HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush, Reagan and Deficit cutting (was Bush or Clinton)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:23:03 EST
 <1992Aug11.141243.3364@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug12.105506.27954@hemlock.cray.com>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.105506.27954@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug11.141243.3364@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug11.121525.3820@cis.ohio-state.edu>, thorne-c@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>> ...
>> > To get a concept of what happened in the early 80's read David Stockman's
>> 
>> 	You actually believe anything this goon has to say?
> 
> Sure.  There are independent ways of verifying what Stockman say.  Reagan's
> proposed budgets are part of the public record.  So are the huge resulting
> deficits.

	So are the dates of his terms, his birthday, speeches he made, etc.

	(And all quite irrelevant unless you can prove that it was Reagan's
policies in and of themselves that caused such things.)

>> 	He was in way over his head in the Reagan adminstration, and anything
>> he writes about it is an attempt to cover up his own part in any budget messes. 
>> It's a little like asking an accomplice to murder for the facts on what really
>> happened.
> 
> Which facts (of Stockman's) do you think are not "what really happened"?

	Which one's does he present?  The point is that he was in on it, and
any finger pointing should be viewed with several grains of salt.

>> 	"Uhh, the other guy did it.  I tried to stop him, really."
>> 
>> 	Yeah, right.
> 
> Have you read Stockman's book?

	Not past the first few pages.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41341 talk.abortion:33011
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Some call me...Drew)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abstinence is the only answer
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:14:13 GMT
     <l97ftfINN2un@spim.mips.com> <4722@news.duke.edu>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Leapers For a Better Yesterday

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>!1	The only purpose of sex is reproduction.

>Well, if nature (since I guess I can't say God or Allah or
>whatever) had a purpose in sex, that's generally what it is.

Why does sex have to have a purpose, anyway?  What's the matter with pure
hedonistic boffing?

>!2.	Sex is a pleasure "reserved" for married couples. 

>As our religious and social standards have it, only in marriage is there
>the committment to deal with rearing children. 

As *your* religious standards have it.  I will admit that there are a
disproportionate number of values in our society that seem to be based in
Judeo-Christian thought; this doesn't make them right.  I personally know
several couples who are currently living together whom I think would be
wonderful parents.

>As unmarried teenagers
>may not be able to handle rearing children, sex should be reserved for
>marriage.

Nope, sorry.  As unmarried teenagers may not be able to handle rearing
children, contraception and information on its use should be widely
available and destigmatised; further, should an unwanted pregnancy occur,
teens should know where to go for help and be able to seek said help
without untoward interference.  Note that the Obstetrics ward is not the
help to which I refer.

>!3.	Sex is a sin, for which the penalty is pregnancy.  Sure puts an
>!	interesting slant on the wonderfulness of parenting and the meaning
>!	of "family values."

>Well, premarital sex is a sin (at least in my Southern Baptist church).

Fine.  Don't have premarital sex in your church. :-)

>Adultery certainly is.

Tangent alert!!

>Sex itself is a gift that is shared between two people that love each
>other, according to my pastor.

Amend that to "two or more people" and I have no problem with that
statement at all.  I doubt you'd approve, however, and I'm virtually
certain, having had some rather unpleasant experiences with SB pastors,
that your minister wouldn't.  Que sera, sera.

-- 
"Me and you, a two man crew, 
 side by side we are united,
 we will never be divided...."

                                                  Au revoir, mon cherie.
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: rumor that Perot is back in race
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:44:09 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I have heard a rumor in the Kansas City area that Perot is back in the
race.  I am sure it is only a rumor, but has anyone else heard it
and/or know where it started?-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,misc.education,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:07:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.174828.18134@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>In article <l9050rINNm9m@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.202017.17578@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>|> >In article <1992Aug6.013932.29133@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
[......] 
>
>What makes you say that?
>
>I obtained the above information from various sources including:
>NY Times (Sept 91), US News and World Report (fall '91), Newsweek (various
>issues), Wall Street Journal (various issues).
>
>Regarding the Japanese, its been published that the AVERAGE Japanese
>student would score in the 90% percentile on US Standardized tests, i.e.
>their average student is scores better than 90% of our students.
>
>The SAT board puts out annual reports showing how US students do,
>organized in various ways. MY reading shows that good predictors
>of student achievement include the following:
> 1-Parental Education level
> 2-Parental Involvement
> 3-Asian descent
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Nah, make that pain-in-the-$%^& parental pressure on studying :-)
therefore it is identical to #2.  
   The misconception of all Asians are smart is not true!  Remove
our parents we'll just throw away the books and party as hard as
everyone else, and start a couple of teenage gangs at the same
time.  ;->
 
> 4-Household income
>
>Bad predictors include money spent on education, student/teacher ratio,
> # of Administrators, etc
>
agree. They need to get rid of the adminstrators, and pay people for
teaching the kids, not shoveling paper.  

>If I recall correctly, Private schools (i.e. Catholic) send 85% of their
>students onto College but do it with far less overhead. For example,
>In Washington DC, there is one adminstrator for every 54 kids in their
>public schools. In the Catholic schools in the same city, there is
>one administrator for every 2500 kids. 
>
>I think about 45-48% of public schools kids go onto College, nationwide.
>
>The best schools are independent schools (i.e. neither public or religious).
>They send close to 99% of their students onto College. 
[.....] 
>
>Joe Collins
>joec@morgan.com
>Usual disclaimers apply...
>
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: California Senate races  (was Re: the Keating 5)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:54:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.093816.26183@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.231739.19261@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>I still consider myself to be the only rational choice for people
>>who are both pro-choice and fiscally sane.
>
>	How do you define "fiscally sane"? And in what way is Barbara
>Boxer a "big spender"?

Boxer was rated the House's biggest spender by the National Taxpayer's
Union. They rated all the Congressmen and Senators on their spending
votes and proposed legislation in the last term.

She proposed or voted on over $400 billion dollars in new spending
or new programs.  At the same time, her votes to reduce programs and
spending amounted to only $10 billion. 

>	Government spending is easy to object to in the abstract, but
>when one gets down to nitty-gritty details, then things become much
>harder. One person's pork barrel often becomes another person's
>bringing home the bacon. :-)

Indeed.  It was quite an honor for her, beating out the porkers 
left and right. One has to be quite committed to the expansion of
Government to get to be #1 in the House.

>	If I had to make any contribution, it would be in the manner
>of slimming down some of the Government bureaucracy. Not too long ago,
>the head of the US Postal Service announced that he was getting rid of
>30,000 out of 130,000 managerial positions. I wonder how much more can
>be done along those lines.

Sounds like you should vote for June Genis then, shouldn't you?
( I'm sure Bruce H. will likewise be in favor of slimming the USPS.)

---
Pat
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: 12 Aug 1992 22:47:14 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Don M. Gibson) writes:
|> Jim Howe) writes:
|> 
|> >|> >|> I'd settle for a flat tax as long as there were no deductions.
|> >|> >
|> >|> >A flat tax would have to be on 'net' income not gross income.  You
|> >|> >need to have deductions which relate to the generation of the
|> >|> >income.  Otherwise you will simply discourage people from earning
|> >|> >income in jobs which have high expenses. 
|> >|> 
|> >|>   I'm not sure this follows.  Jobs which have high up front 
|> >|>   expenses typically also have either high pay (e.g., doctors) or
|> >|>   at least potentially high r.o.i. (e.g., IC's, software, pharm-
|> >|>   aceuticals).  it is unclear to me that the usual factors 
|> >|>   which govern risk taking would not still operate, i.e., I
|> >|>   don't need a government tax incentive to be willing to take 
|> >|>   higher risks for potentially higher rewards.
|> 
|> >Imagine a consultant who spends a great deal of time on the road.
|> >He may earn a high income, but much of that income has to go to
|> >covering his expenses (gas, car repair, hotel charges, etc.).  Compare
|> >this to a worker who simply commutes to work everyday and punches
|> >a time clock.  It doesn't seem reasonable to me to tax the gross
|> >income of the two.
|> 
|> why should other tax payers subsidize this person's stay at 
|> the hilton and big steak dinners?  if that person has high 
|> expenses, they should work them into their fees (or prices) or
|> learn to spend money wisely!

I have heard nobody suggest a "gross" flat tax be applied to business,
all of whom have different overhead and expense structures.  The 
consultant above is  business, and as such is entitled to deduct
"reasonable and actual" expenses from his receipts.  His income
is what is left afterward.  On that, I have seen proposals for flat
taxes.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40308 ca.politics:6898 ba.politics:4615
From: dchapman@well.sf.ca.us (Dave Chapman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Holocaust II in Serbia: Why Isn't Anyone Doing Anything?
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:45:00 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

>In article <Bszoxw.71I@cup.hp.com> runyan@cup.hp.com (Mark Runyan) writes:
>
>And do you, Mark Runyon, personally want to enlist in an armed force and get
>yourself the privilege of being shot at when the interests of your homeland 
>are not affected?

CNN had a Canadian who had enlisted in the Croatian army, been captured,
and was missing an ear.  He was not happy about his current situation.

>If we just settle on the nasty bit of business going on in the Balkans: you
>are aware that this series of disputes has been going on for at least a 1000
>years?  Vlad the Impaler could pick up the newspaper this morning and see some
>familiar themes, I'm sure.

Wasn't Vlad Tepes a Transylvanian?  Aren't they going to have a renewed war
with the Hungarians, or the Turks?  Maybe it's the Romanians?  I get confused
by this sometimes.  Maybe someone out there has a complete list of ethnic
groups in the area?


A
A
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: euaaen@eua.ericsson.se (Anders Engwall)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:12:23 GMT

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) answering the stupendous one:

>|>	Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman

>His ecconomics prize is not from the institute that Nobel set up, it is a
>separate, entirely bogus enterprise set up to honour right wing looney tunes.

Regardless of which kind of looney tunes they are honouring, one might
point out that economics bears a striking resemblance to religion, in
the sense that the theory one chooses to adhere to is a matter of
faith to a large degree.
In fact, having an economics prize is a bit like having a theology prize.

--
Anders Engwall				Email: Anders.Engwall@eua.ericsson.se
ELLEMTEL Utvecklings AB			Voice: +46 8 727 3893
"Alvsj"o, Sweden			Fax: +46 8 727 42 20
		"Bryna nuppa fj{ssa sp}nken" - Razor
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Let's get real about AIDS shall we?
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:42:18 GMT
Organization: Systems Research Center, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park

In article <4643@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>	Repeat the statement that you won't support any strategy that
>anyone forms ... to parents whose kids have been shot at in drive-by
>killings, gang wars, or overdoses. Tell that to the medics and the
>policemen in Washington DC and Los Angeles and Miami who see
>drug-related crimes day after day, night after night.

You don't get it?  There is no longer drive-by shooting and gang wars
over alcohol, but there WAS when it was illegal.
Drive by shootings are caused by market forces, not drugs themselves.

> The government
>deems those appropriate drugs illegal because they can affect behavior
>and they are very lethal.

Only a few drugs have any significant lethality.
Stiff competition due to illegality of drugs requires entrepeneurs
to use automatic weapons to grab market share.

>	The War on Drugs begins with each one of us. My cited paragraph
>says it all for me.

The war on drugs must begin with each one of us, but the government
MUST get out of it.  I never encourage _irresponsible_ drug use of
my friends, including any use of cocaine, MDMA, and over use of
alcohol and nicotine.

-Thomas
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Another great reason to vote for Bush
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:39:46 GMT

In article <FOX.92Aug15221336@graphics.nyu.edu> 
fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:

> I'm just saying that it is not murder to withold assistance to
> another human being.  

Ripping a child apart with a powerful vacuum pump is 
certainly not the same thing as "witholding assistance".  
You are terribly ill-informed about abortion methods.


Doug Holtsinger
From: asuncion@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: CAMBODIA: The Arriere-Pensees of Pol Pot
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:22:47 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge: The Arriere-Pensees of Pol Pot

 Why has the peace plan in Cambodia been nothing short of a
disaster ? To put it simply, peace plans only work if those who
signed them really mean to do something. Unfortunately for UNTAC
(UN team) and the Cambodians, when Pol Pot told his
representatives to say yes to the Paris Treaty, lasting peace was
not one of his motives. No kidding. What's more, the Un operation
, owing to its mandate as a peace-keeper only, will not be able
to do much about the fact that the Khmer Rouge are beginning the
first phase of their real agenda: absolute control over Cambodia.
 The reasons behind such a double-cross are pretty clear. Under
the terms of the Paris treaty, the Hun Sen government is to
dismantle itself which would certainly make it easier for Pol Pot
, who is lounging around in a jungle condo on the Thai border, to
simply stroll into Phnom Penh  and sit in the driver's seat. 
Supposedly, the K.R. are to be  completely disarmed by the time
that the Hun Sen government has disappeared. However, given that
the K.R. have recently stopped handing over weapons  (which
leaves some 187,300 fighters to be disarmed according to one
English journal) the notion of lasting peace in Cambodia is
ridiculous if not  a tasteless joke. Now what ? This is probably
the question that confronts the head UN bureaucrat in Cambodia,
Mister Akashi. Answer: Make noises and hope for the best. That
is, the UN as usual is more or less helpless as far as
enforcement goes. Assuming that this is so, and that the K.R.
continues to carry out their real agenda, the UN might as well
start packing their bags now to avoid the line-up at the airport
which will surely follow in the coming months.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: DATELINE: Bush fucks up!
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:29:09 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mary@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu (Mary E. Allison) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:>As for my attitude on abortion, I have said that my stance
:>is pro-responsibility, that the choice comes even before conception: it
:>starts when a man and a woman decide to have sex. I can email you a
:>previous post I wrote upon request.
:
:     OH -- TERRIFIC -- tell THAT to all the women that have *DECIDED*
:to have sex with rapists!!!!!
	You haven't read many of my posts have you. Maybe I should
restate that when a man and woman CONSENT to have sex. Sorry about the
word choice.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Organization: Doctoral student, Biology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:13:10 -0400 
From: Thomas Oligino <to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Newest Quayle Quote!



Quayle also said that he would decide after the election if he would run
in 1994. The man is an idiot.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:07:45 GMT

da> Dean Alaska (dingo in boulder)
gs> Gary Strand

gs> Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
gs> spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.

da> And these two aren't related?  Maybe revenue increases were caused by
da> spending - you know, priming the pump.  My guess is that revenues would
da> decrease with tax decreases, just not as fast as the tax decreases.

  Nope. Since a tax cut results in more income being retained by the taxpayer,
  and since this additional wealth can still be taxed, it's entirely possible
  (and has happened) that a tax cut can result in increased revenue, due to
  increased economic activity. The Laffer curve is really just plain common
  sense, and that's exactly what we're talking about.


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40037 alt.politics.bush:1758
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:56:49 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
 <1992Aug16.014713.3298@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 <1992Aug16.185505.6152@ncsu.edu>

In article <1992Aug16.185505.6152@ncsu.edu>, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug
Holtsinger) says:
>
>In article <1992Aug16.014713.3298@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>
>> Also, does their not appear to a double standard when Bush publicly opposes
>> abortion and yet vehemently opposes health care reforms which would reduce
>> infant mortality?
>
>That is a lie, President Bush does not oppose health care reforms.  I just
>finished watching an interview of President Bush by David Brinkley and
>Bush mentioned that his administration did have a health care reform plan.

Bush's "plan" is a sketchy idea that insurance vouchers (of unspecified size
and composition) and limits on the practices of insurance companies (which
have not been detailed) will solve our health care problems.  No serious
player considers it to be a real plan.  I saw the Brinkley interview and
Bush once again danced around the issue, refusing to give ANY specifics
on how his "plan" would work.  In the meantime, he has opposed every other
attempt to modify the system, including his recent gutting of the Oregon plan.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush