HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: You Got it
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:22:14 GMT

steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:

>Slick will not be able to turn back Sadam when he retakes over Kuwait
>for two reasons:

My, permanently indebted to Republican terminology, aren't we?

>    1) Some of the Arab Nations lost a lot of political capital in their
>       countries over the last war. I doubt that Jordan and Syria will
>       be able to stand by the way they did last year. And Syria has
>       nuclear weapons to make everyone nervous with.

And tell me, what will Jordan do?  Declare war against the U.S.?
How about Syria? Israel could fuck Syria up bad in a second.
Remember all Hussein's weapons? You remember the hype, how we'd
taken on something much bigger than we could handle?  
>   
>    2) Clinton does not have a team of foreign advisors with the clout
>	   that Bush had to form a coalition.

Oh, my my.  Bush's foreign advisors have "clout".  Now just
what the hell does that mean?  That it was George's men
personally who persuaded everyone to go to war, and not the
facts that half of them want something from the U.S, and
that a number of them actually thought  Hussein had done
something wrong? That Clinton is unable to put together a
"real" state department?  That we need James "God" Baker
there, or nothing  can be done?  What self-serving crap.


>I think that the U.S. will be told to stay out of the situation, and Slick
>Willy won't have anything he can do about it.

Yep, you like that Slick Willy tag.  Who, pray tell,
is going to tell us to stay out of it?

>"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
> bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
> tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson

Though idiots on the street is a good second reason.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge                                       x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3960               xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22548 talk.politics.misc:58072 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6269 alt.rush-limbaugh:8984 talk.politics.drugs:7277 talk.politics.guns:23525
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Date: 4 Nov 92 04:29:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov3.192648.20381@sequent.com> jwk@sequent.com (John "Just Say Noe" Kramer) writes:
>In article <YOUNG.92Nov3132637@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>>
>>It occurred to me shortly after the '88 election that what we had
>>witnessed was a mandate in favor of keeping felons locked up forever.
>>
>>Consider that Willie Horton was so bad, and HE was on furlough.  What
>>are we to believe about all those felons who couldn't even qualify for
>>furloughs?  Bad, bad people.
>
>Seems to me that if Bush was locked up four years ago a lot people might
>be alive today who aren't.

Name one, asshole!

Ted

-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22855 talk.politics.misc:58464 tx.politics:7051
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:03:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <Bx8B8L.8A@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.193542.4478@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> >It certainly qualifies as an impediment to a free market.  Bankruptcy
>> >protection is one of the most abused laws on the books.  It could
>> >certainly use an overhaul.
>> 
>> But it is NOT Federal regulation.
> 
>Now who is using reduction ad absurdum?  Who cares whether it's a federal
>law or a regulation formulated by the executive branch.  The fact is that
>the government, but allowing bankrupt companies to continue to compete, is
>impeading the free market.  How in the world can that be proof that
>markets don't work?

Uh, last I knew, bankruptcy protection was part of standard commercial
law.  Where, pray tell, do you see any use of reductio ad absurdum?

> 
>> My, you're such an absolutist, Doug.  How about if they only take over
>> 90% of the market?  That's more than enough to exert monopoly power.
>> Reductio ad absurdum is a lousy reasoning tool, no matter how useful
>> it may be in political rhetoric.
> 
>Sarcasm Fred, sarcasm.  I agree that 90% would be enough of a monopoly to
>be called a monopoly.  But there isn't a chance in hell that one airline
>is going to run 90% of the business in this country without some sort of
>government protection.  You keep talking about the entry costs.  But look
>at the market right now.  

I have.  It's been losing money for years, with every once in a while
a few companies managing to briefly turn a profit.  Then they go back
to that nice competition they have, and everybody loses some more
money. 

>Razor thin profits are the norm, even in good
>times.  Yet we continue to have new companies pop up all the time.  

When was the last time the airline industry in this country made a
profit, overall, Doug?  That's not "razor thin profits".  That's
"loss".  And yes, new companies pop up all the time, because they can
buy the assets of old companies for pennies on the dollar when those
companies go under.  And then they, in turn, go under.  What is the
average age of the air fleet in this country (consider things like
roofs ripping off of planes because the planes have so much more
flight time than they were expected to have).  We have an aging fleet
and are continually losing money, and yet you insist that this is a
healthy industry needing only MORE deregulation?

>Maybe
>they don't serve LA to NY, but who cares, most trips aren't cross-country.

Most of them aren't from Podunk to Poughkipsie, either.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: First Election Results!!!!!!!
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:37:17 GMT

tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:

|Not 100% true. Although all of the networks subscribed to the same polling
|service this year, each of them used that data any way they wanted to. I
|didn't watch ABC at all, so I don't know what happened (other than from
|what I am hearing here), but it is very possible, in fact very likely, that
|each network could come up with different analysis even though they all
|were working with the same data.

...and even though all four major networks came up with the same analysis 
at essentially the same time (at least until Perot gave his concession speech).
--
Michael Adams (StarOwl@uiuc.edu  madams@nyx.cs.du.edu  wi.4962@n7kbt.rain.com)

Walk softly and carry a BIG kitten. -- anonymous
Nancy Lord in '96
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23745 talk.politics.misc:60051 tx.politics:7279
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: MITI as a model for US industrial policy?
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:25:24 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <1992Nov12.184420.17439@iqsc.COM> rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black) writes:
>
>Before we let ourselves be hoodwinked by Robert Reich and his economic
>fellow-travellers, we should take a long hard look at the Japanese and
>European economic models and decide whether we want to subject oursevles 
>to the whole banana.


What exactly has Reich proposed? An 'American MITI'? An 'industrial
policy'?

All I see in Reich is:

a) the insistence that the performance of the American economy is
   directly related to the value of the work performed by its members.
   Therefore, we should focus on the higher value-added occupations.

b) we need to reevaluate the relationship between the American corporation
   and the American workforce. It often happens now that American companies
   take actions that benefit themselves narrowly, but ultimately harm
   the welfare of the population. We need to change some the incentive
   structures here.

>  Read "The Enigma of Japanese Power" by Wolferen.  
>
>Rex

I have.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22664 alt.politics.marrou:2099 talk.politics.misc:58228 alt.politics.clinton:15848
From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:53:54
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
	<Nov05.181603.5567@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Reply-To: Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab20.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: bh437292@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu's message of Thu, 05 Nov 1992 18:16:03 GMT

In article <Nov05.181603.5567@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bh437292@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Basil Hamdan) writes:
-> 
-> And, to be consistent, it should also tell you that:
-> - SIXTY THREE PERCENT of the voters do not believe that
->   George Bush should be President.
-> _ EIGHTY ONE PERCENT of the voters do not believe that
->   Ross Perot should be President.
-> _.....
-> 
-> I guess that is why Bill Clinton WILL be our next President.
-> You can call it mandate or no mandate, who cares ???
-> The point remains that Bill Cinton won the election.
-> Congratulations Bill.
-> 
-> Basil

	It's a very important thing to keep in mind.  An election is
an excellent, and probably only, way to determine the current
political philosophy of the American people.  A mandate would mean
people want liberalism and bigger government.

	In my opinion, people voted against George Bush and not for
Clinton.  This assertion is supported by the endless negative press in
the last few months.  Why did people vote against Bush?  Because he
abandoned his conservative platform that got him elected.  People
wanted Reagan II and didn't get it.  To add to this, Clinton had to
come off as a moderate to get people to vote for him; did you notice
how all the big name liberals disappeared the last few months?
Finally, all the city and state tax increases on the ballots all
around the country were defeated.  The American people want less
taxes, less government, and prefer a moderate to conservative
ideology.

	Comments?
--
Jason C. Austin
j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov





Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22608 talk.politics.misc:58159 tx.politics:6998
From: petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: High Gas Tax
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:56:51 GMT
	<1992Nov03.233216.38090@watson.ibm.com>
	<1992Nov4.140245.23190@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<1992Nov04.233312.37383@watson.ibm.com>
	<PETONIC.92Nov4192548@daisy.hal.com> <21820@rpp386.lonestar.org>
Reply-To: petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Organization: Henry's Laughing Gas Co., Inc.

In article <21820@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <PETONIC.92Nov4192548@daisy.hal.com> petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic) writes:
>>It's not artificially inflating.  At the risk of sounding like Gore,
>>there are tangible costs associated with dealing with pollution
>>generated by cars.  Someone has to pay the costs, why not the causer
>>of the pollution?  
>
>If pollution is the justification, it's a bogus one.  The CO2 emissions
>from all US fossil fuel uses accounts for 1% of the total global CO2
>output.  [ based on all human forms accounting for 4% of the total and
>USA being 25% of that 4% ]
>
> [... more CO2 data ...]
>
>The only negative to all this is that Americans have allowed themselves
>to fall so far behind in science that Al Gore will have little trouble
>lying to the American public about how bad the environment is.  We have
>forgotten that only 20 years ago the prophets of doom were forcasting a
>coming Ice Age.  They were wrong then, and Al Gore is wrong now.

I must confess that I don't know the CO2 statistics like you do, but
what about the other pollutants?  You didn't offer any stats on
them.  Why is L.A.'s smog condition so bad?  Why does California
have special emissions?  Why do they not recommend idling your
car with the rear-hatchback open?  CO, methane and other gasses abound,
as well as solid pollutants.

If CO2 were the only thing that cars spit out that was bad, we'd be
in good shape.  Unfortunately....

As for Gore being wrong, I'm not sure.  I think it's more of an opinion
thing.  I'm not as conscientious as I could be, but I really don't consider
the earth to be something that we can push to it's limits and then
bounce back, once we found those limits.

-pet-
--
Michael A. Petonic	       petonic@hal.com		       +1-512-794-2855
        HaL Computer Systems International, Ltd. -- A Bermuda Corporation
                     Director of Dangerous Activities  [ACK to GeoffK@ism780c]
				 Austin, Texas
                          "No balls, no blue chip."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Willie Horton's Legacy (Was Re: SPRINGTIME FOR THE BUSHMAN)
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:17:22 GMT

rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:

>Short memories are so convenient for the Democrats!

And apparently even more convenient for Republicans!

>Did you forget that
>it was none other than Al Gore that started using Willie Horton as a
>political topic to make Dukakis look bad, for his own political gain in
>the primaries in 1988?

When are you Limbots going to admit that this accusation is a mis-representation
of the real facts of what happened in the 1988 primaries? Al gore did not
"start using Willie Horton". He questioned the validity of the program which
was ultimately responsible for what Willie Horton did.

>As far as the Republicans picking up on it and
>using it, they didn't air the ad nationally anyway.

Oh yes, that's right. They only aired it in areas which were racially
sensitive, didn't they?

>However, what if they
>had?  What's the big deal about telling the truth about the criminal
>justics system in Massachussetts? 

HALF-truths. They made it sound like it was ALL Dukakis's fault, when
he was strapped by his state's legislature which are reacing to overcrowding
prisons. There were many factors which influenced the final act of Willie
Horton, least of which is Dukakis's signing of that particular bill.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23622 alt.politics.clinton:16990 alt.president.clinton:363
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: What the people REALLY want, was Re: Its starting....
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:47:30 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

grumpy@jpradley.jpr.com (Jeff Markel) states
>In article <1992Nov9.202406.18220@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>There is plenty of evidence that people want a less intrusive, less
>>expensive, more responsive government. 
>
>There is also plenty of evidence to the contrary.  Propose cutting some
>government program or other.  Then sit back and watch the fur fly as 
>the "conservative" electorate scream bloody murder because their favorite
>piece of pork is going away.  The American electorate has become used to
>getting what they want and, for the last 12 years at least, without having
>to pay for it.
>
>                        Jeff Markel
Ok i propose that we cut the budjet by 56%, only have to cut one thing,
welfare and social programs. Somehow i doubt it would be the
conservatives who would scream at this proposal.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.
The meek can _have_ the Earth, the rest of us are going to the stars.(Heinlein)
		*** H. Ross Perot in '96 ***
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:22737 alt.activism:18407 alt.politics.marrou:2114
From: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.activism,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Libernet: a libertarian/classical-liberal digest and forum
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:08:13 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu

This is an announcement for Libernet, posted every couple of months
or so to the Usenet politics newsgroups.

***
Members of the network community should know about Libernet,
a mailing-list/discussion group.  Libernet is intended to be a
real-world, high-quality forum for libertarians, classical liberals, and others
interested in applying the philosophy of liberty to tough
policy questions. 

Libernet is for anyone interested in good discussion and provocative ideas, 
including (especially) non-libertarians who are curious about the libertarian 
perspective.  Criticism is not only tolerated but encouraged, provided it is 
kept civil and does not choke the list.  

Libernet is available in two subscription modes: "reflected" and "batch".
"reflected" mode subscribers will receive Libernet messages one at a time,
as they are sent out.  "batch" mode subscribers receive groups of Libernet 
messages in RFC 1154 Digest format, the defacto standard for e-mail digests.
(If you don't know what this means don't worry about it; nothing special
is required to receive batch mode messages).  These batches are published 
daily.  Subscribers should indicate which mode they prefer.

If interested, send mail to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu.  Thank you.

--Barry Fagin (libernet-request@dartmouth.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:32:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.221354.3407@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>>>>    DC            4
>>
>>>Gee, go figure!  Why do you think it might be that Washington
>>>D.C. only voted 4% for Perot when the national average was 20%?
>>
>>Probably.  DC is mostly minority, and they didn't want Perot cordoning 
>>off minority neighborhoods and searching door-to-door for guns and drugs.
>>
>	But that's even low for minority voting. According to ABC's exit
>polls, Perot got 7% of the minority vote, and Bush got something like
>8%, with Clinton getting the rest. 

Don't forget the plus or minus three percent in the polls.  "Perot got 7%"
is really "There's a 95% chance Perot got 4% - 10% of minority votes."
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: January Surprise
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:13:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

crosen@world.std.com (Carl Rosen) writes:

[ Bush torpedoes GATT and starts a trade war with Europe ]

>I state flatly that this is a political maneuver directed by the Republican
>Party to stall the early days of the Clinton Administration.  Nice move.

And expect more. George Herbert Walker's last three months in office
will be spent in rigging a January surprise for Clinton. If he gets
away with it, there will be no transition, just a debacle.

One thing he's already done is to commit a lot of money for porkbarrel
projects (rebuilding Hanscom Air Force base in Florida [which was
scheduled to close before Andrew levelled it], building the V22 Osprey
helicrasher [which the DOD says it doesn't want], etc.). To have a
hope of reducing the deficit, Clinton will have to cancel these, to
the chagrin of those living in the areas affected. Republicans will
then start hollering about how Clinton's destroying jobs.

Also remember that he was CIA director under Ford. So he's got some
ties to the boys with the black bags, too, and will probably keep on
pulling them after he's out of office. On a happier note, the CIA's
charter prevents them from conducting domestic covert operations
against U.S. nationals, so they couldn't possibly be doing anything
like pulling media strings or sabotaging the economy.

Right.

Any speculation on what else it will be?


      _/_/_/    _/_/_/_/    _/        _/  Stephen P. Masticola          .^.
    _/         _/     _/   _/_/    _/_/  ProLangs  Research  Group     /   7
   _/         _/     _/   _/ _/  _/ _/  Dept. of Computer Science     (   C
    _/_/     _/_/_/_/    _/  _/_/  _/  Rutgers University              \   `J
       _/   _/          _/   _/   _/  Hill Center, Busch Campus        ,>   /
      _/   _/          _/        _/  New Brunswick,  NJ  08904        (    //
_/_/_/    _/          _/        _/  masticol @ cs.rutgers.edu          \  //
                                   Voice:   (908) 932 - 4070            `U
                                  Fax:     (908) 932 - 0537              '
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot,soc.culture.african.american
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Perot's Vote Percentage State-by-State
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:04:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.150210.23931@kpc.com>, emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.211001.19136@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >The DC vote has *always* mirrored the national African-American vote.  
> >And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the African-American vote did indeed 
> >go 87-9-4, Clinton-Bush-Perot, just like DC.
> >
> >Take your conspiracy theories to Scott Barnes.  The rest of us know how
> >to think.
> 
> By the way, If all these African-Americans don't work for the government
> (as the deleted part of Mr Frank's post implies), who do they work for?

Mostly they don't work.  Or is cleaning toilets considered to be a plum
government job?

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Colorado Weather and turnout - GREAT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:05:53 GMT

I can speak for only one precinct in Boulder, CO, but the turnout
was amazing.  334 of 369 registered voters turned out in mine.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics