HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chriswa@microsoft.com (Chris Waldron)
Subject: Re: DEBATE: Statement - 10/19/92
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:05:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <4g==!M-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <geyIPbC00Uh742m5dY@andrew.cmu.edu>, Dean Calloway <dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>|> 1. Between 1977 and 1990, the average income of the poorest fifth of
>|> American families declined by about 7%, while the richest fifth's income
>|> increased about 15%.  This has left the richest fifth with a bit over
>|> half of the nation's income...the highest portion ever recorded by the
>|> top 20 percent.
>|> 
>
>Note the years involved, 1977 to 1990.  Income levels of the poorest
>groups *declined* substantially during 1977-1980 but *rose* during the 
>80's.  The statistics show that *all* incomes groups saw an increase during
>the 1980's.
>
>
>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

This is incorrect.  REAL wages declined during the 1980's. In fact REAL wages
have been declining since 1973.  Wages dropped steeply from 1973 to 1975 due
to the impact of the 1973 oil crisis. Wages began to recover but only to 
about half the 1973 level from about 1975 - 1978 and fell sharply from 1978 -
1982 due to the 1979 oil shock, the Iranian crisis and the Fed ridiculous
policy the created the huge interest rates.  REAL wages creeped up from 1982 -
1984 and has declined steadily from 1984 - 1991.  If you want to check my facts
I suggest you look at the April 1992 issue of Dollar & Sense.  Their figures
come directly from the Ecomonic Report of the President; the Council of Econ-
omic Advisors and the Joint Economic Committee.

ChrisWa. 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58501 talk.politics.guns:23643 ca.politics:9381 ba.politics:6827 misc.legal:19618
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Shooting tragedy (was Re: Support Right to 'bear arms')
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:31:51 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 <dusek.720975432@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
>gton.edu>

>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.

Clearly untrue.  In that case it would be murder while in the
commission of a felony.

>	The two kids were NOT attempting to break into his house, they
>were standing OUTSIDE when he approached them.

Interesting.  My understanding is that he did not approach them but
that he was in his doorway.  Also, the kid who got shot was not
standing.  He was moving towards the man.  Finally, you seem to have
totally ignored the point that the guy pointed his gun at the Japanese
kid and gave a warning.  The kid ignored that warning.

Can you explain your position while taking into account these facts?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: sgguisep@nyx.cs.du.edu (Savonarola GGuiseppi)
Subject: Harem
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 04:42:31 GMT


My Mom just came back from a safari in southern Kenya.  When she was
traveling down a canyon she noticed a small village that had many Clinton
posters all over the place.  She say no men working in the fields and all
she saw was many pregnant Black women walking around.  There were many
small children running around that had poofy gray hair and had piggish
blue eyes.  When asked of their strange appearance the one woman who spoke
english said that their small town had been a breeding ground for Clinton
children since the turn of the century.  Nearly all the Clinton men served
their purpose well and impreganted many a woman.  but the only man that
could not was Little Billy.  This was because at the age he had prostate
surgery and had his penis removed by non-anaesthestized surgery.  Thi sdid
no damage to his morale because since his childhood his father dressed him
as a girl and had sex with him.  He rather enjoyed it.  There is also a
rumor that Hillary is a Hemaphrodite and can have sex with her entire
family at the same time.  However, she has no stamina, as her daughter can
avow to.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Campaign strategy
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:55:55 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Nov10.012534.26736@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>Campaigns used to be a lot more nasty than they are today. 

This makes it okay for the president of the US to call a governor and
Senator "bozos" I guess.  'Worse has been done before'.  It's a poor
argument at best.

>Today, people
>act like there is something wrong with attacking your opponent (unless
>you opponent is Bush, in which case it is okay to call him racist,
>uncaring, conspiratorial, liar, etc).

I don't know of anyone calling Bush a racist (besides Jesse, and I think
he's a racist).  The fact that the only group the Republicans carried
and seemed to want to carry was WASP men (they trashed everyone else,
oh, except women who were domestic engineers) doesn't mean they're
racist, but it's obvious that that is the group whose interests they
preferentially support.  Uncaring- I don't think so.  Conspiratorial-
Read the paper (any, including the conservative rags).  Bush had his
finger caught in so many backdoor operations that he can no longer shake
hands.  And I listened to his campaign speeches, and commercial, and am
well prepared to say that he lies, not baldfaced, but by defining the
meanings of his terms far beyond the norm used by society.  (Such as his
"tax" definition in his "128 Clinton tax increases" ads).

And God bless the American people, because they believe he lies too (way
over 50% -- many more than think Clinton lies).

>Next time you hear some idiot in the press comments on how negative
>the campaign was, you can feel better knowing that he/she is a fool
>or a propagandist. 

I will if you remember that every idiot who speaks of a liberal news
bias is a fool for believing Bush has no faults (the 'anyone who 
criticizes Bush must be a liberal' crowd).  I can match every "liberal
press bias" story you have with a "conservative press bias" one.  It
just depends on what you're looking for.

>John Moore 


-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59268 talk.abortion:47398
From: dougs@eng.umd.edu (Douglas W. Sauder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Coalition for Traditional Values' Candidate Survey
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:24:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Nov05.052415.90471@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
>"Anti-abortion" is an accurate description of the "pro-life" position, while
>"pro-abortion" is not an accurate description of the "pro-choice" position.
>
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Anti-arbortion does not match up with pro-choice.  Anti-choice would be
better if you want to be consistent.  The use of the word "choice" is 
again just another tactic---it's an attempt to avoid the connotation of 
the word arbortion.  How about "pro-abortion-choice"?  After all, the issue
is whether a woman should be permitted to choose *abortion*.  

The way I see it, the issue is *abortion on demand*.  That is, whether a 
woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants to.  Those who are
pro-choice are, in fact, pro-abortion-on-demand.  It's true they are not all
pro-abortion, but they do favor abortion on demand.  Thus "pro-abortion" is
not all that far off.

Doug S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: The Influence of 700 (Re: To the Clinton supporters)
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 13:35:56 GMT

>In two years if nothing changes, William could be looking at a congress
>>fully of republicans and independants.
>> 
>Not if the Religious Right gets control of the Republican Party (we'll see
>in February '93). If there are more independents in Congress then 
>independents like me will be happy.
>
>>James Dusek

Dusek is perhaps right about the political influence of the religious
right. While they are a very organized and committed bunch, their
platform is politically unpalatable to most Americans, the
recent elections have proved. CNN reports that all Congressional and
State candidates supported overtly (this is important) lost. 

In San Diego where the religious right is very strong and engages
in stealth warfare - supporting a candidate without revealing their
true identity - did poorly in local council, school board elections.
They lost 2 out of every 3 bids, CNN reports. 

So while the 700 Club Corps may be highly committed and vocal, they
are a losing proposition for the mainstream Republican party. Most
political commentators say that the 700 Club will flex its muscle
in the Republican party in the aftermath of a devastating November.
If the 700s (from Mr. Ozone to Ozone Man to Ozone :-)) prevail over
the moderates in the Republican party and hijack it, then Democrats
can cruise for a long time. Because a typical 700, it appears, is
not electable.

Satya Prabhakar
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:43:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.161544.9606@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

> Would someone out there please
>explain to us why Hill is even remotely qualified for either the EEOC
>or the Court postion?
>
Friedman (not an official oracle) wants to know why Anita Hill is
qualified to take a higher position in an agency where she once
worked.  Now I don't know whether she's the best person for the job,
and I don't know either whether she's indeed ready for the job.  But
I don't understand Friedman's "remotely".  Is there not even a remote 
chance that someone working as a professional in an agency might several
years later, and having taught courses in that field, meet his stringent 
standards for promotion in that agency?   

After all, might not Friedman himself, when he no longer indulges in
sophomoric titters about pubic hairs, qualify as a real oracle?

Norman Miller
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:13:37 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Lee (leescogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>                            I don't care that people are more wealthy than I
> am.  I *do* care that, proportionately, the wealthy pay far less taxes than I
> do.  There has got to be a way of having everyone pay their fair share of
> taxes.  One way of doing this would be with a flat-rate tax structure.  With
> everyone,(poor, middle class, rich, corporations,etc.) paying a flat 15%, say,
> there would be an increase in tax revenues and a cessation of complaints from
> people like me.

Hello!!  The "rich" proportionally pay more taxes, not less, and a flat
15% tax would significantly reduce the proportional amount of tax the
rich pay relative to the middle-class.

Supply-siders would certainly agree that a flat 15% tax would increase
revenues, but it would never even have a chance in Congress, because it
would be an enormous decrease in the proportional amount of tax the rich
pay relative to the middle-class.

The rich pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the
middle class.  Even the Democrats don't deny that.  Their problem
is they think the rich should pay an even greater percentage.


Larry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: New Presidential policy on the drug war
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:37:26 GMT


Was: Just say no.

(assume Clinton is not a hypocrite)
Will be: (lead by example) Try it, but don't inhale


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.clinton
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs, part II
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:08:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.223510.6082@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
}Marijuana is America biggest cash crop (even by the governments numbers).
}We could pay for any health care problems many times over.

Whoa, there.  Any?  National Health Insurance supporters argue for unlimited
"access".  Imagine this for food.  Would you eat at McDonalds, or 21, Chez
Panisse, and Spagos?  Could we pay for any "food problems" with the proceeds
from taxing hemp?  I think not.  Demand is potentially infinite, no matter
what the value, food, medicine, etc.  No matter how much money we actually
had to spend on it, we could consume it.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:09:45 GMT

cjk@nic.cerf.net writes:

>>>Clinton did not coin the phrase 'trickle-down-economics'.  It's been
>>>around since at least the 1920's.

>>A source for this please?
>>And a definition?

I think it was Andrew Mellon 
who coined the phrase "trickle-down economics".

The idea was to concentrate wealth
in an elite class, so that large capital projects such as 
railroads could be completed.

The idea isn't that different in principle from "tax and spend",
except that the wealthy, rather than government,
make the spending decisions.

I believe I read this in the book "Secrets of the Temple",
about the Federal Reserve.
 
-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59111 alt.rush-limbaugh:9299
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush and Saddam
Date: 9 Nov 1992 17:37:53 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <6918@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
>In article <HLiuTB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell) writes:
>>If Bush had been locked up, and someone else been president, Saddam 
>>probably would not have been allowed to get into a position where he 
>>could invade Kuwait while Bush sat on his spotty butt popping pimples.
>
>I see this a lot: Bush built up Saddam, another president would have
>stopped Saddam without going to war.

The point becomes:
The evloution of the policy in the area was:
1st 'punsh' and 'contain' radical Islamic fundalmentalism
  so we sent Saddam money and support
After Saddam was built up enuf and the Islamic 'threat' was preceived to
have dimmished, we continued support of the regime.  Meanwhile 
Saddam gassed his own people in weapon tests (and killing off the 
opposition.)  The US (like to believe it) has a position of moral
leadership.  Yet, it seems the policy was to give the man MORE aid.
Thus we move to phase 2
2nd A 'buying off' or a policy of 'here's some money, think about our
point of view'.  

When the invasion starts, it becomes an issue of "he's a bully" (killing
of kurds) and "nuclear threat"  Guess what?  If this is WHY we should 
attack him, why did we give him $$$ while he was doing it?  

Rush hit the nail on the head when he said "This is about OIL."  
What kind of support would Bush have had if he said that?  Thus
the stink about why we were there today.

>So, what would your mythical non-Bush president have done to prevent
>Saddam from invading Kuwait?

1) When the kurd gassing took place, stop the aid
2) A better statement than what April Glaspie gave.  From what I saw,
   the statement was vague.
3) (this is the biggie) would have evaluated ALL foreign policy when
they came into office.  I'd heard two different times this was
not done to the satisfaction of the people being interviewed.
(they even had good souding titles......)


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Look at the bright side
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Abortion,Military Budget
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:40:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.004520.15208@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <Bx71GH.76t@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>>
>>O.K. Clinton won. Is there a good face we can put on this. I think so.
>>Consider:
>>	1. It was *not* a mandate. Perot got nearly 20% of the popular
>>	   vote, which bodes well for future 3-rd party activity.
>True.
>Clinton got 43%. Even in the three-way races in 1968, and 1980,
                                              ^^^^^^^
>the victor got 50%.  The only comparison this century would
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be the 1912 race, where the GOP split themselves and Wilson won.
>
False.  In 1968 Nixon got 43.42% of the popular vote (and Humphrey 42.72%).
That race was obviously much closer than this year's race.

Paul.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri "Droopy" Farenell)
Subject: Re: D'Amato pledges to never run again! Maybe?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:57:50 GMT

yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:

>In a moment of crisis, Sen. D'Amato pledged never to run again
>for political office.  Now, that he has won, he is saying "never say never".
>(I guess this means that he changed his "never" to a "definite maybe".)

>(According to the Westchester Gannett Paper:)
>His plans include running for the US Senate in '98 and for NY Governor
>in '94.

>Same ol' Al.

Yep that's Al "hopelessly political" D'Amato. He is a member of the
Republican Party (you know, the one whose members never "waffle").

Cuomo may not be that popular upstate (because he has the audacity
to make tough but fairly equal spending cuts which annoy everyone
equally) but against D'Amato? no contest.

If Al was really in favor of term limits and most term limits
restrict senators to 2 terms, then Sen Pothole wouldnt have run
for his 3rd term this year.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
CLARKSON '95			
HOBBES: Why do we play war not peace? 	CALVIN: Too few role models.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:19:01 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <9211112205.AA06157@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> 
>        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.

Hmmmm for me I'd have to say... uhh... Birth...
yeah probably... But the hostage crisis would come in second...

-- 
/---------------------------------------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             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: DEBATE: Statement - 10/19/92
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 15:19:23 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <geyIPbC00Uh742m5dY@andrew.cmu.edu>, Dean Calloway <dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> 1. Between 1977 and 1990, the average income of the poorest fifth of
|> American families declined by about 7%, while the richest fifth's income
|> increased about 15%.  This has left the richest fifth with a bit over
|> half of the nation's income...the highest portion ever recorded by the
|> top 20 percent.
|> 

Note the years involved, 1977 to 1990.  Income levels of the poorest
groups *declined* substantially during 1977-1980 but *rose* during the 
80's.  The statistics show that *all* incomes groups saw an increase during
the 1980's.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943