John Birch Society     

>[a bunch of good things that Dick Swett did that the Birchers don't like]

Thanks! you've strengthened my support for Swett with your helpful list.

Dave Kennard
DAVE@UNH.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Which states are a MUST for Clinton ?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:10:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.192139.25853@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:
>Patrick Sugent writes
>>   Clinton and Gore get Arkansas and Tenn.
>> 
>>   They win the same states as Dukakis in 1988. -Wash, Ore, Minn, Iowa,
>> Wis, NY, W. Vir, Mass.
>> 
>>   For arguments sake, they win the same states that Dukakis lost by
>> 5% or less.  Calif, N. Mex, Mo, IL, PA, MD.
>                                  **
>
>  This is a minor point, but didn't Dukakis win Illinois in 1988?
>

  Minor points always welcome, Mr. Davis. 

  In 1988, Bush received   2,310,939 (51%)
           Dukakis         2,215,940 (49%)

  In 1984, Reagan received 2,707,103 (56%)
           Mondale         2,086,499 (49%)

           Third party candidates excluded just to annoy the Libertarians. :-)

           Ok, really that's all the data I have.  Don't take it personally.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: M22614@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: test
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:40:13 GMT

In article <16841986A.M22614@mwvm.mitre.org>
M22614@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
 
>
>this is just a test
 still testing
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:16:19 GMT

htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>                                                            I was under
>the impression that the Republican policy was to increase funding to 
>*private* schools, the idea being that this will increase competitiveness
>and result in better education overall. I see a darkly ironic parallel 
>between this and Reagan's trickle-down economics...

In a truly impressive display of double-think, they refer to the undermining
of public school funding as "empowering" people -- even the poorest -- to
"choose" schools for their children. Why not take it to the libertarian
limit and cut off all forms of public assistance? Then people should REALLY
be empowered! They'll be able to do anything! Onward to the 19th century!

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Prodigy
Keywords: GOP conventions transcript
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:43:25 GMT

oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
|> For those of you who do have prodigy accounts, there's one good thing
|> prodigy is good for.  They've *already* got the Buchanan, Reagan, and
|> Bush speeches from the first day of the convention.

Not only that.  In addition to up-to-the-minute political news, they
have an amazing database on all the congressional and presidential
candidates, personal profiles, voting history, details on their campaign
contributions, addresses and phone numbers, lots of history on each
party, including 3rd parties, congressional district lines (enter a zip
code to figure out what district it's in), etc.  I was very impressed.

I just wish it were not so slow. :(
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us lau
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:35:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.212945.10217@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
>Patrick, I agree with you somewhat when you say the in-power Republicans
>probably had some influence on those events -- it doesn't take a rocket
>scientist to see that the lunatic fringe is running this country. Why
>shouldn't our economic enemies be afraid of us?
>
>	Bye, Judy.

  I'm not sure what you say follows from what I said.  Although, I can't
really argue against you since it isn't that clear to me what you
_are_ saying.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:42:46 GMT

In article <19274@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.034557.4891@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>} 
>} Hmm.  My point is that there would be taxes anyway (Libertarians
>} jumping out of the woodwork at this point :-).  Things like defense.
>} How do you propose distributing the tax burden?
>
>My view of an ideal tax is one that a person's tax should be based on
>the government services that person uses.

Yes, the libertarians have come out of the woodwork.

What if that person cannot pay for the government service?  Consider
education: the cost of an adequete education in our society is
increasing because of changing technology.  The poor cannot afford
this.  Should they be relegated to the bottom rung of the economic
ladder forever, because of the circumstances of their birth?  Where
is the notion that everyone should be equally free to pursue their
goals if opportunities are cut off from the very beginning?
Especially if the providing of these opportunities is not a great
strain to our society.  Further, human investment now may prevent
future problems from happening.  You won't have to pay for prisons
or police later on, if you provide legal opportunities for another's
advancement now.  How much does it cost to send someone to prison,
as opposed to college?

>
>} As noted, it is a
>} greater hardship for the poor to pay the same percentage as the
>} wealthy.
>
>Suppose the tax on a poor person was 10%.  How is it a greater hardship
>on them if a rich person also paid 10%?  How would that poor person's 10%
>be less of a burden on them, if a rich persons tax rate was subsequently
>shoved up to 99% instead?

It is a greater hardship because cost of living is not vanishingly
small.  Food and rent could easily cost $8K for a small family.
Asking someone who already devotes half his income to basic needs
to cough up that extra $1K is imposing a greater hardship on him
than asking for that extra $1K from some devoting 10% of his income
on basic needs.

And no one is advocating taxing the rich of 99% of their income.  Is
this your paranoia about liberalism showing through?  If tax rates for
the wealthy are raised one or two percentage points, we may be able to
lower the rate for the poor.  This would reduce the burden the poor.


--
This is not a .signature
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10972 talk.abortion:32486
From: frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Negativity at conventions
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:08:05 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
: Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
: <deletion>
: However, not once do I remember the Democrats making any blanket statements
: about the Republican Party as a whole. They've concentrated their fire on
: Bush and Quayle.
: 
: But the Republicans, on the other hand -- the invective being directed
: at the entire Democratic Party is, well, awe-inspiring. They've accused
: the Democrats -- EVERY one of the millions of people who identify themselves
: as Democrats -- as being depression-causing, tax-raising, business-closing,
: <deletion>
: Now, my questions: Why do the Republican speakers feel compelled to pour
: such vitriol on the Democratic Party?

Because the economy (and society) are in awful shape, and
if it isn't Bush's fault then it must be somebody's.  The
strategy has been for everybody else to do the slamming,
and then tonight Bush goes up to the podium and lays down
the plan for the next four years.  Or so the pundits claim -
even the Rep'ns that PBS has been featuring have all been
saying that for Bush to pull this convention off, tonight's
speach *must* lay down a concrete plan/vision (how is it
that a politician's "vision" has become equivalent to a
plan?) for the economy tonight.  However, the rumor I've
heard is that he isn't even gonna try - he's just going
to talk about family values.  Sounds like a bust to me...

: And finally, does
: this help or hinder George Bush?

It's a risk.  As the commentators have said, each and every
one of these speaches has increased the preasure on Bush.
Every time Clinton's plans are mocked, every time a speaker
says "Just wait until Pres. Bush turns his attention to
the economy...," the screws are turned.  Tonight is very
much make-or-brake.  It'll be interesting viewing.

--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:54:16 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <16842640A.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>
JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
 
>In article <1992Aug12.182715.25650@news.columbia.edu>
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>My impression was that Quayle pulled strings to get himself assigned
>>to a Guard unit that had no chance of being shipped out for some
>>reason.  Given this, Quayle was a hawk who avoided the draft.  Clinton
>>had moral objections to the war, and avoided the draft.  One is a
>>hypocrite in this matter, the other not.
>
>Well, now, Elizabeth, I'd love to see your reference for this
>"pulling strings to get himself assigned to a guard unit that had
>no chance of being shipped out."  It's funny how memory fades into
>whatever shade you predispose it to.  Could it be that you are a
>Denocrat, that you read conjecture of anti-Quayle themes, and now
>it has become firm evidence?
>
>As for hypocritical assessments, isn't Clinton the one that avoided the
>draft and openly said it was to keep his political viability within
>the system?  Then he never served at all - no conscientious objector
>service (it does exist for those who truly object to war and it benefits
>the needy at home if you'd like).  Dan Quayle served time and whether you
>like it or not (a) you don't choose which guard unit you go into and (b)
>it is work and there is no guarantee of non-hazardous duty.
 
I was coming up on draft age in those days, and I was paying attention.
I don't recall any significant number of National Guard troops going to
VietNam.  The combat forces were all regular forces and active
reserves.  Getting into any National Guard unit was an almost sure-fire
way to avoid combat.  Yes, it was work, but it kept you out of VietNam.
 
As for achieving conscientious objector status...forget it.  The policy
was much tighter then.  In order to be declared a CO, you had to belong
to a religious order that forbade war.  Personal opposition had no
bearing.  Since Clinton is a Baptist, and not a Quaker, CO status was
impossible for him.  Lots of people tried this, including Muhammed Ali.
Most ended up either in VietNam or in prison.  If they allowed easy
access to CO status, no one would have ever been drafted.
 
Things look a lot different now than they did in 1969.  Unless you
really know what was going on then, don't be so quick to judge the
actions of people who faced a significant probability of death or
maiming to fight a war in which they did not believe.
 
Jim McMaster
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10357 alt.politics.clinton:1762 alt.politics.bush:1280 talk.politics.misc:39169
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:07:47 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Aug12.180704.26703@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:
>by golly, if you have enough $$$ you can buy influence and control
>the representatives directly instead of indirectly through a vote:)

Kind of like Jim Wright, Tony Cuello, Alan Cranstan, etc., etc.?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc