HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ar12@quads.uchicago.edu (Richard Nixon)
Subject: MAILING LIST FOR INFORMATION ON RECESSION, DEBT and JAPAN!!!!!
Reply-To: ar12@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:15:06 GMT

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR ARTICLES ABOUT US FOREIGN TRADE PROBLEM, FOREIGN
AGENTS AND THE NATIONAL DEBT....NOW TAKING NAMES.
 
This is a note to inform all of you about a distribution list we run 
which distributes about once a month, articles about the U.S. trade, 
political and debt situation. This newsgroup may not be around much 
longer, so we're doing our best to set up a distribution list now 
before we all lose contact with each other. If ever you wish to be
removed from the list, I would delete you immediately.
 
Recently you may have seen some articles on this group
(one about Japanese trade policy (JAPANYES), and other was a list
of 'foriegn agents' who are high level government people who sell 
you out to foreign companies for bribes and 'fees'. 
 
These articles are usually not available via other media which is why
we run this list.
 
These files were first sent down our receiver list before they were posted 
generally. (These files (the Japan ones) are currently at anonymous FTP 
site monu6.cc.monash.edu.au   in    pub/nihongo    
(read the INDEX file in that directory for details)).
 
In the future, we won't be posting these as often, but rather sending
them down the distribution list. If you would like to be on the
distribution list for these articles (one every month or so), please
send me a note and I will add you. 
 
 
Andre,
 
ar12@quads.uchicago.edu


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:06:58 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA02482; Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:05:16 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA06157; Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:05:13 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 2067; Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:08:06 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4542; Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:08:05 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


       As part of a impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
   YOU thought the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event
   was, between 1970 to 1980.


               ????
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58750 alt.rush-limbaugh:9204 alt.politics.elections:23039 alt.politics.clinton:16319 alt.politics.bush:13461
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 07:02:20 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
> Kenneth Mitchell writes:
> >mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
> #>I think it was Kris Kristofferson who said that he and Bill Clinton had
> #>pretty much demolished the idea that Rhodes Scholars were automatically
> #>"intelligent".  
> 
> mike> Here's a logical fallacy I have neve come across before: the  appeal to
> mike> the self-impeaching authority.  Funny, tho.
> 
> >The point is that Kris Kristofferson, who is an actor of no particular
> >intelligence, was also a Rhodes Scholar, and he recognizes that
> 
> Why should we accept his judgement on the matter, if he's someone
> of no particular intelligence?

Decide for yourself. Kristofferson WAS a Rhodes Scholar; so was Clinton.
Clinton didn't graduate; he flunked out. I don't know (or care) about
Kristofferson; either way, he did at least as well as President-elect
Slick Willie, possibly better. 

Either your opinion of Kris Kristofferson should rise, because he was a
Rhodes Scholar, or your opinions of Rhodes Scholars, "per se", should
fall. Or, perhaps you're a Kristofferson fan, and his being a Rhodes
Scholar simply adds to his prestige. Personally, I've always figured that
it was the height of arrogance to claim credit for something that you
failed at; you can rightly claim to have tried, but to claim membership in
an elite group merely bcause you applied is foolish. 

Of course, a LOT than Clinton has done strikes me as foolish; but not half
so foolish as the people who voted for him!!

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Bespectacled Bill C.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:52:08 GMT

GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>      But I *sure* don't remember seeing them on Clinton!  :)
>
>      This is just too, too funny. hehehehehheheh.

Get a grip... you haven't been paying too much attention to this election,
have you? Clinton was regularly shown studying for the debates with his
glasses on. He also slipped them on when he read things on talk shows.

>      I anxiously await tomorrow's revelation.
>      This is going to be good. :)

Whatever gets you through the night.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Thank you, Anita Hill
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:47:39 GMT

In article <adams.720978844@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>bhjelle@carina.unm.edu () writes:
>>
>>Let's hope that 4 years of Clinton will help undo the damage to
>>the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court inflicted by 12 years
>>of cynical selections of unqualified candidates.
>
>Robert Bork was the most qualified man in America to serve on the court.
>It was cynical rejection of a highly qualified candidate for political
>purposes by the DEMOCRATS that kept him off the court.


Well said. It was a tragedy and a travesty that he was kept off.

If you want a good layman's introduction to issues in
constituational law, pick up "The Tempting of America", a book he
wrote a few years back.

Pat
From: jcurtis@seqp4.sequoia.com (John Curtis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Well, we lost.....
Summary: We are likely screwed.
Keywords: Screwed, tax and spend
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:36:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.


	So.  Bill Clinton won the election.  Great.
	Robert Reich goes from a slightly nutty left
	wing entertainer on NPR (oh yeah, and at
	Harvard, too)  to the main gatekeeper for
	selecting who will give Willie economic advice.

	Guess what - the people who think its moral to
	spend their vote on someone who will *thru some
	miracle to be specified at a later date* raise
	everybody else's taxes just won.

	Another round lost in the slow slide towards
	state socialism.  Look at England in 1970 and 
	you are looking at our future circa 2000.

	Look for a few left-leaning social/political adjustments
	(to which I have no real objection), and a lot 
	of economic bungling.

	See ya in '96,

	jcurtis@sequoia.com


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:17:09 GMT

Why not boycott Colorado?  There are about as many gays as blacks (and
economically, there are more gays than blacks), and the black boycott
of Arizona got Arizona voters to change their minds about the MLK
holiday.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:31:08 GMT

tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>[Nate wrote]
>>    Even from a liberal point of view I believe that it's blatantly 
>>obvious; we blew it. We wanted to prevent Thomas's confirmation very badly 
>>but we flubbed our homework (we didn't make sure that Hill had irrefutable 
>>proof). Then, even after it was clear that we had flubbed our homework, we 
>>continued to push through days of melodramatic and pointless testimony 
>>apparently in the hope that the voting members of the Judiciary Committee 
>>wouldn't notice that we didn't have anything written on our homework when 
>>we turned it in.

>This seems a tacit admission that the hearings and sexual harassment 
>charges were simply a desperate grab by the liberal leadership with a 
>lack of solid evidence or proof in order to block Thomas' nomination.  

    I'm not sure what it is about my statement that you find "tacit". I 
didn't write 6 paragraphs of carefully considered criticism of the attempt 
to derail Clarence Thomas's confirmation in order to gloss over anything 
or to try to justify what they did. I thought it was disgraceful. I don't 
know how to say it any more clearly than that.

>This is exactly what Rush has been talking about - liberal gamesmanship 
>regardless of the cost to the target.  I find it despicable and yours 
>and your "leadership's" end-justifies-the-means methods pathetic.

    What do you mean *my* end-justifies-the-means-methods? It wasn't my 
idea to parade Anita Hill in front of a Senate Committee with a bunch of 
racy hearsay and sexual innuendo. IMHO it was a poorly thought out ploy, 
unethically conceived and incompetently executed. Once again, I don't 
know how to say it any more clearly than that. No, I am not happy about 
being represented by a bunch of clowns capable of disgracing themselves 
like that, but my home state of Indiana in its infinite wisdom re-elected 
every single incumbent that we have in both houses. What would you have 
me do? 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A "New" Reich
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:44:22 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Nov11.135021.4063@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov8.192932.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>
>>      I agree with the observation of general uneasiness, but
>> we should ask what are the causes of this uneasiness.  I contend
>> that the debt burden is either directly or indirectly the major
>> cause of economic anxiety.
> 
> I'm not sure that most people (>20%) take global issues (such as 
> the debt) that serious.  Most people tend to be driven by events 
> that directly effect their lives, such as layoffs, or the realistic 
> chance of one.  People are afraid of losing their jobs.  

     That's why I qualified my statement with "directly or indirectly."  
Who do you think creates the private sector jobs in this country -- 
could it be the (<20%) you speak of who "take global issues (such as 
the debt) seriously?"

> People are loaded with debt (and are trying to pay off their bills).
> If people have money, they tend to spend it (the old "burn a 
> whole in their pocket" thing).

     The private sector is paying off its debt (which is what usually
occurs in a recession).  Once a sufficient reduction occurs in private
debt, then usually we return to an expansion phase (based on new credit).
However, the public sector is increasing its debt quite rapidly.  The 
public-to-private debt ratio at the beginning of 1990 was 0.48 (and it
was dropping), but now this ratio is up to 0.54 and rising.  
     Unfortunately, banks are becoming more inclined to "lend to the 
government" by buying treasury bills rather than lending to the private 
sector -- it's a safer way to ensure a profit.  Therefore, the
reduction in interest rates by the Fed has not trickled-down (for
lack of a better expression :-) to the masses, but rather has helped
banks become more profitable.  I know -- my investments in bank-related
stocks have done fairly well.
     My conclusion (in layperson's vernacular): the government debt
will stifle the recovery by gobbling up all of the money capital
that businesses would like to borrow for expansion.

     C. Perttunen    
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:01:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Followup-To: misc.legal

In <6946@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu sez:
>'
>'Testimony is evidence.
>
>In a dictionary definition, yes it is. But...
>
>I wish that were always the case. Then what is "perjury"? Isn't it when
>your sworn testimony about what happens is discovered to be found in
>conflict with the evidence already given, mainly by physical evidence?

No.  Perjury is the crime of *knowingly* giving false testimony.

Testimony conflicts all the time.  It's why we have those bothersome
things called trials, which would be superfluous if all the evidence
pointed in one direction.


>Testimony or offering to testify does not necessarily mean you are
>offering irrefutable evidence about a situation. I could testify that my
>parents beat me when I was little all the time. It's not true, but
>according to the statement that "testimony is evidence," my statement
>proves that my parents beat me when I was young.

No, your statement proves that you haven't the foggiest about the law
of evidence.  Testimony is evidence -- end of story.  In the
Anglo-American legal system, in fact, it is the primary form of
evidence; physical evidence doesn't come in except (duh) via the
testimony of a witness (aside from the special case of stipulations).

Your problem is a failure to comprehend that "evidence" does not mean
"irrefutable proof".

Followups to misc.legal.

-- 
        1992 Awards for Yeoman Service to the Democratic Party:
1st prize: Pat Buchanan  2nd prize: Craig Fuller  3rd prize: James Baker
	 Honorable mention: Rich "They aren't Americans" Bond
      * Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck *
From: s921585@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Chia Bin Wong)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton's American Dream
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:42:07 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

President-Elect Bill Clinton's sorrow has just began.  He and his administration
will need the support and faith from the people of US and the Congress to
revive the economy.

The massive debt and the various domestic chaos have no simple and painless
cure.  I wonder if the President-Elect has enough time (next election is
 4 years away) and courage to turn the economy and the chaotic domestic 
 problems around?

Since World War II, people around the world have seen America flexing its
powerful economy and military muscles in the fight against communisms.
The collapse of the former Soviet Unions and its allies have changed the
scenario for the next century.  If America's current deficit and domestic
problems are not addressed now, we will be  seeing a weakening nation soon.

At that time, potential conflicts among countries will likely to be evolved
in order to obtain the new 'heavy weight' title of being the 'new superpower'.

I am sure that the people of America would not want that to be happened. 
They want to have a country which is strong and be able to go after their
so-called 'American Dream'.

In the coming years, there will be changes to be made to revive the US
economy.  There will be pains and hardship during such changes.
So, just hope that Americans will pull themselves together and 
give Clinton the  chance to revive the nation.


-- 
*****************************************************************************
** ChiaBin WONG  -- Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (Australia)    **	
**                                                                         **
** Disclaimer: Purely Personal View  * email: s921585@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au   **	
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:54:34 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
>who was then the EEOC Commissioner. Put on your goggles, folks, the fire-
>works should be dazzling.

Well, I'm certainly glad she didn't make the accusations for financial or
political gain.

Heck, suits me. Gets her outta Norman.

						- greg

-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: President Clinton's Cabinet
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:51:08 GMT

In article <1dbrqaINN21a@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) writes:
>Heard as a horrible rumor on talk show: Pat Schroeder - Secretary of Defense

What?  His Rushness?

>
>Aaagggh! he cries
>
><runs whimpering into the mist>




And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Libertarian beliefs (Was: Re: President)
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:29:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov02.162313.1455@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.063340.1829@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>In article <1cn0pqINNgjb@gap.caltech.edu> brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes:
>>>Absolutely; Libertarians are "free choice in everything" (except violent
>>>crime and fraud), and a Libertarian government would be very favorable for
>>>nudists. 
>>  Interesting :-)  So Libertarians are in favor of "free choice" with 
>>  respect to non-violent crimes?  That is definitely intriguing.
>>  Does this mean that crimes such as burglarly, copyright theft, 
>>  drunk driving and trespassing would not be crimes under
>>  a Libertarian government?  
>The Libertarian position is better summarized as "free choice in everything
>(except _coercion_ and fraud)."  Not just violent crime, but any act that
>initiates force.  We are strongly in favor of decriminalizing "victimless"
>crimes.
 
  Thanks David!  Are ALL of you guys on this news group humor-impaired?
  I know perfectly WELL what the Libertarian party stands for.  See the
  smiley after the interesting in the first line of my post?  :-)
  But I think it is a bad idea to misstate it as Thomas did in his
  first post.  BTW, I DON'T agree with many of the things Libertarians
  believe in, such as...
>[munch Lib positions on burglarly, copyright and trespass] 
>I believe (not an official party position) that our laws are misguided,
>in that we shouldn't have "drunk driving" or DUI laws, but laws that 
>set minimum levels of driving competence.  If your reactions aren't 
>good enough, you don't belong on the road regardless of your blood 
>alcohol count -- I don't care if the impairment is from alcohol, 
>marijuana, cocaine, or a birth defect.

  But then the problem of proving the "crime" becomes subjective   
  instead of objective (being "drunk" is provable, being below the
  "minimum" competence level is much harder to prove).  And how does
  the concept of minimum driving competence stand as a potential
  crime that has a victim?  Not much, as far as I can see.  
>
>In a pure libertarian society, the roads would be owned privately, and 
>the road owner would be free to set its rules for access -- including
>driver qualifications and emmissions ("No cussin' at the other drivers,
>son."). 

  Does this permit people who "own" the roads privately to discriminate
  against who can use them?  If the driver qualification is that "No
  black folk can use this road, son.", is that permissible?  And if 
  not, why not?  Sounds pretty libertarian to me.  

>We're a long way from that world!

  Thank goodness, IMHO.
>
>Note followups to talk.politics.misc -- we're a long way from nudity
>in this subject!

  Naw, I don't get the talk.* groups, so I am just gonna post here :-)

  Jon Rosen


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
From: dsloan@seas.gwu.edu (David M. Sloan)
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:51:42 GMT


drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
: This "Saddam can't wait to invade again now that Clinton is in
: office" line is total bullshit.

To tell you the truth, I'd say Clinton would be QUICKER now to stop Hussein than Bush was. Three proposed reasons:
	1_A precedent has been set.
	2_Hussein's weakened state.
	3_The prepositioned arms recently exported to the Mid-east in many countries.

If the argument is that Clinton said (referring to the Gulf War Congressional Debate) " I would have voted with the majority , but agreed with some of the minorities arguments." (not a direct quote), I still disagree. Bill Clinton was not the only one to sympathize in part witht the Democrats stance. It is never a     black./white. decision to go to war. It was a judgement call made with reservations that George Bush made, Bill Clinton would have made, and I agree with.
					Comments, anyone?
						Dave
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:28:42 GMT

In article <1dlri4INNbmo@travis.csd.harris.com> taco@baby.csd.harris.com (Pablo Fumero) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.150918.22011@oz.plymouth.edu>, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>|> 
>|> I love this conversation about Clinton's supposed landslide.  The best
>|> comedy I've seen in wuite some time.  Perhaps if you say it enough
>|> times, people will believe that winning by 5% of the popular vote is a
>|> landslide.
>
>Yeah, Clinton and his sidekick Gore are in for 4 years. I would not call
>it a cushing defeat for the Republicans. Roughly 60% of the voting
>public voted for someone other than Clinton and Gore. That alone makes
>him a Minority President. The popular vote was very close indeed, about
>5% between Clinton and Bush. The electoral numbers are a product of
>the system and are no proportional indicator to the true political
>makeup of the country. Bush lost because he cared more for foreign
>affairs that domestic. Clinton won because he was able to capitalize
>on Bush's short commings. Perot was the monkey wrench that broke the
>machine. Let's see what the Novice Governor does. Let's give him
>a chance. There's time for opposition later. The country comes first
>in these matters.


	Actually, I agree with the latter part of the message, but I
hit my F key after reading the first part concerning the juggling of
statistics concerning the election. Once and for all, the stats can be
juggled both ways, if you combine the Perot voters with either Bush's
voters or Clinton's voters. On one hand, 57% of the voters voted for
someone other than Clinton. On the other hand 60% of the voters voted
against Bush, the incumbent.  You could even split the Perotistas down
the middle and give half to clinton and half to bush, and clinton
would still have more.
	Can we stop dickering over numbers now? The next President has
been chosen. Can we all just get about the bussiness of making this
dang country work?


-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu