HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: listing the good reasons
Date: 23 Aug 92 08:11:52 EST
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information

Quoth Emil Chuck concerning LISTING THE GOOD REASONS on 08-22-92:

EC>	Oh, never mind those who put their accounts into those S&Ls.
EC>They don't deserve any protection at all, right?

They deserve protection up to the legislated limit, which (if I recall 
correctly) is $100,000 per account.

Unfortunately, the FSLIC has arbitrarily decided that some S&L's (those 
with political connections to the Republican administration) will be 
bailed out 100%, and some (who do not) will be covered up to $100,000 per 
>depositor<.  This is criminal.






---
  WinQwk 2.0 a#299  Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Taxation/Extortion
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:21:07 GMT

In article <80656@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
>Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
>Date: 18 Aug 92 22:12:47 GMT
>In article 187@anasazi.com, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>Well, then do you have an objection to the following?
>>
[snip]
>
>I have no objection whatever to the principle of taxing higher income
>levels at higher rates.  

Why?  I thought you were big on "fairness."

>Rich people seem to get on quite well, even
>when they get to keep less of their second (or more) $100K.  

How well you get on is irrelivant.  The issue at stake is whether the 
government has any business taking property from the people who own it and 
giving it to people who don't.

[snip]

>>Welfare exists partly because of compassion and partly because it
>>was a POPULIST thing. One could buy the votes of poor people, while
>>not losing the votes of the middle class, by convincing the middle 
>>class that only the rich would pay.
>
>Welfare is an old idea that goes back centuries.  Most civilized
>societies nowadays have a system of welfare in place, even when
>they are poorer than us.  You may like to think of it as little more
>than a cynical measure to get votes by stealing money from the rich,
>but you give me no reason to believe that. 

Believe as you choose, but the income tax was originally passed as a 
temporary measure to balance the budget during wartime, and was only levied 
against those making over $100,000 a year.  Soak the rich.  Now who's paying 
the lion's share?
[snip]

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:52:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.181232.23398@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.160827.13408@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>...  Many groups in America currently advocate force to impose
>>their culture on others.  Some of them are "good liberals".
>
>Examples, please.

Sure.  We can start with the "Great American Gun War".  Other obvious
examples include use of public funds extracted from all US cultures
to advance specific ones.

>>There's nothing wrong with being a partisan whiner, but it is
>>deceptive to hide it behind "general" concerns.
>
>You are the partisan whiner. Fitch's concern *is* general. What
>are the 'good liberals' doing that compares to Jesse Helms' attempts
>to police the National Endowment for the Arts?

What?  Helms is no more guilty than NEA advocates.  The disagreement
between them is over WHAT culture will be supported by funds extracted
by threat of force.  To the extent that "good liberals" are NEA
advocates, they SHARE that guilt.

Don't tell me about how little money we're talking about.  If it
really was an insignificant amount of money, it wouldn't matter that
Helms is trying to redirect it and it wouldn't be worth protecting.
It isn't the principle, it's the money.  The principle is "you must
pay to advance OUR culture".  Other cultures don't rely on the threat
of force; they pay their own way.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41157 alt.politics.elections:11217 alt.politics.clinton:2531 alt.politics.bush:2441
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: What kind of change do we want? (was Re: Better Off ..)
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:59:46 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Aug21.165953.26334@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com
(Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>zone, Clinton waffles.  Now Bush, realizing the error of the 1990
>tax hike (note that Congressional Democrats are unrepentant there),
>is proposing new tax cuts along with spending caps.

Bwahaha!!!!

People fell for it in 1988 and looks like they're gonna fall for it again...

    don
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Gore Calls for a Real Environmental Pr
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:37:34 CDT

In article 8581@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:

|I would have thought the answer to this was obvious.  Senators don't pass bills |unilaterally.  They vote in favor of the passage of bills.  If there are 
|enough votes to the contrary, the senate will pass, or not pass, a bill 
|contrary to the individual senators vote.  Even if the senate does pass a
|given bill, the president can still veto it.  That is the difference between
|a US senator and a despot.                    ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
|  ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^ ^^^^^^            
|Peter Lauren.
|
|

Can I take this to mean you are in favor of Clinton for Despot?  ;^)

---
--David C. Adams    dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 00:08:35 GMT

In article <92Aug14.134331edt.118@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu
(Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
>>public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler
>>
>>It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
>>seem to espouse the same tactics of their buddy Hitler:
>>disarm the public, and enlist the aid of the media to 
>>make all believe that they need to cooperate with the 
>>new order blindly.
>
>Disarming some assault-rifle touting ultra-right religious fanatics
>and put them in concentration camps seems to be a good idea.  Pat
>Roberson can be the camp spirital leader.  

What about asault-rifle toting liberal democrats such as myself?

Damn, don't ya HATE it when those dumb stereotypes don't hold up? :)

    don

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40227 talk.politics.theory:3699 alt.politics.elections:10721 alt.politics.marrou:809 alt.politics.bush:1883
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:03:23 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

In article <1992Aug17.202017.17578@fid.morgan.com>, joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug6.013932.29133@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> >
|> >	My solution to the US public schools' problems:
|> >
|> >	Get rid of all the bureaucrats!
|> >
|> 
|> I agree 100%
|> 
|> US Public schools have FAR more administrators than private/independent
|> schools. But US public schools do a much worse job of educating America's
|> kids.
|> 
|> We outspend the Japanese by 2-to-1 on money spent per student, yet their
|> students are far more educated than ours.
|> 
|> On an international basis, we rank last among 13 nations in math/science.
|> 
|> Its time do do something - I support school choice.
|> 
Interesting.  The Japanese don't agree with you.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40372 ca.politics:6913
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Why Excluding Pedophiles Was A Painful Decision for Oregon Homosexual Activists
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:06:37 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11803@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <oijc3j0@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>> In article <11737@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >David Duke has been as vigorously shunned as anyone can be.
>> 
>> Except that lots of republicans voted for him.  In fact, many more people
>> voted for him than support NAMBLA.
>
>In Louisiana -- where he was running against an obviously corrupt
>Democrat.  It was a choice between a racist, and a crook.  What a
>choice!  (I wouldn't have voted at all, rather than vote for one
>or the other -- but the news media insist that we should get out and
>vote, regardless).


You are twisting the analogy.  I made the following analogy


David Duke is to the Republican Party what NAMBLA is to the gay community.

He is a republican, though many republicans rather that he was not.  He gets
votes, showing that he does have support though not enough to get elected.
He is a fringe member of the party, just like NAMBLA is a fringe member of
the gay community.


>> You know nothing about what you are saying clayton.  There is no "gay
>> community".  We are a group of people who have only one thing in common,
>> we all are homosexuals.  There is nothing else that we have in common. 
>
>Except that you insist on being one community for purposes of political
>agitation for antidiscrimination laws.

There is a difference between community and minority.


>You expect me to believe that a gay positive TV station in San Francisco
>would intentionally lie in order to make the gay community look bad?

KRON has never been even remotely "gay positive".


FWA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush (was Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 00:02:44 GMT

In article <adams.713718210@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>>>
>>>	HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>>>ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>>>tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>>>dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>>>plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>>>platforms.
>
>>Thank you very much. I'll make sure my vote goes to George Herbert
>>Walker Bush. 
>
>The same George Herbert Hoover Bush who renegged on his "Read My Lips"
>pledge?  The same one who was Pro-Choice until he suffered a convention
>conversion to be RR's running mate?  The same one who denied that we were
>in a recession?  The same one who wants to outlaw abortion (except of
>course for his own family)?
>
>How can you trust him?


Check out Al Gore's voting record. Up until a few years ago, he voted
pro-life over 80% of the time. 

Now, he's "pro-choice" all the way. 

How can you trust him? 


===============================================================================
Question: If you don't have truck bombs and thousands of fanatics to
	  sacrifice their lives and drive them, how do you scare a 
	  nation into giving in to your demands?

Answer:   Buy coat hangers and encourage women to kill themselves
	  with them and call yourself "pro-choice".
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Alias Borgie Boy, the BorgBarian, Inturdgent, Propeller Boy, and other
scornful names heaped upon me during my lifetime...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41004 alt.activism:15201 misc.headlines:5800 sci.econ:6988
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:24:30 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.192934.29839@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.021305.3644@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	Nothing seems able to make politicians understand that higher tax rates
>>do not automatically translate into more money.
>>
> Maybe the fact that lower taxes during Reagan's wonderful 7 years of
> economic growth led to the highest deficits we've had till then has
> something to do with it.

	Lower taxes at first.  Congress pulled a fast one by suggesting that a
raise in taxes could then be applied to the debt to wipe that out (or at least
put a dent in it).

	Funny how the money never was applied to the debt, and was simply
spent....

> For those who want to unilaterally blame congress (I blame both), please
> tell me which appropriations bills were passed over Reagan's veto.

	For those who want to put the blame at Reagan's feet, show where
congress lived up to their part of the bargain and quit spending so much.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:17:34 GMT

In article <Bsy8DI.4xG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
> 
> You are quite right.  However, I really was speaking from the viewpoint
> that most of us in this society hold.  I think most of us are willing to
> make this assumption as in rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness.  Please note that the right to liberty or the pursuit of
> happiness are contingent on the right to life.  The right to life,
> though, is not dependent on liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  They
> modify the right to life.  All three have been described as inalienable.

That one is contingent on the other does not at all prove that
the one must be subservient to the other.

Rights in the United States are not at all based on what most of
us in society hold.

Please tell me where you get a copy of the Constitution with a
right to life mentioned, or the right to pursue life or liberty
or happiness.  My copies don't mention these and since other
people's copies do, I am worried that my copies are all the
wrong versions.  Maybe I have an early draft?

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39567 talk.abortion:31625 alt.politics.bush:1499
From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason to vote for Bush
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:03:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <l8hms5INN4n9@girtab.usc.edu> rone@girtab.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>> HOUSTON (UPI) -- A Republican platform subcommittee overwhelming-
>> ly passed a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abor-
>> tions, endorsing the policy of President Bush. The subcommittee on indivi-
>> dual rights, good homes and safe streets voted 17-3 Monday to approve the
>> plank, which is essentially the same as contained in the 1988 and 1984
>> platforms.

>It occurs to me that Ron Echeverri might have concocted this story.

With the help of most major newspapers in this country, of course.  Try reading
one, Doug.

Tim Lynch
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:41:43 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In response to Emil Chuck's comment that the s&l bailout was to pay the
"small depositors". . . Hey, Emil, do you think those crooks ate the money
they stole? Where did it go -- the black hole?  Where's the push to find
the money (in Swiss or Costa Rican bank accounts maybe, busily accruing
interest while the thieves look for bargains to pick up for next to
nothing from the RTC?) these characters took off with.  If you maintain
that the money just vanished, then it didn't exist in the first place,
and all the so-called prosperity of the 80s was just paper with its only
value derived from ill-placed credit.  Is that it?

		Judy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet
From: edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Subject: Re: FTP Site Needed
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:02:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.024354.5162@genome.wi.edu> Bert Smith <bj893@cleveland.freenet.edu> writes:
>I am looking for a FTP site to deposit a number of files concerning Bill
>Clinton and his campaign.  They are policy statements, etc.  I think that
>these files would be of interest to concerned voters, and easy access
>would help keep all properly informed.  An ideal site would allow for
>anonymous FTP access.  Can anyone out there help out?

It might help if you checked first!

They are already available via anonymous FTP from a number of sites, thanks
to the Online Book Initiative.

	world.std.com:/obi/USElection/President
	ftp.uu.net:/doc/literary/obi/USElection/President

Aydin Edguer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bush, Reagan and Deficit cutting (was Bush or Clinton)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:55:06 CDT


In article <1992Aug11.141243.3364@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.121525.3820@cis.ohio-state.edu>, thorne-c@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> ...
> > To get a concept of what happened in the early 80's read David Stockman's
> 
> 	You actually believe anything this goon has to say?

Sure.  There are independent ways of verifying what Stockman say.  Reagan's
proposed budgets are part of the public record.  So are the huge resulting
deficits.

> 	He was in way over his head in the Reagan adminstration, and anything
> he writes about it is an attempt to cover up his own part in any budget messes. 
> It's a little like asking an accomplice to murder for the facts on what really
> happened.

Which facts (of Stockman's) do you think are not "what really happened"?

> 	"Uhh, the other guy did it.  I tried to stop him, really."
> 
> 	Yeah, right.

Have you read Stockman's book?

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: the debating game (was Re: Your Vote, Your Choices)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:31:42 GMT
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:41:11 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care

In article <1992Aug21.182025.2487@brownfield.glv.com>, brownfield!jbrow (Jim
Brownfield) says:
>
>In article <92234.071414DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>
>> I see nothing to admire about a society that thinks it's admirable to
>subject
>> its citizens to that kind of fear, uncertainty, and insecurity.  I see
>nothing
>> to admire about a society which heavily subsidizes the insurance purchases
>of
>> upper-middle and upper class Americans, while proposing a feeble voucher
>> system for uninsured working Americans and an underfunded Medicaid plan
>> for the poor.
>>
>> I was without insurance one time for 3 months during a job change.  It
>> completely changes your life-style.  Stopped playing racquetball becuase I
>> couldn't afford it if I got hurt, not to mention the possibility of pre-
>> existing conditions not being covered.  Used two forms of contraception,
>> because there's no way we could afford to pay for a birth.
>>
>> Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
>
>Why would you admire a country that uses theft to solve all its "social"
>problems?  What are you going to do when there are no decent doctors left, and
>you have to wait in long lines to receive marginal, if not atrocious, health
>care?

Ah the old "theft" argument.  I've heard that line so often I don't even
dignify it with a reply anymore.  Your facts are wrong.  Canada has wonderful
doctors and health care.  So does France.  So does Germany.


>You can push for National Health Care now, but don't be surprised when some

Oh, thank you ever so much for graciously giving me permission to exercise
my freedom to voice my political opinion.  I'm forever in your debt.

>day
>a bureaucrat turns you away with your mere "sprained ankle", because the lines
>are long and the other people are more "needy", and the black market is the
>only way for people without political  clout to be treated.

Get a clue about the real world.  NHI works.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.