HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:06:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.142012.23732@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>The interesting question is what actions during WWII got the economy going?
>Bombing the foreign competion certainly helped the U.S. compete in the 
>post-war years, but there was more to the recovery than the lack of
>foreign competition (and foreign demand to rebuild).  The U.S. in WWII
>was for all practical purposes a command economy with rationing, price 
>controls, and a huge increase in goverment spending.  By conventional "free
>market" thinking, such governmental interference would make the depression 
>*worse*.  The question is: what got the economy going?
>
Perhaps a command economy worked because at that time the government
really did know where resources were best used.  After all, they were
the major consumer.  It probably helped that the general population was
willing to give up optimizing their own well-being for the perceived
greater good.

Paul.
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: Indiana Ballot--Fulani
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 13:04:55 GMT

Lenora Fulani made the presidential ballot in Indiana the other day,
joining Perot and Marrou.  My local paper reports that Bush and Clinton
also should make the ballot, even though they have yet to do so.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Fear or loathing?  So what?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 19:21:06 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <nuqqpg8@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
    >In article <11468@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP
    >(Clayton Cramer) writes:
    >
    >>But you are the ones denying our right to choose who to
    >>associate with. I'm prepared to live and let live. You
    >>aren't, you want the government brought in to tell me who to
    >>rent to, who to hire.
    >>
    >>
    >Live and let live as long as you keep away from me, my
    >family, my schools my churches, my organizations, my
    >government, my pets, my business and my home is not "live and
    >let live"... It is "keep away from me".

Congratulations. Now you get it, but still don't get it.

Be whatever you want to be.

But in this world, you will always have the responsiblity of
acounting for what you are.

If you "are" something that most people don't like, then most people
will not want to associate with you.

You seem to want to avoid being responsible.

Even though, at the same time, it seems clear that there are
large numbers of people that YOU don't want to associate with.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: The Age of Consent    was Libertarian Platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:44:38 GMT

In article <LEE.92Jul30114402@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:


>To provide material for a counter-flame by Al:  How about requiring
>the completion of an assigned essay on a classic topic of ethics, with
>proper citations and bibliography showing familiarity with the
>opinions of a reasonable number of historically-important ethical
>philosophers and theologians of varied stripe?  This could conceivably
>be completed by the age of six, and then would  confer full political
>and sexual rights, including the right to run for President and the
>right to skim the public coffers to pay for a mistress' (or mister's)
>apartment in Washington.

Ugh.  The government gets to decide when you become an adult?  I'll take an 
arbitrary line over THAT any day.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: CEO's (Was: Thoughts on '92)
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:01:44 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>
>>Generally, CEOs aren't necessarily adept at negotiating, at the
>>political work necessary to get things done. ...
>>CEOs are good at giving commands, not building consensus.
>
>The CEO's I know (seven total) are very good at netotiating. They are the
>ones that make the big deals their respective companies are involved in.

Actually, you're both right and it reflects the differences in the
way that things are run in the East (New York, New England, Eastern
Seaboard) and in the West (e.g., California) where people are a bit
more human ... (-;

(Similiarly, there is an analogous Southern Ontario/rest of Canada
split along these same lines, respectively, up north.)

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				Elections 1992-93:
> gld@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU		* Jean Chretien (Canada)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			* Perot^H^H^H^H^H Elvis! (USA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Which of you is 'good enough' ?
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:55:14 GMT

In <veal.117@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.022427.1893@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>>Not only that, the republicans are responsible for the floods caused
>>by El Nino, the explosion of Mt. Pinatubo, and the California
>>Earthquakes. Hey - let's face it - everything is the fault of
>>Ronald Reagan and George Bush!

>     You're forgetting the meteor strike that killed off the dinosaurs
								^^^^^^
Couldn't be, cause we still have Republicans :-)

>and the fall of the Roman Empire.
> 
>     I mean, really, let's get all their crimes out in the open...

