HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: military integration---when?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:12:14 GMT

When did the US Military formally integrate?
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	Get involved (or shut up)
CLARKSON '95				
We already have term limit provisions in the Constitution, it's called voting.
===========================================================================
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights; that among
these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 
		----Declaration of Independence

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: jessie in clinton's cabinet?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:59:03 GMT

In article <markts.722487915@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>
> i wonder if jessie jackson has a place
> in clinton's cabinet?
>
> maybe in hud. please not the state
> dept. please.
>
Nope, no cabinet position for Jesse.  That would make it obvious that Clinton
has made a deal with the Far Left from the beginning.

Jesse will get his spot in a much more roundabout way.  When Clinton makes
D.C. a state, it is going to need a Senator.  Any guesses as to whom one of
the Senatorial positions is going to go?

Have a pleasant diurnal anomaly.

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Spin with the archer now, and       
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  laugh in his face as he cocks his  
This University is too Commie-	|  bow....  -The Guess Who
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:54:21 GMT


In article <nate.823@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, 
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) said:

> ...Thomas's confirmation was exactly that - an endorsement by the
> Senate Judiciary Committee saying that Thomas was suitable for the
> Court. It may not be what you and I feel, but it's what they did.

It's been a while, but I think I remember that the Senate Judiciary
Committee's final vote was a tie and that therefore they neither
recommended that the full Senate approve Thomas nor that it reject
him.  As I said, though, it's been a while, so this a fairly
low-confidence memory... anybody know for sure?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60533 sci.econ:8709
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:12:23 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <1992Nov20.001406.12652@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>>No. The real problem is that Congresspeople put their own career interests
>>ahead of either their consituents' interests, or the national interest.
>
>If that's the case, then the blame lies with us, the people for returning
>them to office.  I think you're getting closer to the real problems with
>the system here, though.  The problem is NOT that they put their career 
>interest ahead of national interest, that's just a symptom.  We need to
>understand WHY they do this, and why it succeeds.

They do it because the concept of a 'career in Congress' has become
valid. Politicians can now have careers that are somewhat analagous
to those of entertainers or athletes (in more ways than one).

The idea that Congresspeople are supposed to be *representatives*
is dead.

>....Dale Cook

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:38:04 GMT

foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> I'm a big believer in picking battles which can be waged on the most 
>>advantageous terms. Once it was clear that the battle against 
>>Clarence Thomas was one which would be waged without real ammunition, 
>>I believe the best course would have been to graciously concede and wish 
>>Judge Thomas luck in his new job. The extent of wasted time, effort, and 
>>emotion which were expended in the failed effort to reject Thomas does 
>>not reflect favorably on either the Senate leaders who led the effort or 
>>on any of us who supported it.

>However, the failure of those Senators on the panel to have the slightest
>consideration for what sexual harrassement is or for a person making an
>allegation of harassement is directly repsonsible for the female population
>of teh Senate going from 2 to 6 including one black woman. I consider this
>worth all the time and effort that went into the hearings.

    Perhaps, but it sounds to me like someone trying to rationalize a 
poorly fought battle. When Clarence Thomas got confirmed we (liberals) 
lost an important battle. I'm glad to see that we have more women Senators 
and I concede that a couple of them might actually owe their victories 
to Anita Hill. Unfortunately I still don't think that we did a very good 
job of going after Thomas's true weak points.

>I supported the hearings. I am glad that I did. 

    Ditto, no argument about that. Hearings are part of our government 
process.

