HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hausman@caffeine.cen.uiuc.edu (Kevin Hausman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Republican (American?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:17:39 GMT
Organization: CCSO College of Engineering Workstations

In article <1992Aug19.033655.5007@midway.uchicago.edu>, sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug19.015027.11470@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
|> >In article <92231.213054A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> <A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET> writes:
|> >>"I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
|> >>Outside the USA it is felt that the USA did not change a thing
|> >>in East Germany, USSR, etc.  It just happened and Bush was only a
|> >>spectator like everybody else. (If some person deserves some credit
|> >>than it is Gorbatsjov)
|> >
|> >The thing is that Bush does not have a coherent  domestic policy and is
|> >prepared to do anything to get reelected.  Hence, the republicans try to
|> >hoodwink the American public into believing that Bush was a major player
|> >in bringing down communist dictatorship in Europe.  As a European, you
|> >were closer to the events and can see the republicans' claim for what it is -
|> >ridiculous propagander.  
|> 
|>   Well, his opinions are just that, his opinions.  To assume that they,
|> in any way, represent the views of all Europeans or all European literature
|> is just mistaken.
|> 
|>   On a personal level, I know people from England, France, and even Croatia
|> that disagree with the above opinion.  As a regular reader of _The Economist_,
|> I can assure you that it gives credit to the policies of Republicans and
|> their influence on the end of the Cold War (so at least one bit of
|> European literature provides some credit to the Republican policies.)
|> 
|>   Certainly giving Gorbachev and Yeltsin their full credit is just.  However,
|> to pretend like U.S. policies had no effect upon the Cold War victory
|> seems a bit odd.
|> 

I don't think that most people would disagree that Republican foreign policy
and such during the past 12 years had an influence on the collapse of eastern-
European communism.  However, to say that Bush should be given a large amount
of credit for its fall is wrong.  I happened to be in Europe (West Germany)
when the Wall came down--it's true that Europeans generally approved of the
Bush administration's handling of the whole affair, but that handling consisted
basically of STAYING OUT OF THE WHOLE MESS.  I don't know what Bush was 
saying in this country, but over there one heard very little about America's
position on the whole event, and what one did hear was that America would
help and support the reunification of Germany, but that the details would have
to be decided by the Europeans.

Bush was smart not to gloat at the time the Wall came down and to keep his
hands out of it.  I'll give him that.  But to say that he had a major role
in any of this is ridiculous.


Kevin Hausman
CCSO Workstation Support
hausman@caffeine.cen.uiuc.edu
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Liberal v. Conservative
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:00:51 GMT

Greg Lee writes
> And we hate for you to do it, too, believe me.  Not only is the
> repetition boring, but the fact that we spend a large
> amount already is still not relevant to whether the
> federal government should spend more than it does. If you
> want to stand back and exhort parents and school boards to
> spend more on basic education and less on all the other
> stuff, it may give you a nice warm feeling that you've got
> the best answer to the education problem, but it's not
> going to accomplish anything on the national level. 
> Pointing out that there is already enough money in the
> system to do the job may make voters feel good the next time
> they vote down a bond issue, but it doesn't get one student
> any better educated. 

So your argument is that the education establishment is spending all of our  
money so unwisely that it desperately needs more of our money ? 

No, I'm afraid you don't understand the magnitudes involved. If merely 5% of  
american educational spending was stopped being spent on administration and  
other political nonsense, this would free up _more_ money to be used for  
genuine education than if the federal government _doubled_ all it educational  
expenditures. 

But of course the former is very unlikely to happen as long as the education  
establishment is in control and becomes virtually impossible if one of its  
closest political allies - Bill Clinton - becomes President.

On the other hand, people who vote down bond issues for education are putting  
pressure for change on the establishment and so very likely are doing education  
a much better service than those who just through more and more of their (and  
most likely other peoples) money into the ravenous mouth of the education  
establishment.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:47:32 GMT

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>In article <1992Aug12.001844.18886@reed.edu> bowman@reed.edu (Eric Bowman (bobo)) writes:
>>The richer you are, the more dependent you are upon, for example, the government
>>to keep looters out of your house, etc. etc.  Or do you see this as a needless
>>social program?  It seems to me that is people are living in this country and
>>making lots of money, they're pretty dependent upon the government to maintain

>Sorry, but I don't buy that argument.  The highest priced crime prevention 
>programs are in the inner cities.  The wealthy pay, out of their own pockets,
>for private security outfits to patrol their high class neighborhoods.  If you
>want to base tax rates on what a person gets out of the government, tax rates
>for the poorest sections of the country would be darn near 100%.  Using your
>argument, the tax rate for SC Los Angeles must be raised sky high.

the first post refers to *benefits* of government, not *cost* to 
govt.  if the police analogy confuses you, try a fire department
analogy.

>
From: cdonnell@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris E Donnell)
Subject: National Lottery System.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:47:13 GMT



I have always had this idea and today had the urge to get some feedback on it.

My idea is for the national government to institute a national lottery system 
with large prizes(cash, cars, jewerly) and which each ticket costs $5.  The 
proceeds of this lottery could be split in many ways but a large percentage 
would go to pay off the national debt.  For example: 60-75% for the debt, 5-40%
to compensate states for losses in their lotteries and to support education, 
5-15% for socially acceptable research and programs(AIDS and Cancer research, 
government sponsored fiber optic networks, bullet trains, satellites, and high 
technology research).  As the national debt is extinguished over a 30 year 
period, the monies could be redivided but only in the above groups.  The cash 
winnings would, because of the scope and size of this country, be over $100 
million dollars and would draw enormous profits from people hoping to win.  The
odds of winning would have to be determined.  I would recommend picking 8 
numbers out of 50.  This would make it very difficult and allow the government 
to make a larger profit.  The general public is too stupid to realize that they
have a better chance of getting hit by lightning twice in a day than winning.  
We could overcome this problem by giving away cars or jewerly for those who 
guess 5 or 6 of the numbers.  A good propaganda machine would make this very 
workable.  Does anyone care to comment?  Do you think it is workable and will 
this bring in the kind of money necessary to eventually dent the deficit?
From: benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: POLL for non-U.S. residents:  Is U.S. envy of world?
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:34:04 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


>>A735FJO@HASARA11.BITNET writes
>>> "I know what is right for the world, and I know what is right for the USA
>>> "I brought peace over the world, now let me bring peace in the USA"
>>> "We have changed the world, now let's change the USA".
>>>
>>> Apart from that one should work on his/her faults first,
>>> the above makes some of us (over here in Europe) puke.  Most of us,
>>> however, just laugh about this outraging stupidity.
>>
>>  I, for one, am very embarrassed when American politicians make statements
>>such as those above.  I'm sick of hearing claims that America is the envy of
>>the world, and that all other nations in the free world look to the U.S. for
>>guidance.
>>
>>  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?  ****
>>

Well, i am amazed at the number of people who think that, indeed,
America is the beakon (to use Dan Quayle's term and spelling) of
freedom of the world. 

I have lived both in the US in in Europe for extended periods of time.
I have also traveled, in central america for example, or Thailand,
Africa and the Middle East. I hear European voices on the net, who,
like me are expatriated Europeans who came to the US, mostly to attend
universities. Most of them agree that the US is still regarded as the
most powerful symbol of frededom. It has not been my experience in the
least.

In France, many people have a very bleak idea of life in the US, with
rampant crime, indecent poverty and powerful corporate interests. When
i decided to come here (i was because i wanted to travel and
experience new ways of life) most people thought i was "very
courageous," "nuts," "leaving a human coutry for a impersonal
crumbling superpower" (that last one was from a executive who had just
spent 10 years in this country). The only ones who thought i was "darn
lucky" were mostly young teens, who love american movies.  

Please do not jump on me right away for america bashing, i am just
trying to honestly report my experiences. I personally think that life
here is fine, but i am very skeptical of claims that it's the "most
free in the world." Almost all other European countries i have lived
in or visited (Italy, Germany, Britain,..) were as just as free.

Now, in many parts of the world, such as central and south america,
the US is often viewed as a ruthless superpower, dedicated to protect
its corporate interests, by any means necessary. In the Arab world
(algeria, morocco, egypt...) it the same story. No doubts that in
places like China, i am sure it is still viewed as the model for
resistance leaders. Much like the x soviet union, the antagonism
between the 2 countries made it the natural ally to opposition
leaders.

my $0.02,
Benjamin.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gratrix@spot.Colorado.EDU (Jackie Gratrix)
Subject: Re: ABC/Post POLL: No bounce yet for Bush.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:34:16 GMT

aras@ms.uky.edu (P. I. Arasu) writes:

>As on 19th August (3rd day of GOP convention):

>According to the 11pm (EST) ABC news President Bush has 
>got not yet got the  bounce he badly needs from the  republican
>convention.
>Clinton continues to maintain the same lead he had out
>of the Democratic convention.

>Bush    33%
>Clinton 58%

This poll was taken over a five day period, Friday through Tuesday.
I heard on the radio Tuesday morning the results of an ABC poll
taken on Monday, Aug. 17 giving Clinton a 20 point lead (57%
Clinton, 37% Bush), down 6 points from Clinton's 26 point lead
on Monday, Aug 10.

A Houston Chronicle poll taken Monday night showed Clinton having 
a 16 point lead (52% Clinton,  36% Bush).  


Jackie
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the vigilantes in L.A.?
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:01:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


|>>Registration has time and again been used for confiscation. Why do 
|>
|>References please. . . 

|It happened when the Nazis entered France, where the Nazis warned that
|those not surrendering the arms registered to them would be shot,
|and in New York City, where law-abiding citizens who had registered their
|rifles previously were told to surrender them to police or send them
|out of state or face stiff criminal penalties.

Neal Knox also reported an incident where an M-1 carbine was confiscated
in Washington, D.C. This may have been reported in the now defunct
FIREPOWER magazine.

|Registration has also been a first-step in banning firearms used
|responsibly by law-abiding citizens.  In Chicago, handgun registration
|came first, and then a complete ban by preventing any further registration.

A further data point: Chicago has done the same thing with by-named
semiautos, BUT, also has made illegal presently owned by-named semiautos;
the police can further identify other weapons they don't like for
this treatment. Trust the Democratic party in Chicago? Then you are
a FOOL.

| If the government ever orders its citizens to turn in their guns,
| I'll base my decision on a few wise words once spoken by Captain
| Picard--"Their are times when men of good conscious cannot blindly
| follow orders."  Too many crimes have been committed throughout 
| mankind's history under the banner of law and order.  When man
| ceases to be free, he ceases to be bound by the laws of his
| government.
 
Recall that the highest law of the land is the Constitution; when the
government orders your weapons turned in, THEY are the ones violating
the law. It makes no difference how many judges, or how many
courts, or if any legislative or executive branchs say otherwise, YOU
have a "right to keep and bear arms," for, among other things, to preserve
the "free state."

------
"Trust Steel" -- Narrative from "Conan, the Barbarian."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:47:05 GMT

In article <jc4m6tc.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>
>By golly, if I have to pay more, I want my vote to count more! It is only fair!

You don't *have* to pay more, you can just earn less or donate more to
charity to reduce your taxable income to the level you feel is appropriate
for your single vote.

But seriously, where is it written that taxation must be fair?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: POLL for non-U.S. residents: Is U.S. envy of world?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:10:30 GMT

sdavis@laforge.ksc.nasa.gov (Steve Davis) writes:

>****   Is the United States of America the envy of the world?  ****

Yes, in many ways.  The American Revolution still serves as an
inspiration for liberals (in the classical sense of the word) all
over the world.  The United States has illustrated the link between
individual liberty and economic prosperity; it has shown that a
society in which individuals have sovereignty over themselves rather
than submit to state power can survive, grow, and prosper.  Its
traditional open-door immigration policy has given opportunity to
millions of people while at the same time enhancing economic growth.

However, the US is not immune to the trend of increasing state
power.  The Federal Government has grown to proportions undreamt of
at the time of union.  And of course, immigration is no longer open.

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Organization: Clark University
Date: 20 AUG 92 03:34:15 GMT


In a previous article, cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) wrote:
>Greg Lee writes
>> Pointing out that there is already enough money in the
>> system to do the job may make voters feel good the next time
>> they vote down a bond issue, but it doesn't get one student
>> any better educated. 
> 
>No, I'm afraid you don't understand the magnitudes involved. If merely 5% of  
>american educational spending was stopped being spent on administration and  
>other political nonsense, this would free up _more_ money to be used for  
>genuine education than if the federal government _doubled_ all it educational  
>expenditures. 
> 
>But of course the former is very unlikely to happen as long as the education  
>establishment is in control and becomes virtually impossible if one of its  
>closest political allies - Bill Clinton - becomes President.
> 
>	Carl Edman

I don't think Mr. Lee was saying categorically that more money should be
blindly pumped into federal education funding. Rather, financial consider-
ations may not be the heart of the problem.
I also don't think it's fair to assume Clinton would be a pawn of these
vested interests that you claim are so bent on control. The means of 
Clinton's educational turnaround in Arkansas might not have pleased 
everyone, but it was very results-oriented. I don't think he would be
content to continue a policy that is, as you say, obviously ineffective.

Would anyone care to classify the "success" of school choice in lower-
income areas? (I believe Harlem was mentioned as an example.) Sorry if 
I missed a previous posting of this, but in terms of urban schooling, this
voucher-system sounds incredibly unrealistic! 


-
Bart "Webb" Tilney		|   "All of life is a blur 
Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu	|    of Republicans and meat!"
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:05:30 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <l90a0mINN5ju@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.212830.9788@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
>|> 
>|> 	One more note.  The Reagan 96 months of interrupted real
>|> economic growth WAS NOT the longest in American history.  The longest
>|> such period was 109 months from 1960-69.  The rate was also higher in
>|> the 60s.  
>
>Nobody ever said that it was the longest growth era EVER. What has been
>said and repeatedly is that it was the longest PEACETIME expansion. We
>were at war in Indo-China from 1960-1969

Yeah, instead we had the largest peacetime military buildup in history.
Does anyone have comparison between military expenditures during the
Vietnam war and the Reagan buildup?

You know, what Reagan did was essentially a Keynsian policy: lower
taxes, spend lots of money (in defense, not social/infrastructure
expenditures).


--
But this is.
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Krugman/ Rich Richer, Poor Poorer?
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:47:57 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Aug17.233051.3443@midway.uchicago.edu>, sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Pa writes...

> 
> 
>  "The recession of 1979-82 hurt the great majority of American families, while
>the long recovery benefited almost everyone."
> 
>	- MIT Economist Paul Krugman
>	  U.S. News & World Report
>	  June 1, 1992
> 
> 
>  ____________________________
> 
> 
> 
>  Never underestimate the educational power of a spirited debate.  The
>intellectual point man on the income-gap issue now agrees that during the
>Reagan economic expansion, gains by "the rich" did not come at the expense
>of "the poor."  Whatever may be said about widening income disparities,
>it follows, they have little if anything to do with the Reagan tax policies.
>Now if the foot soldiers in the assault on the "decade of greed" also catch up
>with the basic facts, perhaps the debate can move on to something serious.
> 
I beg to point out a small mistake on Mr. Krugman's part. The years of 
1979-82 had two recessions, not one continous one. 1979-80 and 81-82
(although some economists will argue that the latter didn't end
until 83). No flames, just a correction.

Disclaimer: If my company shares my opinions I'd be suprised.
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush Trails in Texas!
Date: 15 Aug 1992 19:21:46 GMT
Organization: Statistics R Us
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <2A89494A.8465@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>
>Oh, absolutely not. So far we have my claim against your utter lack of
>any claim at all. If you do the work and find a source which claims that
>reporters and editors in the large news organization have voting behaviour
>which is _not_ to the left of the general populous or at least if you
>screw up your courage or screw down your common sense and _claim_ so,
>then I'll have to get sources.  Until then my statement stands as
>undisputed and you are just blowing hot air.

Mr. Edman holds me to a remarkable standard.  He can make any claim
(even using phrases like "any number of studies" and numbers like 
"70-90 percent") without citing sources, but if I dare to question
the veracity of his claims _I_ must produce evidence.  I have been 
unable to find any studies of voting behavior of the media but I
did locate the following list of the top seven syndicated newpaper
columnists.

    George Will [Conservative]
    James Kilpatrick [Conservative]
    David Broder [Moderate]
    Ellen Goodman[Liberal]
    Mike Royko[Moderate]
    William Safire[Conservative]
    William Buckley[Conservative]

[Average circulation 17.1 milllion each]
[Source Featurank research, Texas]

Anecdotally, I will throw in Rush Limbaugh as the only nationally
syndicated Talk-radio host to endorse one of the major candidates
--Bush over both Perot and Clinton.
------------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few.
    --Bishop Berkeley


Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Remember this?!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:18:52 GMT

Beside being a goddam snake-in-the-grass hypocrite ( ;-) ), GHWB has offered
about the most substance-free, dairy-whipped domestic policies imaginable.
Let me give you an example:

'Way back in 1989, GHWB was a new president, brimming with optimism and eager
to get on with the job.[1]  Then...


	We waited patiently for our new Education President to formulate an
	education policy.

	We waited patiently for our new Environment President to formulate
	an environmental policy.
	
	We waited patiently for _anyone_ in the Bush administration to
	acknowledge that we were beginning to slide into a recession.


And what did we get???

A proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag-burning!!!


[1] I hope you folks can recognize irony.

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns