HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: A booming economy will do that, you know :)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:50:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep2.143302.3864@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In Message-ID: <9209012041.AA03641@poly.math.cornell.edu>
>harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) crossposts to
>Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
>about Subject: BUSH: The "Energy President" (II)
>>
>>******************************************************************  
>> Kilograms of motor gasoline eonsumed per capita, 1989; and  
>>average annual percentage growth of oil imports, 1982 to 1988:  
>>******************************************************************  
>>                    GASOLINE CONSUMED    GROWTH OF OIL  
>>COUNTRY                 PER CAPITA       IMPORTS (%)  
>>
>>United States               1,272            7.2  
>>
>	A booming economy will do that for you.  Cheap resources should be
>imported.  That certain people think this is "bad" is indicative of their
>faulty logic.


   Up to a point this is true.  But rational people take the complexities
   of things into account.   Rational people look at the future and
   anticipate likely events and take advantage of currently cheap assets
   to prepare for them.  

   For instance, my wife and I have nice jobs and lots of income just now.
   If we were like most Americans in that situation we'd be living it up,
   stretching to go into debt, spending on all kinds of things because
   money for us is a "cheap" asset.    However since we work in the computer
   industry where total employment has dropped in each of '88-'91 (and 
   probably will in '92 as well) we are aware that there are risks that
   our nice income may not endure.  So we have lived modestly, paying cash
   for things, buying used or repairing things rather than buying new things, 
   avoiding extravagance, reducing not only the interest rate but the *size*
   of our mortgage, and setting aside reserves to live on if we become
   unemployed.

   Importing cheap oil instead of drilling expensive domestic oil is, as
   demon@desire.wright.edu suggests, only rational.  But more rational 
   still would be to take advantage of this cheap oil to reduce our demands
   for oil so that if that cheap oil becomes expensive it will not be 
   a shock to the economy, and that we don't become dependent on outside
   sources for a substance vital to our national economy and security.
   

---peter

   

  
   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Demo Gun Control & just who were the v
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:12:53 CDT

In article 5789@mahendo.jpl.nasa.gov, julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
|In article <1992Aug24.213922.1524@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|>In article <66245@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
|>>In <p59m-0j.garyd@netcom.com> garyd@netcom.com (Gary Dietz) writes:
|>>>The Crisp-in-ator writes:
|>
|>>>Did the people who put down the coup in the ex-Soviet Union have a lot of 
|>>>guns?  
|>
|>Yes.
|
|No they didn't.  The people surrounding the White House were
|unarmed and were told to move away if attacked.  Most of the people 
|with the guns were the military that came over to Yeltsin's side
|and Yeltsin's bodyguards.  The folks on the street were unarmed
|(except for gasoline and old ladies yelling at young soldiers)


You contradict your self.  The fact is that people with guns
(soldiers etc) came over to Yeltsin.



---
--David C. Adams  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42825 alt.activism:15675 misc.headlines:6072
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:42:30 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <farenebt.715041883@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug27.221613.19103@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>>>Someone wrote:

>>>>GHWB
>>>>was expected to slam Slick Willie by bringing up a bunch of rapists
>>>>whose life sentences he commuted.

>>Well, Mike, that someone was me and that isn't what I wrote.  Either you
>>or this Bri person changed my post and I don't appreciate that.  I
>>called the president George Bush, not GHWB, and if people want to
>>paraphrase what I said they can damned well put it in brackets 
>>or otherwise indicate that it is not exactly what I said.

>>Bri, do you hear that too?

>For the 8,234,782 time, I misread the original post. The original post
>did say "life sentences", I just misread it. It was my fault. How many
>times do I have to say it?

You can say it till you're blue in the face, but you would do much
better to work on your reading comprehension.  This is the second post
on this subject that you appear to have misread.

By the way, I am really disappointed about this.  When I made the
original post I wasn't really interested in starting a flamewar on
negative campaigning.  I wanted to know whose life sentences Clinton
commuted and why.  Do we really want a president who thinks that a
life sentence for rape is too severe?  I guess it depends on the
details.  What are they?  Does anyone know?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42709 ca.politics:7218 soc.motss:37484
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: PLEASE VOTE!!!
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:07:18 GMT
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In article <11981@optilink.UUCP>
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug28.072509.27910@reed.edu>, nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) wrtes:
># argh, stop it Clayton!
>#
># Please, if you follow up to this thread, pay extra attention to the
># Newsgroups: header. soc.motss is a lesbian and gay positive newsgroup
># for the discussion of issues of specific relevance to lesbians and
># gays. talk.politics.misc and ca.politics are for the discussion of
># political issues. Please consider which newsgroup your message is
># relevant to, and only post it to those newsgroups.
>#
># Clayton is fond of trying to cause trouble in motss.
># --
>#                 __
># nelson@reed.edu \/    The look in his eyes when it hit - kid, it was tasty...
>
>Straightspace is for straight people only.

     Straightspace?

>Please pay attention
>when you are told that homosexuals aren't welcome, and stop trying
>to use your control over California's state government to impose
>homosexuals into straightspace.
>
     I do so enjoy USENET.

     Whatever "Straightspace" is, my suggestion is you stop speaking
for it.  I can only imagine you're embarrasing it something awful.

>If AB 2601 is signed into law, I suppose it be appropriate to send a
    ^^^^^^^
     For those of us passing our time here in quiet (well, maybe not
so quiet) oblivousness, what exactly is AB 2601?

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:24:49 GMT

In article <17ga7eINNa6j@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>Just heard on CBS that a Federal Judge has declared the trial of
>former CIA Spymaster Clair George to be a mistrial after the
>jury was hopelessly deadlocked on the verdict. Walsh now has the
>opportunity to re-try him.
>
>What's the tally so far? 3 small cheeses, no big fish? Someone ought
>to thank Walsh for showing us why this special prosecutor thing was
>not that great an idea after all. 

What makes you think that someone else might have been more successful? Or do
you think that there shouldn't have been any prosecution at all?

Matthias

BTW, I just finished reading _Opening Arguments_ by Jeffrey Toobin. A very
interesting book about Iran-Contra, even if they author is (obviously) biased.

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                   neeri@iis.ethz.ch
  "... Rice walked out wondering if the world was nothing but wimps,
   pimps, psychos and sex fiends" -- James Ellroy, _Suicide Hill_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: More on Clinton's plan
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Distribution: talk
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:58:11 GMT

In article <19885@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>
>Here is another item in Clinton's plan that has problems:
>
>#      6. National Service Trust Fund. To give every American the
># right to borrow money for college, we will scrap the existing
># student loan program and establish a National Service Trust Fund.
># Those who borrow from the fund will be able to choose how to
># repay the balance: either as a small percentage of their earnings
># over time, or by serving their communities for one or two years
># doing work their country needs as  teachers, law enforcement
># officers,  health care workers, or  peer counselors helping kids
># stay off drugs and in school.
>
>If students can repay their loan through such community services, what
>will they get paid?
>
>If they get paid the prevailing wage, then they would not be working off
>their loans -- they would just be paid the same rate as everyone else
>who's already doing that same kind of work.
>
>If they get paid less than the prevailing wage, how are people who are
>already doing those things for a living going to feel about a bunch of
>other people doing the same kind of work for less money?  Seems to me
>that the unions aren't going to be too happy about it.

well, I don't know what Clinton has in mind *but*:

In the UK, 'community service' has for a few years been an alternative form of
punishment available to the courts. It involves working x hours per week for a
fixed term for no reimbursement. Maybe this is the sort of thing they have in
mind: for example working ten hours a week as a special constable, or
relief teacher, or spending the time working in a drug counselling centre...

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41741 talk.abortion:33366 alt.politics.bush:2786
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: WholeSomeTraditionalFamilyValues
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:38:44 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

diana@wetware.com (CatWoman ) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>>> ps: and their Restore Our God Given Rights
>>> to concubines....

>> Isn't it kind of dangerous leaving this around where the
>> CatWoman can see it???

> Hell - when some god walks up to me and says that
> it's his right to have concubines - he can have them.

So drieux has hardly had time to get his seat warm on the
Pope's Chair and he's already been promoted to god???

Hang on, Diana, your ProblemYoungerMan is on a fast
careen, er, career track!

> Of course, he'll have to SUPPORT them also...

Imho, it's _really_ dangerous to leave this around
where Darcy and Kellmeyer can see it...

-- 
Chris Lyman                    /  Due to circumstances beyond your
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  control, you are master of your
#include <std.disclaimers.h>   /  fate and captain of your soul.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41850 alt.activism:15413 alt.politics.elections:11538
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:59:25 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug20.221819.27302@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.155755.10597@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes...

>>>We're Number One in percentage of population without health insurance.

>>>             ============================================
>>>                 Percentage of population covered by
>>>                  public health insurance, 1990(25)
>>>             ============================================

>>I wonder how many of the people who read this article noticed the
>>little word "public" in the caption here?  So hey, Harel, what's the
>>point of the table?  Who cares where we rank in percentage of the
>>population with PUBLIC health insurance?  

>>So hey, were you trying to mislead or did you just screw up?

>If you read the WHOLE article you would notice that this was a 
>comparison of DEVELOPED countries.

This break was sponsored by the society to educate the politically
illiterate (as in people whose reading problems are motivated by
politics, not people who don't know about politics.)

GARRET!!! THE ISSUE IS PUBLIC INSURANCE VS. ANY INSURANCE, NOT
DEVELOPED VS. UNDEVELOPED.

>>>                    COUNTRY      PERCENT  

>>>                    Australia      100    
>>>                    Canada         100    
>>....
>>>                    United States   21  

>>>Sources: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris),
>>>Health Data file, 1991: U.S.: National Center for Heath Statistics, Advance
>>>Data, No. 201, June 18, 1991.

>>>"The main reason we're Number One in percentage of population without
>>>health insurance...

>>Note that Harel posts no evidence for this.  He just lets us mislead
>>ourselves by providing an irrelevant table.

>He posted the source! And the whole article. What do you want a term paper?
>BTW, where are your sources?

Yes.  And the evidence included was a table of who had PUBLIC health
insurance. 

My sources?  I don't need no steenking sources - I haven't made any
claims that need sources to back them up... except for Harel's own
post, of course, which clearly demonstrates his duplicity.

>>I'm not sure whether I should believe that you are stupid enough to
>>post a lie this stupid or that you are stupid enough to actually
>>believe this.

>Great comeback! Can't wait until you get down to some SERIOUS name
>calling.

Well, which one do you think it is?  After all, the lie is rather
dumb, don't you think?





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Endorsement
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:57:22
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu's message of Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:41:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.004122.19187@morrow.stanford.edu>
GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes about female
Senatorial candidates:

> Sorry James, but there are a lot more than two of use running for
> the the U.S.  Senate this year.  We have at least 4 in California
> alone (2 Dems, 1 Lib, 1 P&F) I also know of two more from Illinois
> and PA ans I'm sure I've missed some others.
> 
> /June
> Libertarian for U.S. Senate, California (full term)

If you count primary candidates, there are at least two women running
for Senate in New York.  
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment (was Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:34:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.210555.3635@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.165333.23470@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>
>>The U.S. is the lowest taxed developed nation.  Tax decreases, especially
>>capital gains tax decreases, can spur speculation that neither creates
>>jobs nor utility.  
>
>I challenge this assertion that the US is the lowest taxed developed
>nation. Unlike centralized governments in other countries, the US tax
>burden is distributed among local, state and federal levels. Many different
>kinds of taxes are involved, from personal and corporate income taxes, SS 
>taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes (real and intangible), etc, 
>etc, etc. When all these are summed, I don't think the US will be the lowest 
>taxed industrial nation. According to the Taxpayer's Union, over 3/4 of
>all income winds up as taxes.
>
>Gary


I have seen OECD data which puts the U.S as the least taxed industrial  
nation ( as a percent of GNP). However, if you add up the percent of GNP
spent on health care and taxes, Canada and the U.S are close.


I highly doubt that 75% of income in U.S ends up as tax.

Ishay	 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Pork Barrel Politics
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:08:02 CDT


In article <1992Aug25.172749.15547@hemlock.cray.com>, dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:
> In article 20102@hemlock.cray.com, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> |Weber declined to run for re-election after reports that he
> |bounced a large number of checks at the House bank.  He is
> |now co-chair of the Bush re-election campaign.
> 
> Well, the Democrats seem to be pretty smug about that.  At least Vin
> Webber has the character to step down.

Down, but not out.  Haven't you seen Weber on all those "crazy Sunday
morning talk shows" recently?  People are even calling him a "rising
star" in Republican politics.  Quite the complement for a guy that 
can't even get re-elected in his own congressional district.

>                                         Jerry Sikorsky, now there's
> a man with no shame.  Jerry decided to run again and hope the voters
> would forget and forgive.   Jerry wrote bounced checks for more than 
> $109K if I remember.  This was many times more than Vin Weber's $35K
> if I remember Vin's sins correctly.*

I'd don't care about Sikorsky.  I'd say that he'd definitly get blown
out in the election except the Repubs will probably nominate someone
even *less* acceptable (like Tad Jude).

>                                       Seems to me that Jerry gives
> the DFL (Democratic Farm Labor) party in MN a black eye.

Not nearly the black eye that Perpich did.  :-)

At least Sikorsky has not been caught swimming naked with any teenage
girls.  :-)

>                                                          He would
> have helped the DFL out by stepping down like Vin did.

Speaking of stepping down, what's Dave Durenburger doing now days? 
I didn't see him at the Republican convention.  :-)

> I hope they throw the bum out!  
> 
> *Oh, we will remember.

It's too bad the IR's can't just nominate normal people, like Arnie
Carlson.  If they did MN would probably be a Republican state.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 17:02:52 GMT

> >>     Instead of paying women for having children outside of wedlock and not
> >>     working, we should give parents who are unable to support their children 
> >>     an opportunity to temporarily place them in a foster home, get back on their 
> >>     feet, and take the kids back.  That will take away an incentive to raise
> >>     one's children poor with no man in the house, and reduce the number of 
> >>     children living below the poverty line.
> >
> >This is the dumbest idea i've ever heard of....snatching children from
> >their mothers arms - how horrible.  There are much better solutions then
> >that one.
> 
>     Shatching kids from their mothers arms is your idea - I proposed
>     giving parents an OPTION of placing a child in a foster home 
>     TEMPORARILY, till they get back on their feet financially.  The goverment 
>     would pay for the foster care (cheaper and, more importantly, the incentive
>     to raise one's child in poverty would not be there).  Another word,
>     the welfare benefits should go to the child, but not necessarily to 
>     the child's parent(s).

Sorry, I misread what you wrote.  

Ok, fine, give them the option.  

>     BTW, if you had to choose between the two alternatives, which one
>     would you choose?

Don't know.  Don't have chilren yet - but I would say that I would have to
be pretty bad off to even consider that option.
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:34:20 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> >"Vote for their opponent.", you say?  Well, what if they run unopposed? 

>   How often are Congressional seats uncontested?  (Ans: almost never)

You're ignoring the contests that are financially noncompetitive,
where the parties send up a crackpot or a sacrificial lamb to fill the
line on the ballot, but where the opposiiton candidate never has a
chance.  According to Common Cause, such races make up the vast
majority of congressional races.  I just moved and everything is still
in boxes, so I can't find the numbers right now.  I'll post them in a
month or so if people want me to.

--Scott
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42011 alt.politics.elections:11591 alt.politics.bush:2953 alt.politics.clinton:3039