HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: To the Bush (It's nice, believe me)
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:08:29 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov5.144441.9249@risky.ecs.umass.edu>, giovin@medr2.ecs.umass.ed
u (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
>In article <jyc.720941494@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>>jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>>           ...      It's also not clear that the USA will survive in the
>>>long run if Clinton and his Democratic congress spend us into eternal
>>>hell during the next four years.
>
>>   Now, now.  This is a time for reconciliation.  The election is over,
>>and Republicans should not be bitter that the entire Bush/Reagan agenda
>>has been repudiated by the American people for the ludricrous farce it
>>was, nor should they feel downcast that that agenda's leader has been
>>expelled from office in disgrace.
>    One's beliefs are not justified because of the fact that one's
>vote happens to go with the winning candidate.  For your information,
>ABC says that more than half (no number was given) of the electorate
>says they are "scared of a Clinton presidency" and 25% of those
>people actually voted for Clinton.  This and other polls imply
>that people voted for change more than they voted for Clinton.
>Because of this, the claim that "the Bush/Reagan agenda was repudiated
>for the ludicrous farce it was" really holds little water.
>It sounds like Jon Corelis has been bitter and is now telling others
>not to be.  How weird...
>    Regardless of the finger pointing, Clinton does have a plan
>to pay for new programs with cuts elsewhere (or least he has the
>intent since his preliminary figures don't add up).  Because of
>this, the recovering economy, the slightly refreshed Congress,
>and the pressure for Clinton & Congress to cooperate, it seems
>unlikely to me that we will be spent into "eternal hell".
>
>>As for those of us who opposed Bush,
>>we should not be arrogant and exult over the spectacle of George Bush
>>having to slink back to Texas whimpering with his tail between his legs:
>>it would be ungenerous and ungracious of us to congratulate ourselves on
>>his having been consigned forever to the cesspool of history's failed
>>reactionary ideologues.  Instead, let us all join hands and look to the
>>future in a spirit of fellowship.
>
>This of course is a farce since you're doing what you tell others
>not to.  If you did some reading you'd see that Clinton's inheriting
>an economy stronger than the one Bush inherited and you'd realize
>that regardless of whatever political differences you have with
>the president, he has had a distinguished career and that the above
>description is truly inappropriate.
>
>Rocky Giovinazzo
>
But the Regan/Bush agenda was repudiated, add the numbers for both Clinton AND
Perot, or better yet, only 3.8 people believed in Reganomics.
-- 

------------------------
|   Gail A. Fullman    |
|   Manager - ADMO     |
|   Ext. 83113         |
------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: U.S. BORN NOVEMBER 15, 1777
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:10:32 GMT

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:




>                      UNITED STATES BORN NOVEMBER 15, 1777

>               Most people, including Astrologers, believe that the 
>          United States was born on July 4, 1776.  But the Declaration 
>          of Independence did NOT create a "union" of any kind.  It 
>          created thirteen independent colonies, independent from Great 
>          Britain AND INDEPENDENT FROM EACH OTHER. 

		And was, therefore the birth of our nation.  We declared
	ourselves independant from Britain.  Easy enough.

>               What DID create the United States was the signing of the 
>          ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.  And this occurred in YORKTOWN, 
>          PENNSYLVANIA on NOVEMBER 15, 1777. 

		And the Aricles were for shit.  If you really want to
	go off about history, at least go for the signing of the 
	Constituion in 1789.
		And if you *really* want to get technical, not all states
	approved the articles, the Constitution, or the Dec. of Ind.
	at the same time.
>          
>               And THAT is the date that must also be used for CORRECT 
>          Astrological considerations of the birth of the United 
>          States. 

		Astrological?  What, the stars were aligned right on
	July 4, 1776?  It would explain a lot about your odd posting.

>          
>               NOVEMBER 15TH should be made another NATIONAL HOLIDAY! 

		Uh huh...and let's go for Groundhog day and 'George Bush 
	is out of the White House' day too while we're at it.

>               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
>          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 

		While I will admit that the Articles of Confederation
	were important in American history, it was the Dec. of Ind. that
	started everything..therefore the 'real' nation's birthday.

-Mark
>          
--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
Remember: 7 out of 10 people make up 70% of the popualtion

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.history
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: Re: Thanksgiving Day
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:41:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.134045.58518@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman) writes...
>It's the fourth Thursday in November.
[In answer to the question, when is Thanksgiving]

Incidentally, a bit of trivia: I think it's only "traditional"
that it's the fourth Thursday in November. The President
actually issues an executive order =every year= proclaiming
Thanksgiving day for the current year only.
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: To the Bush (It's nice, believe me)
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:13:46 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In article <1do1ddINNus@uranium.sto.pdb.sni.de> Josef Moellers <mollers.pad@sni.de> writes:
>In <Bx99x2.BKn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>
>>In article <100630@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:
>>>In article <Bx7JDL.6z@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>>
>>>>No, the world is not coming to an end, and the USA will survive even if
>>>>Clinton isn't a good president.
>>>No not immediately. It's also not clear that the USA will survive in the
>>>long run if Clinton and his Democratic congress spend us into eternal
>>>hell during the next four years.
>
>>I agree that it *is* possible, but it would be harder to do than Bush's
>>and Reagan's HUGE deficits (their budget compromise:  Okay, we want this
>>and you want that?  Lets both do it and run up a $4 TRILLION debt).
>
>>Also keep in mind that the deficit went *down* during Carter's admin.
>>{Granted that inflation and interest went up}
>
>Isn't there a theory behind this? I.e. that there is a strong
>correlation between
>- state deficits
>- inflation
>- interest rates
>- unemployment?

From my basic Macro- and Micro- Econ I took as an Ugrad, there seemed to be
a correlation, but not a direct cause-and-effect.

Yes, when there is less money circulating, interest rates tend to rise, 
inflation tends to fall, unemployment may rise a tad, and deficits probably
fall, but it is never one-causes-the-other.

In the early 70's we had stagflation due to oil price shocks:  Inflatio9n
went up, but so did interest rates and unemployment.  This goes against
the flow of classical (pure) macro- theory until you take the supply
shock modification.

Look at the current slowdown:  Low interest (short term), High and rising
deficits (which *should* push up interest), relatively high unemployment,
and postitive economic growth.  Very strange:  half the indicators 
would imply a growing economy, the other half a recession.

I guess what i am trying to say is that while there are trends and correlations
it is by no means cause and effect (the models used are too simple and the
economy is *very* complex).  Even the more advanced theories that I never
had time to learn (econometrics) I understand, are a little better at
modelling, but still fall short of the "real thing."




>-- 
>| Josef Moellers		| c/o Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG  |
>|  USA: mollers.pad@sni-usa.com	| Abt. STO-XS 113	   | Riemekestrasse   |
>| !USA: mollers.pad@sni.de	| Phone: (+49) 5251 835124 | D-4790 Paderborn |


-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ ^  ^  ^
| Brent L. Irvine         |  "Love is blind ... and stupid." | {\{|}/} CLAN
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu |                      -M.P.       |  {{|}} IRVINE
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+  o/|\o OF DRUM
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: gerard@caliban.soest.hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: The Presidency
Organization: Scum Of the Earth and Senile Tenured
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:43:49 GMT

In article <1de6ojINN8iv@morrow.stanford.edu>, BL.JYC@forsythe.stanford.edu (Jon Corelis) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov5.141216.25561@exu.ericsson.se>,
|> ebupaf@ebu.ericsson.se (Pat Fargo 6266) writes:
|> 
|> >I am still amazed by the presidential result...
|> >
|> >           ...    How can we elect a president from a small
|> >state, with no federal experience to be in charge of foreign
|> >policy and the defense of our country?
|> >
|> 
|>    I'd be curious to know if you were equally amazed when the American
|> people elected as their president a has-been B movie matinee idol who
|> once co-starred with a chimpanzee.

That's easy.  The presidency is a schizophrenic position.  The office
holder has to be both a Prime Minister and a King (or "President" in
the Eastern European tradition).  People who voted for Reagan were
voting for King, and for that position he was undoubtedly the best
qualified.  Unfortunately as Prime Minister he was a disaster.

Of course, GHWB was neither Prime Minister nor King.
-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Minority President?
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:42:45 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <BxIKsM.CD0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine
) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.114005.5506@desire.wright.edu> f0408@desire.wright.edu wri
tes:
>>In article <92312.0440322893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU
.CA> writes:
>>> There has been some talk that as Clinton was elected with only 43% of the
>>> vote, he lacks a mandate. This of course is nonsense, he won the election an
d
>>> he will hold the reigns of power just like his predecessors.
>>
>>Nonsense?  Of course, Clinton won the election and will hold power as you say,
>>but it is still not a mandate in the political sense.
>>
>>>  A possible solution to this problem is to a)scrap the electoral college b)
>>> institute a system where the candidate who gets 50% of the votes plus one
>>> nationwide wins, if no candidate does that on the first ballot, have a run-o
ff
>>> two weeks later between the top two candidates.
>
>Oh god no!  The election press was such a pain in the a** the last 2 weeks,
>I would not want to run elimination rounds - I prefer it the way it is...
>
>>The electoral vote had nothing to do with the fact that Clinton won only 43% o
f
>>the popular vote.  Eliminating it would not change this at all.  If Clinton ha
d
>>needed 50% + 1 vote he would still be in your runoff with Bush.  This scenario
>>also has serious flaws.
>
>If Bush were to get all of Perot's votes, he would have won.
>
>
>--
>+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ ^  ^  ^
>| Brent L. Irvine         |  "Love is blind ... and stupid." | {\{|}/} CLAN
>| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu |                      -M.P.       |  {{|}} IRVINE
>+-------------------------+----------------------------------+  o/|\o OF DRUM
>
If Clinton had gotton all the Perot votes, it would have been a popular vote
landslide.  Perot took more votes away from Clinton that he did from Bush.
-- 

------------------------
|   Gail A. Fullman    |
|   Manager - ADMO     |
|   Ext. 83113         |
------------------------
From: BL.JYC@forsythe.stanford.edu (Jon Corelis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: To the Bush (It's nice, believe me)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 12:17:10 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <Bx9AH8.ByG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>
>Boy, doesn't this sound like slightly warmed over Communist Propaganda.
>
>I expected to hear a "Workers of the World Unite" after the last
>comment.
>
>Please stop sounding like such a far left Bolshevik (unless you are one...):)
>

   No, I'm not a communist.  Though sometimes I think it's a pity I'm
not.  The ranting reactionary Randroids on the net respond to my really
very mild leftism with such gratifying hysteria that it's intriguing to
think of the apoplexy they would suffer it I posted, "Yes I am a
Communist, capitalist swine!  And we will bury you!"

   I don't though see anything wrong about workers uniting, nor do I
think it's an idea that is essentially communist.  In fact, every
democratic nation in the world recognizes the right of workers to
organize themselves.  It's only oppressive regimes of the right and the
left which have no unions or phony ones.  "Workers of the world unite"
is certainly a communist slogan, and communists often attempt to subvert
workers organizations in free countries to their own purposes, but as an
actual practice workers' unity is a characteristic particularly of
democracies.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Subject: Libertarians and volunteers (was Re: To the Clinton supporters)
Followup-To: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
Reply-To: dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:51:55 GMT

silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:

[lots of great stuff]

But, Holly, you've really done it now.  We're going to be inundated with
the entire detailed Libertarian fantasy, about all those spontaneously
arising mechanisms of mutual support that will bring about all the benefits
with none of the enforecments.  Time to unsubscribe for a while.

But not until I make this point :-)

>the children in our inner cities. I'd venture to guess too, that 
>you do precious little to make society work in ways outside the 
>governmental structure. Which charitable organizations do you
>participate in?

In one aspect the Libbies are right: this is a nation of volunteerism to an
extent that I don't think exists anywhere else.  Individual volunteers and
service organizations that I know of contain liberals and conservatives
(more of the first among the individuals, more of the second among the
groups) but they do share a belief in the importance of government doing
the things that it does best.

But that still isn't my point.

I was offended, and have stayed offended for four years, at George Bush
when he suddenly discovered volunteerism in his "thousand points of light"
speech, as though he had just invented the concept and was explaining this
great idea to us.  Us volunteers, who had been laboring unsung in the
vineyards for years anyway.  Us volunteers, who were becoming exhausted at
the greater demands placed on us by the Reagnomical withdrawal of public
funding (specifically revenue sharing) and had to take on more work --
either that, or see the common weal suffer.

In this context, that's one of the roles of government, to see that undue
advantage isn't taken of that minority who do care enough to contribute to
the public good.
-- 
David Brooks					dbrooks@osf.org
Open Software Foundation			uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Allueberall und ewig blauen licht die Fernen!  Ewig... ewig... ewig...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 13:38:39 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov9.171012.20241@news2.cis.umn.edu>, prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
|> (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> > (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
|> >
|> >>Not quite! All nations in the world have agreed that taxation should
|> >>be progressive, 
|> >
|> 
|> [...]
|>
|> >Here's the REAL question:  Should there be taxation?
|> >Another is whether taxes ought to approximate service fees, or whether they
|> >ought to be used as a method to redistribute wealth from those who earned
|> >it to those who have not.
|> >A secondary question is whether or not taxes should be progressive.
|> >
|> 
|> Let us take a country which has two families - one earning 200,000 and the
|> other earning 20,000. Let us assume that the Rich spend 100,000 on
|> stuff and the Poor spends 18,000. Let us assume that the federal budget 
|> (defense, eduation and others) for supporting the country is about 30,000. 
|> Let us examine the different types of taxation:
|> 
|> 1. FIXED AMOUNT: Tax each family half of 30,000.
|> 
|> [details deleted]
|> 
|> 2. FLAT TAX %: Tax each family about 14% to cover the budget
|> 
|> [details deleted]
|> 
|> 3. PROGRESSIVE TAX %: 15% for RICH and 0% for POOR
|> 
|> [details deleted]
|> 
|> Now you see why progressive taxation makes sense. A progressive
|> tax system makes one heck of a positive difference to the poor
|> and barely any difference to the rich.
|> 

If you use number 3 as your definition of progressive, then I could
support a 'progressive' tax system.  Unfortunately this is not what
most people consider progressive.  Progressive generally means that
there are many different tax rates which increase as you earn more
income.  I have no problem with exempting a large portion of income
and taxing the remainder at *one* percentage rate.  I have a real
problem with multiple marginal brackets, millionaire surtaxes, etc.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: If clinton/gore die NOW, who succeeds?
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:54:28 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.


  If the president of the US dies there is a long list of 
"heirs to the throne" starting at the Vice-president. 
But what if the President and Vice-President elect both
die before they have nominated people to fill the different
offices of state - who becomes President?

   They can't (?) hold another election for 4 years. 
Does the electoral college decide?  Or is this a 
situation not considered in the US constitution
From: BL.JYC@forsythe.stanford.edu (Jon Corelis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 12 Nov 1992 08:34:22 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <BxLqDF.K51@quake.sylmar.ca.us>,
brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>
>I object to Buchanan all the time, particularly when he discusses religion.
>

   Columnist Molly Ivens remarked about Buchanan's speech at the
Republican convention that a lot of people didn't like that speech, but
it probably sounded better in the original German.

>
>I don't really care to compare whether Leona Helmsley being tossed in jail
>for being rich and obnoxious is more or less unjust than any other crime.
>I determine whether or not I think it's an injustice and I express my
>views.  Does it matter whether being beaten by cops is more or less unjust
>than tossing an old lady in jail for being rich?
>

   That arrogant cake-eater was tossed in jail for not paying her taxes
and a damned good thing too.  Every penny she defrauded the government
of had to be made up out of the pockets of the rest of us.  Why should
we pay extra to make up for rich people's piggish greed?


Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8302 alt.politics.clinton:16185 alt.politics.bush:13397 alt.politics.perot:5259 talk.politics.misc:58590
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:50:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxBB8I.53n
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

>>>How can we even talk about healing a nation, when we divide it by our 
>>>words?
>>
>>When your words are "Your money or your life?" we are irrevocable at odds.
>>If it's a choice between "healing" and robbery vs. division and justice,
>>I'll chooce the division.  You are trying to use emotion to paper over
>>the difference between justice and theft.  That doesn't cut it.
>
>I agree, Brian.  Clinton has incredible audacity to speak of "healing"
>the nation while he plunders one group of people ("the rich") to 
>influence the voting of another ("the poor").
>
>This bald-faced promotion of class conflict, combined with shrill 
>rhetoric about "healing", is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Actually, one could say the same thing about the Republican Administrations
by switching the words "the rich" and "the poor."  The rest sounds just
like what criticism of the Reps did.

IMNSHO, the "trickle-down" theory allowed the upper few percent to gain
about 60% of the income growth throughout the 80's.  By that reasoning,
it it justifiable to tax them more (tax where the least pain and most
gain as a society) than those without $$$.  

[For a scary example where this did not happen was France, pre-Revolution,
where the nobles owned 95% of the wealth, yet paid no taxes, while the
peasantry and commoners taxes *started* at 60%.  You need to tax where the
money is, plain and simple]

>>I think they are going to do exactly the opposite.  The democrats open every
>>"wound" they can...they set the rich against the poor, and men against women,
>>all the races against one another.  The all this, in order to avoid 
>>consideringthe important division between the just and the unjust, which they
>>deny at every turn.  That's one breach I refuse to "heal".

What a crock!  
-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ ^  ^  ^
| Brent L. Irvine         |  "Love is blind ... and stupid." | {\{|}/} CLAN
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu |                      -M.P.       |  {{|}} IRVINE
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+  o/|\o OF DRUM
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:34:25 GMT

In article <BxAxtv.F2M@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <Bx9L5F.39I@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <Bx7KE9.wu@nic.umass.edu> csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN) writes:
>>
>>>How can we even talk about healing a nation, when we divide it by our 
>>>words?
>>
>I agree, Brian.  Clinton has incredible audacity to speak of "healing"
>the nation while he plunders one group of people ("the rich") to 
>influence the voting of another ("the poor").
>
wow now,,,since when does he say he is a viking that wants to plunder?
he said he wants to raise the top bracket from 31 to 36% on those who make
over 200k and he wants to eliminate many loopholes that only the rich take
advantage of...like mortgage deduction on 2nd homes or limit that amount..
like only homes under 250k or something.



Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa