HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!niepornt
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Keynesian thing (was: A "New" Reich)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:36:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.124136.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville

>> Keynes is right and has always been right.  The economic "booms" of

       Keynes is deluded, and always has been.

       The latest studies I've heard of show government spending
    on infrastructure results in a break-even result.  No
    increase in GDP, while net transfers ( entitlements ) result
    in negative GDP growth.


>I wish people would *read* Keynes before they posted about him.  Contrary
>to popular opinion, Keynes did not simply say "deficit spending is
>good."  He called for a specific *type* of spending, ie investment.  Our
>current budget spends almost nothing on this -- defense, social
>security, medicare, etc, might be useful, but are *not* examples of
>Keynesian deficit spending.

        No, you're right, it all goes to INTEREST PAYMENTS on spending
   done under the auspices of a Keynesian god.

         " A little town called Hope ".  Oh, man, I die laughing at
  this one, every time I look at the following numbers -

                          Germany 1932         U.S. 1992

  Total Debt           26 Trillion marks     4 Trillion dollars
  Federal Revenues     7.8 Trillion marks    1.2 Trillion dollars

  Ratio of Debt/Income      3.3 : 1            3.3 : 1

  But there's one large difference -

        In 1932, governments still thought it was important to have
        balanced budgets, and so kept raising taxes and cutting
        benefits.

        In 1992, our enlightened economists and government leaders
        are just borrowing the capital AND the interest payments.

  Oh, no, wait.  There is one more difference -

        OUR debt is accelerating.

  How 'bout " A little town called Auschwitz " ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Maybe I'm paranoid, but ...
Date: 6 Nov 1992 13:04:29 -0800
Organization: Jon's Cafe Americain
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lindy.stanford.edu

   There seems to be a consensus among both liberal and conservative
economists that the absolute, totally, completely worst thing a
government can do during a prolonged recession/depression is to sharply
raise trade barriers and risk setting off a protectionist international
trade war.  Yet it seems the Bush administration, by imposing
astronomic duties on EC wines and threatening that there's more to come,
is toying with exactly that idea.

   I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories, but I find myself
wondering if the Bush administration isn't doing what it can to leave
Clinton with the worst economy possible -- that George is, so to speak,
taking a dump in the Oval Office and leaving it for his successor to
clean up.

   Am I crazy, or what? 
-- 


Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University       BITNET:  BR.JGC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59425 alt.politics.correct:5841
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.correct
Subject: talk.politics.model-un
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 12:56:06 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    Still looking for support for the creation of talk.politics.model-un.
    To post support, post to news.groups.  For more info, emial
    f36si@cunyvm or f36si@cunyvm.cuny.edu.
                           Peace,
                                 Matt
-------


    MATTHEW J. ROSENWASSER    MODEL UN WORLD TOUR 92 - 93
    F36SI@CUNYVM                       PEACE ROCKS
    F36SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
      "A MAN IS NOT GREAT BECAUSE HE HAS NOT FAILED,
       A MAN IS GREAT BECAUSE FAILURE DOES NOT STOP HIM."
                                    - CONFUCIOUS
-------
    MATTHEW J. ROSENWASSER    MODEL UN WORLD TOUR 92 - 93
    F36SI@CUNYVM                       PEACE ROCKS
    F36SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
      "A MAN IS NOT GREAT BECAUSE HE HAS NOT FAILED,
       A MAN IS GREAT BECAUSE FAILURE DOES NOT STOP HIM."
                                    - CONFUCIOUS
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Who Are The Crowd Most Likely To Set Up Death Camps? (Was Re: Colorado Letter)
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:14:04 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

It was suggested here a while back that the more moral outrage
someone expresses, the more likely they are to form a lynch mob,
concentration camp, or other manifestation of murderous evil.
The following posting by Jess Anderson concerning Coloradans
that voted for the Colorado initiative says it all:

In article <1992Nov5.205943.13681@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.185336.15750@asuvax.eas.asu.edu>
> kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy) writes:
# #     Oh for heavens sake, Jess, for once be assertive:
# 
# V. inf.
# 
# #for much too subjunctive a tone for what I assume
# #are strong feelings on your part.
# 
# The actual feelings are these: they're pig-fucks and I'd
# like them all to die right now, in the most gruesome way
# possible.  I thought I should tone that down a bit, though.
# 
# -- 
# Jess Anderson <# Madison Academic Computing Center <# University of Wisconsin



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58581 alt.politics.clinton:16176
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Is God a Socialist?
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:47:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

>>I have read several recent posts which said that God is a Socialist.
>>
>Who said this? Are you paraphrasing?
>

Well, he's obviously not a capitalist. After all, he threw the
money changers out of the temple, didn't he? 

(Or was it his illegitimate kid that did that?)
From: ingramje@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (The Poet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Termlimits
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:58:44 GMT
Reply-To: ingramje@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jr Jerry Ingram)
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
NNTP-Posting-Host: o231-30.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <farenebt.720939727@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>  
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
> 14 states passed term limit initiatives.
> What I am interested in is how many of Congressmen and Senators
> were re-elected from those states who would have exceeded the term
> limit specifications had they been in effect already.
> 
> In other words, how many Senators were elected to their 3rd+ term
> or REps to their 5th+ term (or whatever the numbers for the indiv.
> state was) from states where term limits were approved?
> 
Not to be insulting to you, but what difference does it make?  They  
probably all were, but they won't be again, and that is the important  
thing.  So "the people" are stupid,  they've decided now to protect  
themselves from their own stupidity.
__________________________________________________________________________
"C'mon, give the politicians a little credit.  They can too be as stupid  
as they look." - The Poet (me)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Re: Clinton won... let's calm down
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 17:04:30 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA09973; Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:18:18 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA21492; Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:18:14 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 6446; Thu, 05 Nov 92 17:15:45 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0947; Thu, 05 Nov 92 17:15:44 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet



In a previous article, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) says:

>Clinton has won. He is the president elect. It is time to stop attacking
>his past, because it is no longer relevant. We need to give him the
>benefit of the doubt, and not go after him unless we disagree with his
>actions as president (or president elect).

       Sure, I'll go for this one.  Bush would have given us a New
     World Order.  I'm still going to keep checking into South
     America though.

>Finally, we can stop going after Perot. If he pops back up (and I think he
>will), we can restart the arguments, but again attacks on him at this

        I really doubt he'll be back, after listening to his acceptance
        speech.  I was very disappointed in him.  *Twice* now.

>matters what we predicted of him. What counts is what he really does,
>and we have no way of knowing how he will behave in office.

         I disagree.

          Predictions -

        7 day waiting period, decided LOCALLY a la California.
        Ban and confiscation of assault rifles.
        $350 billion dollar deficit for 1993. ( 20% increase over 1992 )
        6 trillion dollar deficit by 1996.
        $50 billion fiscal stimulus which will boost the economy for
        a year or two, then fizzle out.
        $100 billion banking bailout ( commercial real estate )
        $100 billion banking bailout ( government bond losses ) by 1996.


> - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -

         Until it's been removed from the Bill of Rights, that is.
         Anything else would just be " attacking the past " and
         " no longer relevant "

         Yes, I suspect your proposed sentiment may come back to
          haunt you, John.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: jmartin@ntmtv.UUCP (Jeff Martin)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: jmartin@rheita
Organization: Northern Telecom Incorporated
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:42:32 GMT

From article <1doptuINNc5r@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, by jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ():
> In article <1992Nov10.023120.2114@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>In article <69.X666X@ramona.com> doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
>>>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.
>>
>>She offered no evidence that she was harassed by anyone.
>>
>>--Tim Smith
> 
> In your opinion...
> 
> John
> 

NO! NO! NO!. 
It is a fact Mrs. Hill offered no OBJECTIVE evidence (tapes, lab test, eye
witnesses, coke can, etc..) to substantiate here claims.  Her only "witnesses" 
were heresay evidence that would not been allowed in a court of law.

Believe her or not, at least admit to yourself that this case was at best
her word against his. What little evidence there was (phone logs documenting
the fact that AH continued to contact Thomas after leaving the EEOC) seem
to call into question Mrs. Hill's allegations.

Jeff Martin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: President Clinton
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:24:47 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

I expect as much from you, Steve.  Typical slander from liberals.  Do you
guys who flame (both parties) on Usenet ever listen to yourselves?  It's 
really very boring reading.  I had to jump ahead 500 posts to my articles
just to see what senseless jibes were waiting for me.  It's ok, I was yawning
anyway.
Of course I think for myself, I wouldn't be a science major if I couldn't.
Get a clue; get a point; etc.

Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now that it's over, I've received 5:1 e-mail.  5 pro-Bush, isn't this great?
we're gonna win in '96 for sure! to each 1 pro-Clinton nyah.  In light of
this, I still don't understand how he got elected.
--------------------------------------------------
mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58342 alt.politics.clinton:15948 alt.politics.elections:22754
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:48:38 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Nov5.212307.10045@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>|> Artifically so.  If the problem is that the incumbent has the overwhelming
>>|> advantage, the solution isn't to prevent people from voting for the
>>|> incumbent, but give challengers the same set of advantages the incumbents
>>|> have -- be it through publicly financed campaigns, PAC reform, vouchers for
>>|> free television use, mandatory debates, franking privileges for
>>|> challengers, restriction of franking for incumbents, spending limits, etc.
>>|> 
>
>How do they reduce diversity?
>

I don't know if they would reduce diversity but you would have the government
deciding who got financing and who didn't, who got vouchers, franking
privileges, etc.  I think this is a very bad idea to let the government
decide who gets what funding for campaigns.  This is basically letting
the government decide who gets to run for government.

You could argue that what we have now is worse because we just get the
same people over and over.  I kind of agree but there has got to be
away to solve the problem without giving the government more control
over the process.

-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Bailout" Horne")
Subject:      An Open Letter to President Clinton
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 07:16:56 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA28268; Tue, 10 Nov 92 06:26:32 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA06338; Tue, 10 Nov 92 06:26:24 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 1101; Tue, 10 Nov 92 07:29:17 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9981; Tue, 10 Nov 92 07:29:16 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


     Dear Bill,

         Okay, you've been elected to "fix the economy".  Let's not
    mince words.  The way I see it, you got four possible paths:

      i)   The economy continues on the present course, enters
           a deflationary spiral, and you get to be Herbert Hoover
           instead of JFK.

     ii)   The economy continues on the present course, and considering
           that our current debt levels took 50 years to build, they
           can probably be counted on to take at least 10-20 years
           to tear down.  Now, personally, I have no problem with
           the current economy, but at least 62% of the American
           people, plus most businesses, are absolutely frantic
           about making 10% gains every year.  This path ends, for *you*,
           in 1996.

     iii)  You follow a path of privatization, similar to those around
           the world, then run the inflation rate at 10-15% per year.
           The only problem with this one, well, Britain tried it
           and as you can see, it doesn't look so good after all.

    You know, and I know, and probably about 57% of the population
    knows, that your current stated program won't work.  We also
    know that just about any conventional program isn't going to work.
    Here, talk to Allen Sinai.  Now there's a guy who's finally seen
    the light.

    Okay, we KNOW what the problem here is.  Debt levels.
    Solution?  Easy.

      i)  Default on the Federal Debt.

      ii) Re-evaluation all debt instruments at 50% of current value.

    The bad news is, this requires you to expend your "political capital"
    for 1996.  Plus there will be a small army of special interest groups
    rise up and demand impeachment.  But hey, that's happening ALREADY! :)

    I myself don't believe you will have the courage, or skill, to
    face the true nature of America's, and the world's, problems.

    Therefore, rather than request that my solution be run through
    various economic consultant think-tank computer models, rather
    than have it discussed with hundreds of economists, I ask only
    two things of your presidency -

       i)  A passport

       ii) Lump sum payment of my social security deposits



                                              Sincerely,

                                              Broward "Paraguay" Horne
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: BUSH LIED ABOUT ARMING IRAQ...
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:37:56 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 <28OCT199208152386@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:

Hey Steve, get a life.  Better yet, get a brain.  See below...

>From the Associated Press:

>"Formerly secret documents show that Iraq's arsenal
>contained American land mines and mortart during
>the Gulf War.  The reports were prepared by U.S.
>Army intelligence officers before the war."

