HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carter@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Carter.Edmonds)
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:22:20 GMT

Here's a question.  Just how elastic is demand for gasoline?  

If demand is elastic, a significant increase in price will be met with
a marked reduction in consumption.  But will the higher price motivate
people to buy a new car? (This is not an option for many people.)  Will
they buy a house closer to work?  (Spouses sometimes work on opposite 
sides of town.)  Also, how high must the tax be for someone to give up
a comfortable car for a smaller model?  (People might cut costs on
other items and keep their cars.)

I suspect that many people can not or will not reduce their
consumption of gasoline.  Some may compensate for higher fuel costs
by reducing spending on other items instead.

Any opinions, hunches, insights, statistics?


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy."  Calvin,  1/17/93
            carter.edmonds@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Carter Edmonds)             
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 28 Jan 93 12:37:43 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

brandon@caldonia.nlm.nih.gov (Brandon Brylawski) writes:

>zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>
>
>: I took EMT training a short while ago, and the guy who taught
>: it was an ex-paramedic. He told us that he tries to get everyone
>: he teaches or knows to get a medic-alert bracelet with their 
>: insurance information on it, because without it, you simply will
>: not get treated until someone plunks down a card for you. He said
>: that this is especially important for non-white people, who routinely
>: die in the ER for lack of care because they don't assume that you
>: can pay or have insurance.
>
>I would like to dispute this. Having worked in a typical ER for quite a while,
>I can attest that NOBODY gets turned away for ANYTHING. The hospital routinely
>soaks up the cost of those who can't or won't pay.

I don't mean to quibble, but the hospital does not "soak up" the
cost of the uninsured/unable-to-pay.  We, the paying consumers,
get hit with that cost.

That's one of the reasons I would like to see universal insurance.
Some of the excess cost of our medical system is caused by the 
uninsured going to emergency rooms for treatment of relatively
minor ills because that's the only option they have.

Give them insurance and private doctors would be more willing
to treat them in their offices, where the costs are a whole
lot lower.

Self-interest would seem to dictate that we need national insurance,
if altruism isn't reason enough for some of you.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70045 alt.pagan:15918 talk.religion.misc:27676 talk.abortion:58175
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:35:43 GMT

In article <adams.728062684@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

[deleted]

>Not so...Luther's priests were permitted to marry...and Lutheran's continue
>to do so today.  Luther himself married...

Gosh, I wonder who the lucky little woman was.

Blessings,
Janis


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Frank Herbert and politics?
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:59:32 EST
Organization: ACME Products

>>	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
>>intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
> 
> I read this book and I can't see how it has any relevance to anything that
> we might discuss in this group.

	It's not the book, it's the quote.

Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
	"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69359 misc.legal:23151
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Big Three Begs Big Government (again)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:16:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.180038.23727@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>dp> Don Pajerek
>
>dp> Did the Clinton administration *ask* the automakers to initiate this
>    lobbying effort?
>
>  Would they have even tried if Clinton *wasn't* in the White House?
>

Don't forget who followed Bush to Japan a year or two back.




--
	Who's "the loneliest monk?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE. WHERE'S THE PLAN???
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1993Jan21.032107.14277@oakhill.sps.mot.com>
	<1993Jan21.045150.20835@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1993Jan21.155503.21171@news.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:55:20 GMT

<In article <1993Jan21.155503.21171@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

<
<   Discuss amongst yourselfs.  Here's a topic: Rush Limbaugh --
<   Nostradamus reincarnate?  Ready?  Begin....

	
	Nice try, Levy, but the fact is:


"...I'll have the bills ready the day after I'm inaugurated.  I'll
send them to congress, and we'll have a hundred-day period...It will 
be the most productive in modern history."
	Clinton in interview on ABC's "Good Morning America", June 23, 1992


Question: "We were originally led to believe that you'd have an outline to
Congress even before the inauguration and presented on Day One or shortly
thereafter...When will it be ready?"
Answer: "I don't know who lead you to believe that, but I'm the only one
who's authorized to talk about that."
			Clinton news conference 1/14/1993



	Where's the PLAN, Clinton fans?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life)
Subject: Re: State's Rights (Was: Re: Destruction of the U.S.)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:57:15 GMT

colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>In article <C17vn6.6GL@cs.uiuc.edu>, zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life) writes:
>> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <C15pAD.AHF@cs.uiuc.edu>, zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life) writes:
>> >> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>> Because in our history, it wasn't until somewhat recently that the Fed
>> acquired all the power it now enjoys and can abuse.

>It acquired that power to counteract the abuses of the states.  If
>we took away all that Federal power, what is to prevent all the
>abuses from coming back?

It acquired that power because it got away with it.  You still missed
the point, the Fed couldn't abuse power it was denied.

>> You keep talking about THE majority and THE minority like they are
>> monoliths.  Asking individuals to support minority rights becasue
>> at some point they might be in a minority is really all we have to
>> limit government.  Without concent of real live human beings, legal
>> restrictions are just paper.

>It's a pretty lousy way to limit power.  From my experience, people

Its all we got, unless you wish to rule be decree.

>Isn't that what YOU have been advocating?  That the states simply
>ignore any Federal law they they feel limits their power?  You
>want to play both sides of the fence. The states have unlimited
>power unless they choose not to have it.  

No, not unlimited power, just most of the powers we delegate to govt
in general.  The sum total of that delegated power does not add up to
limited power. 

>> So even when the Fed did something wrong, it is evidence that it should be
>> given more power and the states less.

>No when the fed does something wrong, and it is shown that it is
>merely supporting discriminatory and unconstitutional actions the
>states have already begun, the concept of unlimited "States Rights"

It shows that your precious Federal protection does not work as well
as you claim.  I keep saying that the state and Fed govts have pretty
much the same mechanisms to check abuses (written constitutions and
courts), the Fed govt is not any more immune from failure than any state.

No state forced anyone to own slaves, they just protected the practice in
the same way that the Fed protected it with the powers available to it at
the time.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69586 alt.president.clinton:1760
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:51:14 GMT

In article <1jvlugINNhbp@mojo.eng.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
}
}In article <MDL.93Jan24174614@ak.cypress.com>, mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
}>In article <matjmm.727895331@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) writes:
}>   ck347@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard A. Mulac) writes:
}>   > Either he's a bold-faced liar or we need to impose an
}>   >IQ test requirement on those persons who wish to run for President in 1996.
}>   >And people said Quayle was stupid?  This man has brains enough to run the
}>   >country?  Come on Clinton defenders, let's see how far you'll stretch 
}>   >reality to excuse him on this one.
}
}    It's easy to criticize, why not sing the praises of your favorite,
}I assume, Republican.   

Amusing, how most of the defenses start with comparisons to
your-favorite-republican.  Who cares?  Can he, or can he not, stand for
himself?  News flash: Bush isn't president, Ronnie has been gone a long time,
Quayle isn't in office.  Defend Clinton by the acts of Clinton.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: DAY THREE: Either a lie or utter stupidity
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:11:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.021848.1688@syacus.acus.oz.au> brent@syacus.acus.oz.au (Brent Davies) writes:

>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>[regarding my sarcastic "translation" of Richard Mulac's tirade on Clinton]
>
>[BD:]
>>>that the Inauguration had a magic Bush's never did,
>
>[DV:]
>>       To the tune of thirty million bucks, about five million more than
>>Bush managed.  
>
>That sounds pretty cynical to me. 

      I prefer to call my position cautiously pessimistic.  Clinton can
do some good things, but I doubt he will.  But explain to me how putting
out a number that is fairly common knowledge is cynical, or in point out
that it's more than Bush's was.

>It seems to me there was something more 
>than money-bought atmosphere about this Inauguration, and I don't think I'm
>the only one that feels that way. 

       I have no doubt there are people who agree with you.  And there
was more to it than money-bought.  But what exactly does that prove?  
Most of the people at the party were celebrating their victory.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"For every action there is an equal, and opposite, government program"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Clinton's flip-flop on Haitians!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:43:05 GMT

In article <90495@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <randall.727494120@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>|casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:

[Pre-innaugural Clinton-bashing deleted]

>|This and other Hillary-bashing are simply crude personal attacks.
>|I have always been against such bashing of the President's family,
>|whether it be Amy Carter, Nancy Reagan, Ron Reagan, Barbara Bush, or 
>|now Hillary.  Attacking a President through his wife or children
>|is just slimy.

>I tried to make an issue of Hillary's politics prior to the election.
>I was told, quite rudely at times, that since Hillary wasn't on the ballot
>her views were irrelevant.  Now Bill says that she is one of his principle
>advisors.  I believe that the views of anyone who advises the president is
>as relevant as the views of the president himself.  Now this is not slickness
>on the part of Clinton, it is more slickness on the part of his supporters.
>I guess it rubs off.

This is always funny.  You mean Barbara Bush wasn't one of George's
principle advisors?  Why not?  (1) Is she stupid?  (2) Does she have
opinions but keep quiet like a good little wife?  (3) Does she speak up,
but George ignores her?

A wife is *always* a principle advisor.  I would hope.

And would you stop using that word incorrectly?  Slickness?  How?

>BTW, one reason I favor moving the inauguration up to a week or so after the
>election is that it would force the candidates to name their cabinets before
>the election, so that the electorate can examine them as well.

But you often can't do that, because you don't know who's available
before the elections.

Anyway, you're forgetting, this isn't Reagan.  His cabinet isn't going
to be running the country.  They're going to be giving advice.  They're
not going to go make decisions and then wake up the president later and
inform him.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70033 misc.legal:23399
From: tzs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Necessary and Proper
Date: 28 Jan 1993 04:42:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <1k658aINNju7@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>|> >Certainly there would be less wheat involved in interstate
>|> >commerce.  
>|> 
>|> More wheat.  Which was precisely why the government was upset
>|> at Filburn.  
>|> 
>
>If a person is growing wheat for *his own consumption*, and thousands
>more do the same, the effect would be *less* wheat involved in interstate
>commerce, not more.  If, and when, the wheat is involved in interstate
>commerce, then and only then, does Congress have the right to regulate
>that activity.

Filburn wasn't growing wheat just for his own consumption in Wheatgate.
Filburn produced more than the quota allowed.  He sold a quota's worth
in interstate commerce, and used the rest to feed his animals, which he then
sold in interstate commerce.

Note that I am not commenting on whether or not the decision was reasonable.
I am just pointing out that usual discussion of this case makes it sounds like
Filburn only produced wheat for his own consumption, which is not so.  If
anyone wants to read the actual opinion, it is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S.
111, 63 S.Ct. 82.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris)
Subject: Re: Congratulatoin, Bill-Bots!
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:14:43 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) says:

>>In article <9301272139.AA25748@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> Broward L. Horne,
>>blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu writes:
>>> 	Congratulations!
>>> 
>>> 	You just bought yourselves a Triple 'E' ticket on the 
>>> 	greatest deflationary ride in HISTORY!
>>> 
>>> 	Come, on, Billy Boy!  Energy Tax, we NEED it!  Gotta cut 
>>> 	consumption!  Cut that military too.  
>>> 
>>>         And there go those entitlements!   YES!
>>
>>
>>pathetic.........
>>

>        yes, totally pathetic.  I agree whole-heartedly.

>        But I was wrong.  It should have read,

>           " in *U.S* HISTORY! "

>        Just out of curiosity, Doc.

>        Are you planning to rebuild America BEFORE or AFTER
>        the fire is out?????


Once again, I implore that someone explain this Broward Horne guy
to me. He seems to be a few ants short of a picnic.

Later,
Morgan





-- 

John Morgan Morris
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083

Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
Telephone: (404) 651-2253
FAX: (404) 651-2246

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Mike, Because You're such a guy...
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:15:02 GMT

shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
] >
] >" A commitment to the willingness to engage in
] >the conceptualization of the actualization of the
] >potential that the instatiation of events are 
] >indicative of an enhanced potential that a 
] >nonpositive life limiting event structure is
] >within a temporal time frame of occuring such
] >as may negatively impact future plans of said
] >persons who's event structures have initited the
] >context in which a NonPleasant and Potentially
] >lifelimiting event sequance has been actualized
] >within the current existence of the existential
] >now as it is the event in occurance."
] 
] Ah drieux my obtuse friend. How about...
] 
] I just want to STRESS UP FRONT and CLEARLY
] that DRAWING a WEAPON indicates a WILLINGNESS
] TO USE TERMINAL FORCE.
] 
] Just as short and more accurate to boot.

If This is what the Younger Generation Understands,
who am I to stand in their Way! That I should
Trample Upon the Grave of My Father, who is not
yet dead, but details.....

The phraseology, is from the conceptual stream
of 'commitments' - if you do "A" you have committed
yourself to "B" - the sense of Crossing lines as
it were. To Me "willingness" has such a Nephish
approach to it.... "The Flesh is willing but
the spirit is Weak." Drawing that Weapon has
Committed the Person to a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME.
{And Yes, Until the Trigger is Pulled, we can
all Back Down.... But we are, at that point
working in the TERMINAL FORCE DOCTRINES range.}

And Hence, as a PART of the Weapons Training,
that I Personally Feel SHOULD be MANDATORY
for posession of a Weapon capable of Lethality,
there should be the section on TERMINAL FORCE DOCTRINES.
{it helps folks know which is their Weapon and
which is their GUN, Which is For FIGHTING,
and which is FOR FUN.}

As Long as we all agree that pulling a weapon
with the HOPE that it, when waved about Manly,
will end things, in the BLIND HOPE that some how
weapons are NOT a use of 'life limiting' force, is a
VERY SADLY MISDIRECTED fantasy. I will 'buy'
your phraseology as operable with the understanding
of my cavat implicit... One is Operating in 
the Terminal Force Doctrine.

ciao
drieux

ps: Personally I like the Longer form....
But who is Going to Argue about Existentialism
in a fire Fight......


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing, 
and they may not be connected..... 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner)
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'HaIR (not O'Hare!)
Originator: frank@karner.austin.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:14:29 GMT
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division


In article <Jan.22.07.10.37.1993.754@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.162625.17617@aber.ac.uk> jma@aber.ac.uk (Jonathan Michael Ashley) writes:
> 
> > Is this the same Ted "Tyre-Iron" Kaldis
> 
> This is America here.  In this country, the word is spelled "tire".
> You Brits do as you like, but if you are going to address us Yanks,
> please do us the courtesy of spelling the words as we would perceive
> them to be spelled correctly.
> 

Can it be that you made the above comment in jest?  If not, I find it to
be uncalled for.  Especially, in the light of the apalling spelling, 
grammar, and (dare I say it?), perceived intellect, of a great many of
the American posters.  

You could start by pointing out that it is Madalyn Murray *O'HAIR*, 
not O'Hare, as the Subject line indicates.

And I though the spelling police was de-comissioned! :-)



-- 

         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69104 alt.president.clinton:1694