HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Cable competition! (was Re: Tolls on the federal highways!)
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:38:40 GMT

harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>>I haven't come up with a reasonable solution to the roads issue, but
>>as regards local phone and cable TV: the governing body (usually the
>>city government) reviews the offers of the different companies
>>offering service and picks that which is suitable (determined by
>>price, personnel, offers, etc.)  If the company doesn't work out, then
>>ditch them and pick up a new one.  You'll see that even now there are
>>several cable companies which vie for different markets.  The
>>incentive is built-in--if the people complain to their gov't., the
>>looters will be booted.

>Hmmm...  Do you know of any cases where this has happened?  I haven't
>ever heard of it happening, but then again something like that isn't
>exactly national news.

Of the 9000 US cable markets, only about 45 are competitive. The rest are
operated as local monopolies, with the city government deciding before-hand
which company will be the sole provider.

In 45 markets cable companies are allowed to compete freely, without
interference from local government. In those markets, according to
a March, 1990 survey by Consumers' Research magazine, competing cable
companies consistently charged lower fees and provided better service
(as measured in the number of channels provided) than did the monopoly
carriers in nearby markets of similar character. At the time of the survey
the average of the competitive markets they polled was a monthy rate of
$14.23 for 39 channels, or 37 cents a channel. The average of the non-
competitive markets they polled was a monthly rate of $17.33 for 33 
channels, or 55 cents a channel. Quite a difference.

The message is clear; get government out of the loop and cable will be
cheaper. I don't need a government permit to start a newspaper; why should
I need one to start a cable company?

>-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Re: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:15:54 GMT

>I've actually seen a "little" softening of "Sununu the hardass".
>Last night he smiled at Bob Beckel and patted him on the hand.

Probably a closet case. Most of the particularly virulently anti-gay
right-wingers turn out to be--like Schlafly's son, for example.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18524 alt.rush-limbaugh:11553 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10039 alt.politics.homosexuality:7950 alt.politics.bush:14514
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:33:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
=In a previous article, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu () says:
=|Discrimination against homosexuals in the military is
=|groundless.  Among NATO forces, only the US and Britain ban gay soldiers.
=|Canada ended its ban on October 27.  In the Netherlands, there is no
=|discrimination against homosexuals.  Germany has no anti-homosexual
=|legislation.  Spain does not discriminate.  Italy ended its ban in 1985.
=
=Why in the world would the United States military want to model itself
=after the Spanish military?  That's like asking Ford to mimic the Yugo!

Added point: it's well and good that our friends allow homosexuals in
their military. I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are no bans on
homosexuals in the military "machines" of China, Iraq (before or after
the Gulf Conflict), or the former Soviet Union (or current Commonwealth
on Independent States), etc., etc. Are our "enemies" also equally so
blind as our "friends?"

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	All I want for Christmas is a backrub. (And lots of money) 
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: gays in the military
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:47:38 GMT

In article <7933@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>Added point: it's well and good that our friends allow homosexuals in
>their military. I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are no bans on
>homosexuals in the military "machines" of China, Iraq (before or after
>the Gulf Conflict), or the former Soviet Union (or current Commonwealth
>on Independent States), etc., etc. Are our "enemies" also equally so
>blind as our "friends?"

Military bans?  Don't make me laugh.  They shoot faggots in those
countries.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Latest Clinton picks
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:53:04 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
=fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
=>
=>I sure hope that Slick Willie takes many more Texas Democrats. 
=>The more of these liberals
=>he takes out of our state the better off Texas and Texans will be.
=>God save the nation.
=
=Bentsen is a liberal?

Agreed with Elizabeth here. The liberal you want taken out of Texas
isn't Lloyd but Ann (Richards). What Clinton did is (arguably, but
that's why I'm posting this, right?) take away one more
moderate/conservative voice from the Senate and get closer to a
filibuster-proof margin.

=_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.
=
=	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **

Double agreement.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	BSE in BME in 1993
"I'll be back!  You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House
forever.  And when they get in... I'll be back on the streets!  With all
my criminal buddies! BA-HAHAHAHAHA!" -SideShow Bob, The Simpsons.
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:15:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.215704.4901@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>first priority was JOBS, period. This was the number one issue according
>to the polls (followed closely by deficit reduction). Clinton's plan was
>the
>only one to address this issue.

If he indeed had a plan, then why is he putting on this show they call the
economic summit?  Would you like me to post the comments appearing in
yesterday's papers, from leading Clinton supporters, as to why he really
didn't have a plan or need one?  An out right admission as far as I'm
concerned that he lied, once again.  

The only plan he had was the one he used to get elected.
-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Latest Clinton picks
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:28:59 GMT

In article <1gaekdINNg7t@tamsun.tamu.edu> fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298) writes:
>
>I sure hope that Slick Willie takes many more Texas Democrats.  The more of these liberals
>he takes out of our state the better off Texas and Texans will be.  God save the nation.
>

Bentsen is a liberal?




_Home Alone 2_ has now grossed over $90 million.

	** Macaulay Culkin: HE MUST BE STOPPED !!!! **
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18931 alt.president.clinton:1204 alt.rush-limbaugh:11986
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Double standard
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:29:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <BzH0o2.GMI@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>Rumblings I've heard suggest that the Senate (including many democrats)
>will fight the confirmation of Benson. I understand he's respected, but
>not thought of very highly.

Respected == thought of highly.  Is he or isn't he respected?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Tolls on the federal highways!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:49:08 GMT

aaron@funcity.njit.edu (Aaron Watters) writes:

>In article <randall.723869842@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>>For those who believe that privitization is the way to go: name
>>me ONE large public works project that was funded entirely
>>by private industry....

>I think you could have asked the same question about telephone
>systems a few years ago: ``Name one telephone system not operated
>by a state designated regulated monopoly...''  Still, new technology made
>greater competition possible.

Ack.  I can see it now: "Use our new ACME Interstate Highway.  Yes,
with ACME you go faster!" ;)

I don't see how technological improvements and competition would make
a difference in the case of highways.  Without parallel, competing
roads people wouldn't have a choice as to whose road they could drive
on.  That's the problem we're currently having with things like local
phone service and (for the moment) cable TV.  It promotes arbitrary
price increases to the point of extortion and there's no incentive to
improve the service (i.e. condition of the roads).
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:37:22 GMT

In article <736@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>able to work with, not against, the Clinton administrations goals.
>
>Oh really "no appointments that have been of people unqualified"?  Let's
>start with Donna Shalala, a women who's [sic] entire adult life
>has been in academia
>and has no experience what-so-ever, with health care issues
>or insurance and/or
>medical cost control issues.

Since Mr. Galvanek apparently cannot even master the difference between
"whose" and "who's", let me point out, using small words, that:

1.  Shalala did not spend her "entire adult life" in
academia, as you falsely assert.  She was in the Peace Corps in
the early 1960's.  She was the only woman on the Municipal
Assistance Corporation in 1975, the group that helped rescue
New York City from bankruptcy.  She also served as president
of Hunter College.  She was Assistant Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development under Jimmy Carter.  She is now the Chancellor
of the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

The University of Wisconsin has 42,000 students, 16,500
employees, and a $1 billion dollar budget.  [NYT, Dec. 12]

2.  As overseer of the University of Wisconsin's teaching
hospital, she knows a lot about the financing of health care.
She has long experience in the area of children's health and poverty by
serving on the board of the Children's Defense Fund.  [NYT, Dec. 12]

>Read USA Today's (yesterday's issue) evaluation on these picks
>to date...

Just as I would not read "Scientific American" to learn who won
Monday night's football game, so I would not read a joke paper
such as "USA Today" to learn about the qualifications of cabinet
nominees.  Try the New York Times, ok?

>her role in the Clinton campaign "ties to Hillary".  Her friendship with
>Hillary is the only reason anyone can come up with for her appointment.

Again, false.  Due to her expertise in education and urban
finance, her name has long been mentioned as a candidate
for Secretary of Education.  [NYT, Dec. 12]

Jeff Shallit
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:11:09 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: re: Paul Galvanek claims....

Paul,  I am sorry if you think that I was stating that your wife's
experience did not have validity for her, or for you.  I just want
to point out that you are proposing based on your very idiosyncratic
experience, that we discriminate against a proportion of our population.
You don't think heterosexuals sodomize their kids?  They do.  At really
disgusting rates.  Yet there is no mandate that heterosexuals not be
allowed to have kids.
   The best way to figure out if your wife's experience has generality
is to do controlled longitudinal studies.  To suggest that yoursubjective
experience is a higher standard of proof than controlled longitudinal
studies is ignorant.  Yes, psychology is a science.  Due to the nature
of the beast it is a methodologically more difficult endeavor than say
microphysics.  I study development.  I can't randomly assign kids to
straight parents and gay parents, thus it does make it more difficult
to get to truth.  But we hack away at it.  By the way, I went to school
for 9 years for this degree.  I completed numerous research projects and
am currently engaged in research on Head Start kids.  My work has real
life implications both to improve the quality of life of low income
families and to save society a dollar or two.  Much of the funding for
my work comes out of my own pocket.
   Basing policy on one or two people's gut impressions, bigoted opinions
is very costly for this society.
   So what is it you do?  It must not be science.    Melissa
From: steven@guava.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:50:02 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies

In article <596@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1144.42.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
>>nothing to do with racism.  Bill's cabinet will be the most diverse
>>cabinet ever, and it's good to see.
>>                                                                          
>
>Sorry, but Bill's major appointments are nearly done and he's failed 
>to put together anything that even modestly resembels "America".  Unless
>of course you actually believe that the majority of Americans that self
>identify as conservative are really closet liberals who favor socialism
>     

[Two paragraphs of sniveling condescending unsubstantiated drivel deleted]

This sounds like whining from someone too young to have experienced
the successes of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the 
Great Society.  Before each of those administrations, conservatives were
dooming them to failure.  Only sour grapes and/or ignorance can account 
for calling a President's term a failure before it has even begun.
History will be the final judge of the success or failure of Bill
Clinton's presidency.  It would be foolish to judge history before it 
has occurred.  As Ben Franklin once said, "Experience is a dear school 
and fools will learn in no other."

Steve
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:21:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <Bz9IKI.FJL@chinet.chi.il.us> dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
>psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>
>Please note that FIFTEEN, yes FIFTEEN of our presidents have been elected
>with less than 50% of the vote.  That's more than one third.  In fact, if
>you discount vice presidents who succeeded, it's closer to HALF.

Care to post a brief summary of the results of the terms of those "winners"?

For instance I believe old Abe Lincoln was the winner of these.  Civil War,
assasination is this what we have to look forward to?
>
>Fact of life in America, my friend.
>
>By the way, what is "disillusional"?

Ummm I believe it's the old tactic of a net poster to find spelling, typing
and grammatical errors to nit pick about.  Usually surfaces about the time
they know they've been clobbered in an arguement and have run out of ammo 8^)

PSG
>-- 
>The Presidential Towers complex here   | Dan Hartung               |  Ask me
>in Chicago is bounded by four streets: | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us |  about
>Jefferson, Adams, Monroe  .....        | Birch Grove Software      | Rotaract!
>        and Clinton!


-- 
America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1992Dec18.153152.18349@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:16:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.153152.18349@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

   By the way, Sununu's use of governemt airplanes and limos for
   personal trips may not have been illegal, but given the deficit,
   it is still unethical and definitely cost the taxpayers.

Yes, John Sununu.  The man thinks designing electronic circuits
for a commercial application is the same as designing circuits
for a military application.  Before anyone flames, I know that
they require similar skills.  He has become a little nicer
since the election.
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:01:30 -0500 
From: Brennan Kraje <nk0s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS


    This is hilarious.  I subscribe to this bboard to understand how the
other side is thinking.  I am a diehard conservative Republican.  As a
future politician, I have found it wise to study the opposition.

    Most everyone posting on this subject is distressfully devoid of any
knowledge of the electoral college, how it works, etc.  A MAJORITY OF
THE POPULAR VOTE DOES NOT ENSURE A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
VOTE.  I learned this in civics class in sixth grade.

    Anyone thinking Anderson was a viable canidate (I believe this was
posted by a Republican) in 1980 is nuts.  That is like calling Larouche
a viable canidate.  He was also on the ballot.

     Bush lost.  I am now in the midst of a four year hangover.  I guess
my undergraduate and graduate studies in public administration have made
me wise on the subject, but some of the garbage concerning this topic
has me concerned about the democrats.

    Let's wake up and be educated.

    Brennan
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:31:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <7979@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>=What I have not seen posted is the fact that Bush performed worse in the
>=% of popular vote of any incumbent since Taft 80 years ago. And the 2nd or
>=3rd worst showing of an incumbent EVER. These are just the facts.

>I just want to be sure about this: wasn't Ronald Reagan voted in with a
>majority of the popular vote back in 1980 when there were three viable
>candidates (Reagan, Carter, Anderson)? I bet you don't want to remember
>this bit of history either.
>Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993

BBBZZZZTTTTT wrong-o dude. I remember it quite well and I believe this was
very true. Voted for Ronny back then I did. Course the subject was how well 
Clinton did vs. the other guys and how well Bush did vs. the other guys. If 
you want to throw in Ronny from 12 years ago---well o.k. but it ain't got a
thing to do with the subject we were on. While were at it though Anderson only
got about half the % that Perot did. I never said you're precious reps. have
always been the bad guys. That just is not true. I was just stating a fact of
this election. I fully expect the Rep. party to get their act together(no I
don't beleive that had it even close to together this past election)in the
future and once again be a political force as strong as they were just a few
years ago but intil they do they can only expect to come up on the losing end
of any election.

Stan Knight
|If you can't dazzle them with brillance then baffle them with bullshit|
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: BONEHEAD REPUBLICANS
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:23:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

Why is it that so many bonehead republicans feel like they were cheated
in this past election?  They keep saying lame remarks like "In case you
didn't notice, this past November a
record 100 millon people voted and 6 out of 10 voted against Bill
Clinton
and expressed a desire for a more conservative President."  What a
stupid remark!

Look boneheads, anytime you have 3 *real* candidates, it's very tough to
get a majority (that is-over 50%) of the popular vote.  Lucky for us,
our forefathers had the vision to create the electoral college where the
winner of the popular vote will get a MAJORITY (over 50%) of the
electoral vote (which is being held today).

It's real simple math.  But of course, bonehead Republicans slept
through their intro-math classes.  That's why we now have this huge
deficit.

"Come on baby, light my fire." ---flame flame flame