>Neither the Democrats or
>the Republicans on the committee treated the hearings with an open mind
>about finding the truth. The Sentators from both parties stacked the
>deck against Anita Hill. IMO

    I would agree with that too. Maybe the difference is that I think our
leaders did a lousy job of handling the opposition to Thomas and I hope 
that they do better next time around when they'll presumably have a nominee 
more to their liking. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: Thomas Bjorkman <Thomas_Bjorkman@cornell.edu>
Subject: Family values (Was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC)
X-Xxdate: Sat, 21 Nov 92 14: 12:46 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: tnb1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:08:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.181156.21247@debbie> Doug Pontius, pontius@tt.com
writes:
>
>I happen to believe that the purpose of the family is to pass on values
and
>preserve the society that my ancestors risked their very lives to
establish.
>I also happen to believe that my narrow-minded traditional view of the
family
>is best for our children and our society as a whole.  
And continues...
>Whether we like it or not, the values that our society espouses will
shape
>the future of our nation.  We <adjectives omitted> conservatives are
fully
>entitled to our view, and yes, you non-conservatives are entitled to
yours.
>Ultimately, one viewpoint will win out; one will be proven correct, and
>the other incorrect.  In the meantime, I'm afraid the debate will remain
>very much alive.

For the most part, I think your view is very sensible, but I take strong
issue with you final conclusion.

You view of the purpose of the family is very reasonable.  Yet your post
implies that there is only one correct tradition.  By all means, follow
your family's traditions as you carry on the family.

However, our traditions differ a lot in different families, communities,
countries and times.  I know that my family's traditions differ from my
in-laws.  Carrying on certain traditions is as important to me as it is
to you, but some are mutually exclusive.  Furthermore, my
great-grandparents followed important traditions that would fit poorly
with today's society.  It is not that they were proven incorrect, they
are just not correct any more.

When I hear "traditional family values", I find that the speaker has in
mind something out of a Norman Rockwell painting or a 1950's movie or TV
show.  These are utopian images that a lot of us were brought up on.  But
they were and are _fiction_.  

Tradition is important to society.  American society is particularly
fortunate to be made up of a variety of traditions.  Take pride in your
own tradition, but also appreciate other's.  Make sure that what you call
"traditional family values" really are _your_ families traditions, and
not a fiction that you are being told by someone else (for their
benefit?).
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60265 alt.rush-limbaugh:9753 talk.rumors:1292 alt.activism:18826 alt.politics.elections:23858
From: wix@eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 15 Nov 92 06:43:08 GMT
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <BxnyFv.4nD@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>...
>>But, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, the whole idea of enterprise zones 
>>is inherently unconservative. The government is trying to get capital to go 
>>where it doesn't want to. This sounds like-industrial policy! ...
>
>    "Economist" called enterprise zones "the Republican version of big
>    goverment waste".  I tend to agree.
>
Sound like a good description to me.  The people that live in the
"enterprise zones" don't have the skills needed  to get many of
the new jobs.  Oh, a janitor or two, and maybe some jobs on the
loading dock.  But the best jobs will be taken by people
commuting _in_ from the suburbs!  The people that need the jobs
and the training will not benefit much, if at all.  But we
will be subsidizing some very nice new facilities for a few
businesses.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is SS part of compensation? (was Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:52:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BxHBrs.F8A@sneaky.lonestar.org> gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:

|>>Every year Novell sends me a little booklet detailing my compensation
|>>package.  Included is my salary, bonus, insurance, AND Novell's payment
|>>of SS on my behalf.  As far as Novell is concerned, that's money that
|>>they have to pay as part of employing me, hence, it is a benefit.  I'd

|>It *IS* an expense of having employees.  That does not make it a benefit,
|>and it especially does not make it a benefit TO YOU.  

|>I suspect that the day will come when doctoring the SSA's books to
|>erase record of that SS tax payment would be to your financial benefit.

|>>like to be able to do what I want with that 7.5% rather than have it
|>>sucked back to Washington...

|>Given the choice of burning that 7.5% or having it sucked back to
|>Washington, which would you choose?

You lost me here.  Are you saying that these are the only two options?

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re:  E-Mail to the President?
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:03:16 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

Well here are the campaign e-mail addresses...
I'm not sure how many are valid, but I know the Clinton one worked about
a week or so ago... The guy who mans it (Jock Gill) was on vacation last I
heard so we haven't heard from him in a while...
As for the others, well I never checked them...

Jerry Brown
75300.3105@compuserve.com
Brown92@igc.org
Brown92@well.sf.ca.us

Pat Buchanan
76326.126@compuserve.com

Geo. Bush
[No public e-mail address at this time]

Bill Clinton
75300.3115@compuserve.com

Andre Marrou
75300.3114@compuserve.com

Ross Perot
71511.460@compuserve.com

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's health care plan
Date: 20 Nov 92 06:15:42 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <921116212020.2060b14b@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU>, RSE32195@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU wri
tes:
>
>Would someone please send me a copy of Clinton's health care plan/proposal?
>I have seen it posted before but didn't save it.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Stefan Radloff
>University of Tulsa
>rse32195@vax1.utulsa.edu
>
  You won't be able to get one because CLINTON has decided that his campaign
  promises are now "recommendations", and that tells the Americans that voted
  for the creep that they shouldn't hold their breath to what he said he
  "would do for us". Tell me people, what change? I thought this is what you
  executed Pres. Bush for. I had no idea that it would be acceptable from a
  Democrat. The only thing you changed in politics is the party holding the
  house...nothing else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60917 sci.econ:8761
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Keynes on the Laffer Curve and balanced budgets
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:02:47 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Nov18.141138.5691@desire.wright.edu>,
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> 
|> 	"taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given
|> sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will
run a better
|> chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget." --John Maynard Keynes
|> (1933).
|> 
|> 	Perhaps near the end of his life Keynes was seeing the light.  It only
|> took the rest of the country 50 years :).
|> 
|>

Brett, you are so persistent in your myopia that it's almost inspirational.

Alas, one more try ......

Keynes's overwhelming certainty states "..may be so high .." implies both
"... might not be so high ..." and fails to pinpoint how high is "so" high.
No-one denies the existence of mathematical differential such that a local
decrease in marginal rate might by accompanied by a marginal increase in
total revenues, and few would probably deny the empirical evidence that
you've pointed out, but most all would deny that EVERY decrease in marginal
tax rates would be accompanied by a marginal increase in total revenues,
which suggests that not all points on the the curver LAFFER(rate,revenue) are 
contained in neighborhoods characterized by this quality.

This is just a fancy way of saying that the rule might be context specific.
Which is what Keynes said.

To help you understand this, consider a man who drinks alcohol and
starts to feel "high".  According to Stupendous logic, the more we
drink, the higher we get.  And further, according to Stupendous
reasoning, the hangover we have the next day has nothing to do with the
fact that we drank too much, but everything to do with the fact that we
stopped drinking.

I cannot say for sure that getting revenue has the same formula as
getting drunk, but clearly even you can understand the existence of
non-linear mathematical relationships.  A fact that exists in the
neighborhood of one point is by no means guaranteed to be true in the
neighborhood of all points on the curve.  That reasoning is simplistic.

I suggest that the economic hangover we have in the nineties has more to
do with the drinking spree we had in the eighties than you do, and there
is more to economic policy than reducing taxes  -- we don't have this
hangover simply because we stopped drinking.

Further, I wonder if you're suggesting that an industrialized economy
which is NOT taxed would not exhibit a real business cycle.  I believe
that it would, though I don't know how to prove it.  This would suggest
that economic growth is more complicated that we(you) think.

Secondly, there IS an effective tax-rate reduction going on right now,
in 1992.  Check your withholding statement.  Do you think the economy is
"booming"? How do you explain this? 

Paul Collacchi
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60514 alt.politics.clinton:17315 alt.president.clinton:487
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:07:00 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <4012@randvax.rand.org> jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.081331.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>     I heard Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole reiterate his support
>>for granting President-Elect Clinton the power of line-item veto.
>>However, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and Speaker
>>Thomas Foley do not want to grant Clinton -- their own man! -- this 
>>power in full (although they have considered a watered-down version).
>
>In this morning's news conference Clinton said that in their dinner
>meeting last night Foley presented his alternative suggestion on
>line-item: 50% required to override an appropriations line-item veto.
>Clinton indicated he was favorably disposed to the idea, and thought it
>would serve as a starting point for the discussions.  In the same news
>conference Mitchell said he'd review the Foley proposal and talk to people
>about it and decide whether to support it... so he's still not on board.
>
>I found it refreshing that Clinton is willing to start off talking about
>a compromise on this, rather than trying to demand it all by claiming a
>mandate.  I'd prefer the 2/3 requirement for override myself, in order to
>cut down on pork-barrelling, but the 1/2 version is better than none.
>


     I've always had mixed feelings about the line-item veto, because
I fear it would give the President too much inchecked power. However,
it scares me a little less if the Congress if given a balancing
override power.  A simple majority to overturn a line item veto is a
bit easier to round up than a 2/3 majority. So my hat is already off
to President-Elect Clinton, for striking a balance before his term
even begins.




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61198 alt.rush-limbaugh:10158 alt.politics.elections:24222 alt.politics.clinton:17585 alt.politics.bush:13989
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:35:09 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> 
> Well according to 600 of our best economists, it is the only plan
> that showed any understanding of macroeconomics of the three
> presented. Admitedly, they all had their criticisms, but most of
> them were implementation problems and disagreements in time scale
> of implementation. Exactly what could anyone have said that you wouldn't
> have cdonsidered campaign rhetoric?
> 
600 economists couldn't agree on what month it is, let alone the proper course
for American economic policy to take. And for every economist who thought
Slick Willie's ideas were better (pardon me, "less bad") than Bush's,
there were two who disagreed, and THREE who didn't think either one of them
had a clue. 


 >
> >You're right on the mark about Bush; he's only marginally less
> unqualified
> >to be President than Clinton is. Like Slick Willie, he believes in
> nothing
> >other than that he should be President, and will do ANYTHING to get
> >elected. His problems with the economy, however, are mostly the fault of
> >Dan Rostenkowski and George Mitchell, who railroaded him into signing the
> >1990 budget "deal", whereby Bush broke a promise that he had made, and
> the
> >Congress made a promise that they would break. (To never raise taxes, and
> >to reduce federal spending, respectively).
> 
> That is crap. Even though I hated Reagan, he had an understanding of how
> to get congress to do what he wanted. He agressively took the proposals
> to the people and let them apply the pressure. Bush has no understanding
> of
> this. Furthermore, most of Bush's proposals are simple band-aids for
> highly complex problems. Secondly, anyone who promises no new taxes
> in a campaign should be taken with a grain of salt.

In your highly inexpert opinion, perhaps. Now, I'm not defending Bush; the
man was a spineless wimp, and if it weren't for Clinton, I'd be glad that
he'd lost. But government at all leve;s eats 43% of GNP. Are you
suggesting that we need MORE taxes? 

> 
> >
> >But to vote for Clinton because you don't like Bush is the political
> >equivalent of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. And it IS
> >foolish, and I can't help it if you don't like it. 
> 
> It would be if that were the only reason I voted for him. It wasn't.
> 
> Norman


I've never heard any other, but I'm willing to listen. Tell me ONE THING
that you LIKE, REALLY LIKE, about Bill Clinton, other that the fact that
he's not Bush.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60802 sci.econ:8753
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:20:55 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Nov17.171201.5662@desire.wright.edu>,
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.200608.24566@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
|> >  
|> > 
|> > What happens when you add in 1991 and 1992?
|> 
|> 	Apples and Oranges.  Bush was not following supply side after he
|> raised taxes in 1990.
|> 

I question this.  According to your earlier posts, you have said that
"supply side" has two main components  - tax reductions and a lessening
of restrictions on business legislation.  After his State of the Union
address, Busht effectively did both -- he deferred the witholding rate
for one year, an effective tax cut, and he loosed diver Dan Quayle onto
the task of determining which pieces of red tape should be suspended due
to the  emergency state of the economy   

In other words, Bush engaged in "virtual" supply-side -- policies, which
according to you, should be indistinguishable with "true" supply side.

So what do you conclude, Brett?  Do you deny that the "Bush" conditions
are indistinguishable from supply-side policies (with added credit), and
if not  how does the result square with your thesis?

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton