HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Date: 13 Aug 1992 16:28:46 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Al Date) writes:
|> 
|> Mike Polen wrote:
|> 
|> >Al Date) writes:
|> |> Oh, you must be referring to the current borrow-and-spend regime.
|> |> You're right, it will cause a disaster.
|>                      unless Ed Ipser is right, of course. (8-)
|> |> The Libertarians want govt to live within its means, just like
|> |> everyone else has to do.  We have seen that the only way
|> >			      	      ^^^^
|> |> to get democratic govt to do that is to structurally limit its scope.  
|> |> Otherwise, the special interests conspire to raid the Treasury. 
|> |> 
|> 
|> >Where have you *seen* this?  
|> 
|> >Where in the world is your model of a
|> >structurally limited democracy?  
|> 
|> Structurally limited democracy is called a Republic.  That is
|> the basis of our nation.  It is about liberty delimiting democracy.
|> The distinguishing feature of liberty is that it establishes
|> individual sovereignty as opposed to either dictatorship of the majority
|> or the minority.  Under liberty, majority rule is confined to the
|> selection of representatives.  Supermajorities are required to change
|> the rules.  Outside this realm, individuals are free to live their
|> lives as they see fit.
|> 
|> >How about in the last 50 years?  The
|> >world is much different that in was 200 years ago, why do you think
|> >a 200 year old model would work today?
|> 
|> [an excellent description of the republic that Jefferson and Madison
|>  is deleted here]

So the only evidence you have the a Repblic solves the problems you
have with US government reside in the government you dislike.  Perhaps
the change from the model defined by a bunch of wealthy farmer/businessmen
in the 1700's didn't survive till today because it is unworkable with the
population and communication that exists today.

Again, you can demonstrate NO system that exists that you like.  You 
can identify a theoretical model which, when implemented, mutated to
what we have today.  Maybe the survival of the fittest occured.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am still looking for evidence of a 
successful Republic on which to base an opinion.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Democratic (European?) Arrogance makes us laugh.
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:18:12 GMT

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)

Not according the Lech Walesa.  His was quite thankful for
the aid Reagan gave him, and for Reagan's strong public statements
against the "Evil Empire". According to him, Reagan and Bush *did* make a
difference. One suspects that he knows better than anybody, for
he, more than anybody, had the courage to be working against the
Communist system when they still held their iron grip over Eastern
Europe.

>The thing is that Bush does not have a coherent domestic policy

This line is getting tired ... it is quite untrue:

Bush has submitted proposals on Banking reform;
an Economic recovery package which includes capital gains tax cuts,
R&D investment credits, and housing incentives.
He has proposed enterprise zone legislation to reviatalize our inner cities.
He has negotiated a free-trade agreement with Mexico.
He has asked for a line-item veto and balance budget amendment to control
deficit spending, and has submitted spending recissions (like the Seawolf,
which failed in the House).
Bush has submitted a significant proposal on providing health insurance
for the currently uninsured.
He has recently asked the Dept of Labor and other departments to review
regulations to lessen the burden of regulation on the economy.
He has proposed legal system reforms, which are intended to reduce the cost of
litigation. He proposed and enacted the ADA bill, providing access and
rights to disabled Americans in businesses and in employment.
He pushed and enacted the 1990 Clean Air Act, the first significant
piece of environmental legislation in two decades.

---
Pat
" Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Compromise in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton's bravery
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:06:48 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

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.
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RE: Liberal v. Conservative
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:40:13 EDT

In article <1992Aug18.231619.509@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> 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

It appears that the platform for increased funding for private schools
is so that fundamentalist institutions such as Fallwell's 'Liberty College'
and other similar religious schools can get federal funding. Remember that
the platform is being written by this group...

-Garrett
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: AMERICA: WHAT WENT WRONG?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 22:44:26 GMT

In article <92227.142113DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>America, "What Went Wrong?" is an extremely well researched, superbly
>written book about the present state of our economy and how it
>got that way. 

  Yes.  I particularly like the way they "prove" that airline fares
have gone up since deregulation by choosing two, not entirely random, examples
and showing the "increase".  Oh, one of their examples was an intrastate 
flight.  I can look up the specifics if you can't find my reference.

  In other words, I believe the book to be a heavily biased.  The book should
be called "how to heavily bias your data and make money by publishing shock
value material."  I guess the title was too long to put on the book cover.
Either that, or truth doesn't sell.

  This is not to say that the book is without its moments, but I would take
anything based upon it with a huge shaker of salt.  Its depictions of
deregulation have been discussed in this newsgroup before, much to the
chagrin of those that have seen real studies on the matter.

  Sorry, but I have a real peeve with this book.  I bought/read it thinking
it would be an insightful piece by a couple of (past) Pulitzer Prize winners.
Instead, it contained poorly researched half-truths.  It is, however, a
prime example of how the media twists around facts and makes money while
doing so. 

Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject:  quayles look familiar?
Date: 20 Aug 92  19:22:00 EST

-> Answer: it's because Dan looks JUST like Princess Di and Marilyn
-> looks JUST like Prince Charles!  (It's true, look closely).

And I thought that Dan looked like Pat Sajak and Marilyn was the spitting image of Mary Tyler Moore!

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>
"Oh Mister Graaaaant!"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Subject: Bush Defines the Character Issue
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 14:30:50 GMT


 
"I will do what I have to do to be re-elected."
 
		-George Bush
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Convention review
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:09:06 EDT

In article <1992Aug21.232624.19628@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon) writes:
> In a previous article, liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) says:
>>>>
>>The "Democratic Leadership in the House" Tom Foley and the gang 
>>mentally controlled innocent republican congressmen like
>>Dick Chenny into write rubber checks with their democratic counterparts.
>>
>>no wonder they called him SPEAKER Foley!  :-)  (Hint:  Issac
>>Asimov's foundation stuff)  
> 
> Gimme that ole time paranoia, it's good enough for me ...
> -- 


Let us not forget that the Liberal Congress tricked George into The Tax Break
Thing!

(But he is wise to it now!)

> 
>               "You got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho"
> 
>                               -- New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews     

-Garrett


Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10591 alt.politics.clinton:1950 alt.politics.bush:1598 talk.politics.misc:39744
From: worden@bouncer.nsc.com (Dennis Worden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:05:24 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation



|> 
|> In article <#cym6dg.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
|> >It is important to realize that in the "American Dream" that a person
|> >should be able to work harder and benefit economically from that work.
|> >To put tax structures in place that eliminate that benefit is to 
|> >discourage that productive work and income tax generating activity.
|> 
|> You are wrong.  The tax structure that is in place does not eliminate
|> that benefit.  In order for that to be so, the tax rate at a certain
|> point would have to be 100%; in other words, the government takes everything
|> after a certain point.  But since the highest rate of personal income
|> tax is 33%, this is obviously not what is happening.

Actually, the point where incentives to work harder for more income is 
inhabited by increasing taxes varies with each individual.  In my case,
I really don't care whether or not I make any more income or not.  My real 
priority is taking my vacation time.  Another way of looking at it is what
happens to vacation time that is sold to the company for additional income.
In my case, if I sell a week of vacation, the government steals 31% Fed, and
11% State (in California where we don't even have a budget!) for a total of 
42%.  Since this income really is the last income earned, it *DOES* get taxed 
at the top marginal rate.  I view this as though I were to take the week of 
vacation, and then work for the government for 2 of the 5 days, only getting 
3 days off.  That's why in 15 years I have only sold one week of vacation,
and only because I really really needed to (probably to pay taxes!!!).

And don't flame me about my income.  Here in ultra expensive Ca, I get
taxed proportionally more heavily than do people who live in areas of the
country with a much lower cost of living (perhaps Arkansas or Tennessee).
Why?  Because to achieve the same standard of living here takes more
income (average house price in the SF Bay area is over $200,000).  However,
the Fed tax tables do not scale by region, so I get taxed higher for the
same standard equivalent life style.

Richard Crisp is dead on here, the only thing that cannot be accurately
stated is when the increasing tax load begins to significantly impair the
work ethic of the population.



-- 
Dennis Worden, not representing $  When the TEAM succeeds, you succeed,
anybody, not even himself, in   $  but when the Team fails, you're FIRED.
any way shape or form.          $  Don't EMAIL me at worden@berlioz.nsc.com
From: MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Negativity at conventions
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:29:01 GMT
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

I watched big swatches of both the Democratic and Republican conventions
and have made an interesting observation. Now, I won't deny the Democrats
gave Bush a very hard time in their speeches (accusing him of being out of
ideas, too remote from the people, et cetera, and ripping on his record.) This
is quite expected, this being a convention and all, and the Republicans are
certainly entitled to do the same to Clinton, as indeed they have.

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,
family-hating, dictator-coddling, baby-killing, radical homosexual Communists
who hate and despise the United States and all its people, and would like to
to see the country vanish onto the dustheap of history. Someone with no
knowledge beforehand might be forgiven for thinking the Democratic Party
is a bunch of space aliens who dropped out of the sky one day, marched into
Washington with their ray-guns at the ready, and took over the government.

Now, my questions: Why do the Republican speakers feel compelled to pour
such vitriol on the Democratic Party? Do they really believe all this stuff
(which would indicate a dangerously paranoid mentality?) And finally, does
this help or hinder George Bush? Remember, the last three Republican wins
were because of Democrats who crossed party lines to a Republican Party
that was cheerfully opening its doors to them. Are they going to get
Democratic votes by trashing the entire party and its constituents personally?

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:10433 alt.politics.clinton:1818 alt.politics.bush:1379 talk.politics.misc:39360
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Wanted: True Conservative Positions
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:37:47 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug12.222412.21139@Csli.Stanford.EDU> mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>In <1992Aug12.203543.14347@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug11.205628.29187@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
>>c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>>|>Wanted: What are the true conservative positions on:
>
>

[deleted PHB specifics]
>>
>
>>|>Feel free to respond but I kindly ask to keep it more objective than cynical.
>>OK, I've saved the cynical stuff for last,
>
>>The Conservative ideal is grab as much for yourself and bugger everyone
>>else. Much as that idea may be shared by the majority of the population
>>it is dangerous to have a government of such people since they are most
>>likely to practice what they preach and stick their hands in the till.
>>Witness the Regan Sleaze years...
>             ^^^^^
>              ^
>>Phill Hallam-Baker
>
>Thank-o there, Phil(l?), for your "objective" views. Just what the
>doctor ordered. BTW, check your Webster's for Ronnie's last name. No,
>on second thought, you might not find it. ;-)
>
>
Perhaps, PHB was thinking of the original way that Ronnie pronounced
his last name.  When he was an actor he pronounced his last name
like Don Regan did.  Mu Uncle still insists on pronouncing that way.
However, it transformed into Reagan's pronounciation of his
presidency.  Supposedly when ROn and Nancy were living in Chicago
Nancy didnt like the pronounciation because it sounded like
poor Irish so it became the pronounciation of his presidency.

Kind of like Ronnie's religious change . . . . .  somehwere between
when his ancestors left Ireland (was it his grandfather?) they
were Catholic but Ronnie is Episcopalian -- the religion of the
establishment richies.  NOt that he knew that much about it, one of
his aides revealed in his memoirs that Ronnie and Nancy had actually
gone to church [they went 7 times while he was president, siad they
didnt want to disrupt services, I suspect he didint want to
be photographed asleep :-) ] and didnt
know what to do with the communion wafer -- Ron dropped it in the
wine cup and the minister was left looking at a soggy mess.
From: Don.Porter@iphase.UUCP (Don Porter)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Abortion is Stealing!
Date: 16 Aug 92  03:27:49 EST

Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.

<BszKvB.9z7@acsu.buffalo.edu> (Mike Cluff) wrote:
>   >According to a pro-death penalty pro-lifer:
>   >1. Abortion is murder, therefore 
>   >2. Those who have abortions are murderers
>   >3. Murderers should be put to death
>   >
>   >The only logical conclusion would be that
>   >3. Those who have abortions should be put to death.  

<1992Aug14.213620.26596@den.mmc.com> (John Sims) writes:
>   I'm really interested to see a copy of the article where Bush insists
>   that all women who have abortions be put to death.  

<FOX.92Aug14212446@graphics.nyu.edu> (David Fox) writes:
> You miss the point.  The scandal is that (he says) he believes #1 and
> #2, but either doesn't understand or won't admit that from these two
> statements #3 follows immediately.  

Has Bush ever made such a statement (#1)?  He has expressed opposition
to abortion.  He has expressed a preference for adoption.  He
has stated that he will follow his conscience concerning "matters
of life".  But I am not aware of an occasion where Bush has said
"abortion is murder".

Although that is a common sentiment among pro-lifers, it is not
a pre-requisite.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:10:01 GMT

eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

> By the way, I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal.  I saw
> someone bleeding from an illegal abortion once.  Bush says he would 'pick
> her up, dust her off, and get (his grand daughter) back into the race' of
> life.

> It takes a lot more than 'dusting someone off' when someone has had an 
> illegal abortion to put them back together even physically.

> Sometimes, very often when abortion is illegal, they are not around to get
> back in life at all.  Bush ought to know that, too.

Amen and preach it sister!  Some time ago in talk.abortion, I read a 
harrowing narrative by a woman who had given herself an abortion with
a sterilized knitting needle.  She described the pain as 'excruciating,'
and said that she bled for days.  Her reason?  Her father had stated that 
he would kill any daughter of his who became pregnant before marriage
and she had every reason to believe him.  I wish I'd saved the article;
it's very worthwhile reading.

I wish even more that, before they glibly spout their fetus worship, pro-
forced-birthers would take the time to reflect on what circumstances would
cause a woman to risk her life in order not to be pregnant.

-- 
Chris Lyman  -  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  -  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"... all women think alike on the issue of abortion ..." -- Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Subject: Blaming congress for all his woes... (was: FAQ: The Record Thing)
Reply-To: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Organization: E 4th St Home For The Overeducated Underemployed - Chicago Div.
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:03:24 GMT

In article <170vmlINN9d5@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>Nothing in yor post disputes the real point: Bush has no clue how to
>balance the budget and concentrates on blaming the Democrats instead for
>the terrible budget problems created by Reaganomics.
>
>It's morning AFTER in America.

I've been wondering -- Since  the  President  has to sign  legislation
before it becomes law  and the congress has   not *once* been able  to
override one of Bush's vetos how can Bush complain  that everything is
Congress' fault?  I mean if they pass a bill that he does not like why
doesn't  he just  refuse to sign  it. 

My point is this  -- Bush has no right  to blame congress for  all his
woes, *he* is part of the process!
	

Andre Marrou in '92!  (anyone but Bush will do ;-)
							reb
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:11215 alt.politics.bush:2435