REB


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Marrou for president
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:13:17 GMT

In article <AeNt71u00h5yA4Ud5a@andrew.cmu.edu>, Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 17-Jul-92 Re: Marrou for
>president Dave Sill@ORNL.GOV (3949)
>
>> The only acceptable reason to vote
>> for someone is because you want them to win.
>
>Why?  What makes you think YOU know the ONLY acceptable reason to vote
>for someone?

It's called an "opinion".  Get used to them, they tend to proliferate in
*.politics.* newsgroups.

-- 
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: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Perot sued!!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:28:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.145823.2731@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix
(James Meritt) writes: 
#Well, Perot doesn't seem to want it, nor does he seem qualified to perform the
#various and sundry political theatrics required to get elected.  So maybe he
#is sane enough and qualified to actually do the job.

I've been hearing drips and drabs about his almost completed economic
plan the past two days. It seems pretty reasonable. Getting rid of the
deficit in 5 years. He has a 50 cent gas tax, higher "sin" taxes,
removal of the COLA on social security, taxing SS benifits, removal of
most farm subsidies, a capital gains tax, and transforming the foreign
embassies to help foreign trade, lowering of tax deductions on houses
more than $200,000. The basic idea was to spread the pain.

Of course this plan doesn't have a chance in hell of being put into
action, with NIMBY syndrome in full bloom in this country. 



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: USPS (Was: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark)
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:57:16 GMT
Distribution: usa

<In article <barrett.712247509@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
}  Huh?  The USPS gets no taxpayer money, so if it isn't supporting itself,
}   where does it's support come from?

According to the 1991 _Statistical_Abstract_of_The_United_States_,
table #915 shows that in 1989 (the latest year given) the USPS
received $436 million in "government appropriations".
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Deficit expected to be lower than predicted -- A First??
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:01:49 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article l6u00iINN8hf@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu, sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>UPI reports:
>
>	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The federal Office of Management and Budget
>lowered its forecast Thursday for the budget deficit for fiscal 1992,
>estimating the annual shortfall at $333.5 billion.
>	The Bush administration had projected in February a $399.7 billion
>budget deficit.
>	Fiscal year 1992 began last October and ends Sept. 30. On Wednesday,
>the Treasury said the deficit in the nine months elapsed in the fiscal
>year -- a period running Oct. 1 through June -- stood at $227.74 billion.
>	The OMB estimated the 1993 deficit will run at $341 billion.
>

..the reason being that Congress didn't allocate another $65 Billion to
the RTC to clean up the S&Ls.  If they do, as the administration has asked,
the number goes right back up again (and Mr. Bush, I'm sure, will rail
about how Congress pushed the deficit up by 20%).

--f2

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  I STILL say George Bush did a better job of picking a vice president
  than Ronald Reagan did

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: leavitt@cheshire.oxy.edu (Thomas VanNess Leavitt)
Subject: Re: Homeless
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:34:35 GMT

This is one thing I find hard to understand... how can an insurance company
jack up your premiums/rates and/or drop you, when you become sick, or one
of your employees does?  

This seems like changing the terms of a contract after it is signed... I mean,
they're not likely to be able to recover the costs of any one claim on a 
short term basis this way, and I can't see how they can make a stasticial
claim that since one of your workers got sick, the others are likely to.

And how do they do this on individuals?  Oh, you got sick... guess we're going
to have to drop you.  "But I'm still receiving treatment".  Too bad.

how does this fit into a rational system?  maybe someone should set up a
databank of companies that practice these policies, and find out if any don't
or do so less competitively, so people have better pricing information and
thus companies have an incentive to behave better, or they'll lose business.

Thom
@

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: Perot's October Surprise
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:35:26 GMT


eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>	Perot is going to re-enter the race in October, saying "We've
>heard these goofballs for two months, and they haven't been saying a
>thing! Since my name is already on the ballots, I'm gonna run again!"

I don't see how he could do something like that without looking like
a bigger flake than he looks like now. By that time he would have lost
a large percentage of his supporters, many of whom are pretty bitter
about the way he dumped them. Besides he won't be on the ballot in
some crucial states like California, where he has to declare himself
a serious candidate (soon) for his name to appear.

Perot had little chance of carrying more than at most one or two states
from the beginning, and no chance at all with a strategy like the one
outlined above. But I hope he does exactly what you say - any votes he
gets will hurt Bush more than Clinton.

-----
Eric Smith	    | "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail
erics@sco.com	    |     on the ground.  'If.'  Too hypothetical."
erics@infoserv.com  | - George Bush, on extending unemployment benefits
CI$: 70262,3610	    |

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36778 talk.politics.theory:3153
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Age of Consent    was Libertarian Platform
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:39:58 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

Tim Starr) writes:
|> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
|> }Actually, I have heard that other drugs are more readily available
|> }than booze to teenagers.  
|> 
|> Yep.  When's the last time you saw a booze pusher hanging around a schoolyard?
|> 
In Texas, where the drinking age recently when from 19 to 21, most of the parties
my children were invited to had alcohol provided by the parent of the party
giver.  These parents grew up in the age of 19 year old drinking, where high-
school drinking was the norm.  That is pushing.

In Texas, it has only been illegal to drink and drive a short time, and it
is still legal for a passenger to drink.  In fact, it is legal for a passenger
to hold two open cans of beer.  That is a state supported drinking culture.
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Dole attack backfires
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 19:01:20 GMT

In article <l736boINNd7p@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.174605.23258@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul25.155500.13833@cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>|> >	Political panic sometimes brings out Senator Dole's dark side.
>|> 
>|> On Evans & Novak today, he assumed his attack dog role:
>|> 
>|> 	1) Clinton was "disingenuous" about his handling of the Vietnam
>|>            draft issue.
>|> 
>|> 	2) Gore's support for the Gulf war resolution was self-serving.
>
>Dole has sunk LOW, real LOW. If he had bothered to read the Wall Street Journal
>of a few weeks back (just after Clinton chose Gore), he would have found out
>that NOBODY, not even Gore's aides knew which way he was going to swing on the
>war resolution even the night before.

That's exactly what Dole said. Gore hadn't decided even up to the night before
the vote, he told Dole he was torn on the issue and asked how much time
we would get to speak if he voted against.
Gore was less of a solid supporter of the Gulf War and more of a fence-sitter
on this issue.

------
P. McGuinness
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: USPS (Was: Question about Clinton's "didn'
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:54:25 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 92Jul27170333@gauss.nmsu.edu, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> 	
> 	If the USPS is an "independent company", how can
> 	I set up such a company, please, with a guaranteed
> 	market, armed men to squelch any competition,
> 	and so forth?
> 

How about buying a cable-TV company????


Bob
Organization: Doctoral student, Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Age of Consent    was Libertarian Platform
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:07:55 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


I haven't been following this thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating
something already said.

I don't claim to have *the* answer, but it is worth mentioning that
in many places in Europe, there is no drinking age, and they have
less problems with alcoholism than we do.  Parents teach self-
responsibility and moderation, and alcohol doesn't have that
mysterious rite-of-passage appeal that makes it more attractive
to teenagers in the U.S. than it would otherwise be.  (This is
not to imply that parents aren't responsible for their children's
actions and welfare.  Also, in Norway, there is no drinking age, 
but if you are caught driving with *any* alcohol in your blood-
stream your liscence is suspended for a year.  The second time
it is permanently revoked.)


thant
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:36494 ca.politics:6123 ba.politics:3863
From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: What kind of recession we're in
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:50:02 GMT


In a previous article, mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) says:

>fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>>On the other hand, certain policies prolong a recession - or depression.
>>Roosevelt's policies actually worsened the depression, to the point where
>>it was so bad that only World War II could get us out of it. With Clinton's
>>messianic "New Covenant," we may slip into the same sort of depression
>>that Roosevelt presided over.
>
>This sounds a little revisionist to me.  Evverything I've ever seen about
>the 30's shows that the economy had picked up substantially by the latter
>half of the decade.  There was even a budget surplus in 1937, and a 
>small recession following that year.  It's definitely true that the war
>completely turned things around, though.

It was the CIO and the Flint Sit Down Strike which turned the economy 
around as it changed how the wealth was distributed and provided for
needed oversight by workers over large corporations - 

The destruction of labor unions and the empowering of the leadership
of the labor unions against the members is the basis ofa good part
of the trouble today - as during the 1930's the top down bureaucratic
AFL unions needed to be replaced by democratic bottom up CIO unions.

The victory of the Flint sit down strike in Michgian in 1937 was the
beginning of the change that was needed - WWII was the effort to 
attack those unions at home via the no strike pledge, etc.
                 Ronda
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.singles,soc.men,soc.women,alt.flame
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: What's your KQ?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.095630.25751@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>In article <22123@watdragon.waterloo.edu> dmmooney@lion.waterloo.edu (Dave Mooney) writes:
>>There's a little bit of Ted Kaldis in all of us.  The amount varies, of
>>course, but before now, it was impossible to tell exactly how close one
>>came to achieving a complete state of Kaldisdom.  This has now changed,
>>because by taking this simple test, you can calculate your Kaldis Quotient
>>(KQ), which tells you just how close you are to becoming the official
>>Idiot of the Net [tm].

	Test deleted
>
>Is this a 'The net Really Does go outside the USA I never knew' American
>centred post because I haven't a bastard clue who about 75% of the above
>people are.

	Probably not; it's being posted from Canada, a former colony of 
Britain located mostly north of the USA (Which, granted, is also a former
colony of Britain, but the beer is worse).

	van der Valm was the allegedly corrupt premier of British Columbia.
Woody Gutherie was a damn good musician (USAmerican, despite the travesty
committed north of the border on 'This land is Your Land').

							James Nicoll
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jessie Jackson and Jesus
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:43:49 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
$>The Irreverend Jackson said:
$>    "Jesus was a child of a single mother.  But when Mary said, Joseph
$>was not the father, she was abused and questioned.
$Hardly.  Mary and Joseph married prior to Jesus' birth.  She wasn't a
$single mother.
	Adding to the analysis here, I never remember any mention in the
Bible that Mary was "abused" because she was with child. I recall she
could have been punished by the people of Nazareth had Joseph allowed
it, but he didn't call off the betrothal. He loved her so much he
decided (granted after the angel Michael? or Gabriel? told him) to stay
with Mary.

$>    "If Mary had aborted the baby, she would have been called immoral.
$>If she had the baby she would have been called unfit, without family
$>values.
$She was married before the child was born.  And knew she was carrying the
$Son of God.  
	She already was being branded as an immoral woman (I would so
assume). And I wouldn't think God would agree to have His only son
aborted in her first or second trimester either.

$>    "But Mary had family values.  It was Herod, the Quayle of his day,
$>who put no value on the family."
$Huh?  Herod really didn't give a hoot about Jewish 'family values'...he was
$much more interested in keeping the Romans happy, since he was their
$flunky.  The condemnation would have come from RELIGIOUS leaders in the
$Jewish community...not from the Romans or their henchmen.
	I can't remember any typos from Herod. But I'll agree this is
another misrepresentation of the Bible for a political agenda.

$And, Mary was operating under direct orders from God.  Once she agree to
$bear God's Son, there was no way she was going to back out of the deal.
$And God made sure that Joseph married her to prevent any scandals.
	And I don't think she would have sung the Magnificat (obviously
not in English, Latin, etc.) if she were not happy to bear this child. I
don't recall that many women who have unplanned pregnancies who would be
so ecstatic.

$Jesse needs to go back to Diivinty School....
	He should go back to kindergarten. I loved his reading Seuss's
_Green Eggs and Ham_.

-- 
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!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc