HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Fiscal Responsibility
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:13:28 GMT

gg> Gene Gross
gs> Gary Strand

gs> I have yet to come across a program that couldn't do the same functions 
gs> for 5% less.

gg> How about cutting all programs, on and off budget, by 40 percent and
gg> increasing the income tax to 50 percent!?

  Uhh, let's try something that's part of planet Earth first, OK? Is the ob-
  ject getting rid of the debt, or wiping out the economy (and a goodly chunk
  of the global economy as well)?

gg> If that hurts too much, then let's just monetize the debt and get it over
gg> with.

  It's not that bad, yet. There's lots of things that can be done that won't
  ruin what's left of the US economy.

gg> We need new thinking, but most of all we need action.

  Let's not just jump into "doing something", OK?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:46:49 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The politics of Andrew
Distribution: talk
 <CB.92Sep3115151@tamarack13.timbuk>

In article <CB.92Sep3115151@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris
Brewster) says:
>
>Chip Switzer writes:
>
>   I saw an interview with Marylin Quayle tonite on CNN.  She
>   has been in Florida since Sunday and apparently nobody in the
>   media knew she was there. ...
>
>Something I've barely heard mentioned since Andrew is that Marilyn heads
>some kind of Federal disaster agency, but not FEMA.  Does anyone know
>what this group is, why it exists, how it relates to FEMA, etc?

I thought I heard McNeil-Lehrer say that Marilyn was on the board of
directors of FEMA.  I know they interviewed here earlier in the week
on Andrew.


>
>Chris Brewster
>cb@cray.com
>
Dennis Shea
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: REAGAN: Convention speech text
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:10:18 CDT


In article <1306@esl.ESL.COM>, drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) writes:

> Screw it, let's just repeal the 22nd amendment and re-elect Reagan.

What?  You mean the Republican sponsored term limits came back to 
haunt them?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42560 ca.politics:7164
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 04:49:03 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> In article <94509@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> #    "(David speaks:)  'Jonathan lies slain... I am distressed for
> # you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; YOUR
> # LOVE TO ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN'"  (Emphasis
> # added by editor.)  (2 Sam 1:25-26, New International Version).
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how homosexuals, because their entire
> lives are wrapped up in their crotch, can't understand that there
> are forms of love that are not sexual in nature.
> 
> # kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston Universi
> 
> -- 
> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
> Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
> prohibition won't work.

I think the more objective observation is to say that YOUR entire life
is wrapped up in our crotch.  Your whole problem with homosexuality
revolves around your inability to accept that our love for another man
finds its expression in a sexual way.  That blinds you to the validity
and depth of our feelings, and causes you to be an insensitive, ignorant
ass.

Never have I seen you cross-posting an article from soc.motss that
dealt with feelings, emotions and relationships.  You always make a
bee-line for the sexual posts.  And then accuse us of being obsessive
about sex.

And don't hand me the line about "sex is all we post about."  Sex is
all you see, because it is all you think we are.  Ain't it interesting
how the world /appears/ to be what you wish it to be?

You're so transparent, Clayton...



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42818 alt.rush-limbaugh:4099
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:15:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Aug28.050741.8384@m2xenix.psg.com>, michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
> One of these days someone is going to ask Quayle, "If, during your stint
> at the National Guard you were ordered to shoot an anti-war protester,
> what would you have done?"
> 
> Oh, that probably wouldn't have happened, he had a clerk job at the
> Indiana National Guard.
> 
> It is almost laughable seeing conservatives complain about how the
> Networks aren't refering to the Democrats as "left-wing liberals" when
> the same people call the Republicans "far right conservatives"
> 
> This guy wasn't complaining about being called names, but that both
> parties weren't called equally perjoritive names!
> 
> What is your bets on the next really vicious question?
> 
What's laughable about it?---it's true.  The press stooges constantly
refer to the "extreme right wing of the Republican Party", but I never
hear like references from the same ilk to the left wing of the Democratic
Party, with the same disparaging tone.  The media has a paranoia about
the Republicans, as though half of them were wearing swastika armbands.
Fear of the Democratic left could not be accurately deemed as paranoia
by the right.  We've all seen what the left did to the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe for years.  Damned if they're going to wreak the same 
destruction here.  Get 'm shotgun, Granny, here comes Bill 'n Al 'n
Hillary's IRS.....bound to be a much nastier animal. 
                                                    H.R. Holm
*standard disclaimers, comment my own*
*pls post replies to the group only* 
                                             **********************************
                                             Bill, Al, (& Hillary, too)
                                               have what it takes
                                                to TAKE WHAT YOU'VE GOT.
                                             **********************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:29:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.144823.13623@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>According to gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch):
>| >You won't go to jail for owing the IRS one dollar.
>
>chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>| Care to verify this assertion with the IRS?  I doubt they'll agree.
>
>I find it fascinating that the libertarian mob here will
>strain at the NEA and swallow Buchanan.

Not being a libertarian, I'm not going to comment on what they're
saying.

I do find it interesting that Fitch thinks that pointing out that his
real disagreement with Buchanan is over WHICH culture govt should push
is equivalent to accepting Buchanan.

Fitch's reality is somewhat different from the one the rest of us live
in,* so it isn't exactly surprising that he thinks that anyone who
disagrees with him must be supporting an opponent that he picks.  One
dimension and he gets to pick how it works.  What a deal!

-andy

* - In Fitch-land, govt doesn't use force to extract tax money.
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:57:18 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Aug27.090046.5453@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>In article <BtLwqr.MHG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:

			......................

>> This has got to stop. I don't think the founding fathers intended for 
>> congress to be a full-time career.

You are soooo right.

>They did intend for the people to elect who they wanted.

>> Therefore, I think term limits of 2 terms for Senators (12 years) and 
>> 4 terms for Representatives (also 12 years, to be fair) would do nicely.

>What wrong with democracy?  Do you think people are too stupid?

A lot is wrong with democracy.  That is why there is a Constitution.
But limiting the number of terms will not help very much.  What is needed
is to make life very difficult for professional politicians.  Now this
means that even a one-term legislator must not be a professional politician
even for that term.

This means that Congresscritters and other legislators must not be full-time!
They must not depend on their legislative salaries for their income!  They
must be allowed to earn income on the side, and sessions should be short, as
they were before WWII except in the few cases of emergency.

On the other hand, clearly Presidents, Governors, Cabinet officers, etc.,
are full-time jobs.  The salary of the President used to be many times that
of Congress.  In fact, maybe instead of a big salary, Congresscritters should
be provided with the means to do the job (housing in Washington, travel,
etc.), and with a minimal salary, and expected to be productive people.

This does not mean that we should give power to appointees.  Every appointed
government official should at least be afraid of losing his/her job, and
even worse, if the rights of someone are ignored.  This country was founded
on the basis of the government protecting people from others, and little else.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:01:01 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug19.232800.22275@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
]In article <1992Aug19.213612.10398@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
]>
]>Richard, maybe this guy's talking about 30 million jobs created south of
]>the border or in asia or wherever our manufacturing base took them?
]>
]>
]>	Bye, Judy.
]
]  Well, I'm not sure what period he was covering, but employment
]in 1980 was 97.6 million and was 117.7 million in 1990.  These stats
]are pretty easy to find.  You may want to look them up before accusing
]him of lying.

Well, I must admit I was a little off the mark. As you point out, the
correct figure is 20 million new jobs, not 30 million. Same point, however...
the 80's created a huge number of new jobs. And, they were not mostly
low-wage, hamburger flipper jobs (although I don't have my copy
of thoses stats handy, I HAVE read them about 2 weeks ago).


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment (was Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution)
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:53:45 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug26.035138.1468@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:

>If 3/4 of your income is paid in taxes, you need a new accountant.  Income
>taxes are higher in Europe.  Value added taxes more than make up for
>sales taxes.  The big unknown to me is what comparison they have to
>property taxes?  Anyone else know?
>-- 

>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

By the time you add up federal and state income taxes, property taxes,
ad valorem taxes, sales taxes, fica, the 3/4 mark is not too far off.
Then if you consider that a fraction of the cost of everything you buy
goes to pay corporate taxes as well.

-- 
--Mark
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: GOP headquarters burned!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:09:22 GMT

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>This appeared in soc.motss:

>In article <1992Aug25.034038.23932@spdcc.com>, anon@spdcc.com (Forwarded Anonymous Posting) writes:
>> 	A Republican Party headquarters in South Pasadena, California,
>> was burned early Sunday morning.  Arson is obviously expected, since
>> a fuel lighter was seen on the site.  On the side of the GOP building
>> was grafittied: "GOP = " and the swastika sign.  Sounds like it was both
>> a good and bad deed for whoever did it.

>Does anyone else find something sort of disturbing about this?  The
>vandals in question equate the Republican Party to Naziism -- and
>engage in a very Nazi-like tactic -- burning out a political 
>headquarters.

 Very. You points are excellent. I just hope the arsonist(s) don't claim
to be associated with any particular party because I would assume that
most mainstream parties do not condone these sort of tactics.It's just 
as hypocritical as "pro-lifers" who bomb clinics or send death threats to judges.

>Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
>prohibition won't work.

Interesting correlation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "Read my lips -- no new ideas!"
CLARKSON '95				   --George Bush's apparent motto
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU 
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
						
"Is it inconsistent to chide Hillary Clinton's support of legal
rights of children, and then demand that unborn children have
legal rights over their mothers?  Is this what the Republican
party is promoting?"	---Mike Polen (talk.poli.misc user)




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43412 talk.politics.mideast:19523 misc.headlines:6165
From: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Security guarantees (Re: Fair Swap)
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:04:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Sep3.010435.23633
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <BtyKqJ.Gt0.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>
>Obviously, guarantees of security will be the linchpin of any 
>peace treaty in the Middle East (or anywhere;-).

>There was an article a month or two back in The New Republic (I forget
>the author's name) whose basic thesis was that peace between Israel 
>and its neighbors would not be possible without a guarantee of Israel's 
>security by the U.S..  This would entail at least a short to medium
>term a U.S. military presence in Israel.

No, peace between Israel and its neighbors *cannot* come from US
guarantees.  They must come from Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi,
and Israeli guarantees, ("meaningless peices of paper") and confidence
building measures that include taking positive action on regional
problems unitl all involved see that a state of peace is better than a
state of war.

If there need to be US forces in Israel, (beyond border observers ob
both sides) or any non-regional forces anywhere, what you have is not
peace.  It is a cease-fire.

I agre with your first sentence, guarantees of security will be the
lynchpin of peace, but they must be local guarantees.

>I doubt most Israelis (and Americans) would find this a palatable 
>option, being somewhat independent-mined.  These objections 
>aside, any thoughts on the matter?

Good point here.  Americans were never stationed in Israel in a
military role until 1991.  

Adam
Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:06:17 GMT

In article <17qs7eINNqlb@agate.berkeley.edu>
martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.011352.29396@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <17mtmvINNear@agate.berkeley.edu>
>>martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>>In addition, the ENTIRE individual is defined at conception.  The mother's 
>>>traits and the father's traits combine to create a new DNA structure
>>>which equates to a new and unique human being.  Abort the unborn and
>>>you will never see that combination again.

>>Oh, please!  Yes, the genetic code of the z/e/f is determined at
>>conception, and yes, if the woman has an abortion there will never be
>>another human with that genetic code (the chances are so low as to be
>>nonexistent for all practical purposes).  But the entire individual is
>>not, *not*, NOT defined by their genetic code.  This is why identical
>>twins are different people.

>But practically speaking, the genetic code of the unborn (whether twins
>or not) is UNIQUE and separate from the mother.

Well, yes.  So?  The genetic code of the mosquito I killed last night
is unique and separate from mine.  A cancer's DNA is also unique.

And this isn't what you said above.

>So this, hopefully, 
>discounts the 'just an extension of the mother' justification.

Oh, a z/e/f is an entity other than the pregnant woman.  Not really a
separate entity, but siamese twins are two different but not separate
entities, and certainly not just extentions of each other.  But the
question is just what is the entity that is the z/e/f.  Human, yes.  A
person?  IMO, not until its brain is fairly well developed.

>Simply put, before abortion there is life.  After, there is death.

Hm.  Well, yes.  So?  Before a cow was killed for the steak I ate last
night there was life.  Afterwards, there wasn't.  What of it?  We kill
all of the time -- often we kill bacteria and viruses and parasites
inside or body without even knowing it.  Does the fact that a z/e/f
has human DNA demand different treatment?  Does what a z/e/f may
become demand different treatment?  Why?

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41998 alt.politics.bush:2940
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.election
Subject: Christian Coalition
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:22:53 GMT
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory


This now from Bush's "coalition partners":

Feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement
that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children,
practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

McCarthy was never this eloquent or creative!!!

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43394 alt.activism:15857 misc.headlines:6162
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Health care will-o-wisps
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:57:41 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In <9209011924.AA00410@poly.math.cornell.edu>, harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
...
Industry.'' Dr. Bodenheimer is a member of Physicians for a National 
Health Program, and his article appeared in _The International 
Journal of Health Services_ last year (Vol 20, No. 2, 1990)" 

The article includes the comparisons: 
...
============================================================ 
Percentage of premiums consumed by overhead: 

Private Insurance Companies:              12% (overhead & profits) 

Public payers (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid):   3% 

Canadian provincial insurance plans:      under 1% 
============================================================ 

	Typical.  In a table to compare overhead, and only overhead, the US
totals include profits.

	On PBS last night, even with a pro-Canadian bent, the show on health
care underscored the radical differences between the US and Canada.

	Lack of procedures, waiting lines, lack of funds are driving people
south to get care at US facilities.

	It's great to spend less, but it's not worth dying over.

	My dad had a heart attack last week.  He obtained immediate acces to a
cardiac critical care unit, and his angiogram is being done today.  Not next
month.  Not next year.  And yes, I think the increased cost is worth it.

	Administrative costs are not a symptom of bad health care, but that of
bad administration.  Handing it over to the government, who will then create a
bureaucracy, and a 15% sales tax to fund it, will not solve the problem.  If
you want decreased admin costs, then *standardize the billing system*.  Period.

	Only a fool believes that you can get something for nothing. 
Government admin would yield lines, decreased quaility, increased fraud,
decreased availability and higher taxes.  It's a recipe for disaster.  People
would take little comfort at their relatives funerals that "gee, we're not
spending as much as we used to" or "they might have died on the table,
anyway".

	Once again we hear the the problems caused by bureaucracies can only be
solved by creating a bigger bureaucracy.

	Yeah.  Right.
                 
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43405 alt.politics.elections:12278 talk.politics.theory:3986