>The partially dclassified and heavily censored documents
>were obtained by William Arkin, director of Greenpeace,
>under the Freedom of Information Act.

>Gee, guess Bush lied about THAT ONE.  Who do you trust
>now?

What did Bush lie about?  What Steve is missing is that Bush never
claimed that the Iraqies didn't use weapons manufactured in the US.
They did, and everyone knows that.  US weapons have been floating
arround the international arms market for decades and everyone who is
anyone has some.  The important point is that we didn't sell any to
Iraw.  Nothing that Steve has described indicates that we did.

Now this brings up the interesting questions of whether Steve is
deliberately misleading us - in other words, if he is a liear, or if
he is just ignorant.

>Personally, protesting the Vietname war is one thing.
>But selling weapons to the other side (and violating an
>arms embargo to do it) is DEPLORABLE.  

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that this happened or admit
that you are a foool and/or a liar.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:33:14 GMT

In article <dusek.720975432@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
>larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>>Bloodthirsty bastard aren't you.  Tried, convicted, and condemed the man
>
>	The man murdered that kid, no differant than if he had broken
>into the kids house and shot him there.

If you can't see the difference, you better stop now.

>	The two kids were NOT attempting to break into his house, they
>were standing OUTSIDE when he approached them. I don't know about LA
>laws, but around here he would be in BIG trouble for what he did. You
>cannot enforce laws OUTSIDE your house, thats what the police are for.

He wasn't "enforcing the law", he claims self-defense. You are entitled
to self-defense *ANYWHERE*.


>>the rest of us.  Maybe you don't understand the function of a grand jury.
>
>	Shure I understand what a grand jury does. I hope he is found
>guilty. I was alittle extream with calling for the death sentance, but
>prison time is deserved in this case.

Whoa, the case sounds like questionable judgement to me, but why don't
we let the grand jury hear the *facts* before we convict this guy
based on opinion and media hype.



-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 | Midterm Countdown-Bill and the Congress have to '94 to screw it up |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A72932BB3901082D@alimac35.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 10:23:55 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:23:34 GMT

In article <d!r1hzr@rpi.edu> J.R. Ordon, root@june.cmp.rpi.edu
writes:
>True, you just listed the original intent of the Affirmative Action
program.
>But, in reality, what has happened is that companies, in fear of
law suits
>from civil rights groups, have practiced their own quota system
whether 
>official or not. It's a shame that companies cannot hire people
based on
>who is the most fully qualified person for the Job. It's
interesting that
>the same institution (Congress) that created this program, seems
fit to exclude 
>itself from it.

Congress has exempted itself from most civil rights and equal
protection legislation.  I think that this is wrong.  After the
Anita Hill debacle Congress started to take some flak for this. 
Maybe a bit more publicity of this type will force Congress to abide
by the rules they pass for others.  

I still don' t think that AA is a bad idea.  Some companies seem to
be inept at putting it into effect, but that seems to be an instance
of corporate incompetence.  Why don't they try and recruit qualified
individuals.  It seems that some companies think that there are no
qualified women or minorities and end up hiring less qualified
persons (at least according to some posters on the net).  I would
contend that that is not the fault of AA or the Civil Rights bill. 
It is instead an instance of corporate laziness and mismangement. 
They want to say "see we tried to hire minorities and women but we
couldn't find any that were as good as white males."  

I really don't buy this argument.  More women then men are now
enrolled in college.  Minority enrollment at minority colleges is up
(and somewhat down at other colleges).  Maybe the corporations
aren't sending out their recruitment teams to the right places.

TerriB>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58937 misc.legal:19675
From: shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:20:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.213320.10472@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
> Anyone want to make some guesses?  Just to throw some names into the
> air:
> Amalya Kearse, Second Circuit: Clinton will be under pressure to name
> 	a woman or a black, and this one is a two-fer, as well as a 
> 	highly-qualified judge.
>
Isn't this the lady that is a giant in the world of Contract Bridge?  I
believe she has written several books on the subject.

> ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 

How about adding Hillary Clinton's name to the list?  

Does anyone think she would fail to be confirmed if nominated?  I
personally think it would be a great appointment.

Claude Shouse
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59415 alt.rush-limbaugh:9382