HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: more predictions
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<uqcDqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:08:00 GMT

In article <uqcDqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:

  > In article <1992Aug28.150841.13262@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu
   (alex)
   >>     A strong president can keep congress in line, look at Ronald Reagans
   >> first term. Bush just doesn't have any direction, so congress does 
   >> whatever the hell they want.
   >>
   >> During Reagan's first term, the Senate was a republican majority.

   Only for the first two years.  And the House hasn't been in GOP hands
   in almost forty.

Right. So don't blame the Repubs!!

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
When I break down just a little, I lose my head. No one can understand a
word that I say..
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41436 alt.politics.elections:11348 alt.politics.clinton:2665 alt.politics.bush:2583
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:50:14 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Hey, John Moore in Scottsdale!  I bet you also voted for that guy
who thought space aliens were spying on him with laser beams???

	Bye, Judy.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Myths
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:43:48 GMT

<In article <81626@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

<Earlier, I made two points in response to the ongoing debate in this newsgroup
<and elsewhere over the RKBA:

	One wonders why Wojcik would not include tpm in 
	the newsgroup line....

<1)  There is no good reason to believe that "well-regulated militia" only
<  referred to a "well-trained militia," and not the more usual sense
<  of a controlled body.  

	False. See the Federalist Papers for a start.

<  2)  The defenders of the so-called "RKBA" as an individual right rest their
< case on the "original intent" doctrine, which many legal scholars reject
< on the grounds that the doctrine itself is incompatible with the original
<  intent of the framers.

	Not completely. RKBA as an individual right has been
	affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 19th and 20th
	centuries. Verdugo-Urquidez is the most recent example
	in which the RKBA was cited as an individual right
	along with free speech, right against self-incrimination
	and so forth.

<Despite a direct challenge that people come up with counterevidence to (1), nobody
<has.  

	False. It has been posted on talk.politics.guns.

<This does not mean that the contrary claim will not be made over and over
<and over again in this newsgroup.  Only that that claim remains unusupported now
<and probably will remain unsupported in the future.

	False again.

<The problem with (2) is that it seems so counterintuitive.  Do the courts really
<have the power to change or reverse the original intentions of
<lawmakers?  


	Since the Supreme Court has AFFIRMED the 2nd as
	an individual right in the last 2 years, this
	is a moot point with regard to RKBA at this time.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:53:55 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <11970@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I discount the idea of homosexuality being more than just sex
>because I read soc.motss, and it's clear that at least with gay
>men, there's nothing more than animal sex involved.  (Excuse
>me, I'm insulting animals -- I've never seen an animal need 
>leather, whips, or instruments of bondage to enjoy sex.  Animals
>are also MUCH less promiscuous than soc.motss members).

Three pieces of advice:

1. Seek ye for friendship a gay man who enjoys nothing you have said he
must enjoy in order to be gay. You will find these men suprisingly easy
to find, that is, if you leave your computer terminal.

2. Follow through on the ol' Cramer logic: First you imply that animalistic
sex is bad. Then you imply that sex without accoutrements like leather is
good. Then you say that animals don't need accoutrements, like you, therefore
their sex is good (caveat lector: this assumes you think YOUR sex is good).
Contradiction number one...

3. Read soc.motss without a filter.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:13:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.153530.13845@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
 
   [...]
>
>However, I don't think the present evolution of the term
>_liberal_ is a Orwellian.  _Liberal_ has always meant several
>different things.  Modern liberalism was constructed to
>manage several problems which the bourgeoisie or managing
>class thought had to be solved or at least mitigated to
>preserve the capitalist system and their position in it. ...
>--
Talk about the absence of historical perspective! "Liberal" originally
referred to the phlisophy of Locke et al, and had to do with the rights
of the individual as opposed to those of the state.
 
Now, property rights were, and are, considered to be primary in this
philosophy, uninformed speculation to the contrary. You can't have a
right to privacy without having private property. You can construct a
mystical argument about "eminations from the penumbra" of certain
amendments, as Douglas did, or you can simply say that private property
is inviolable and from that follows a right to privacy upon that property.
Similarly the right of free press, in the words of A.J. Leibling, "belongs
to those who own one". Socialists have a hard time with this one. How
can you justify a free press when the state owns the press? How can the
state justify devoting resources to something like an opposition press that
threatens the stability of the state? Freedom of religion- can you have a
free expression of religion when the state owns your meeting rooms, pays
your pastor and controls the press that prints your doctrines and books of
worship?  And so forth.        --mike
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42749 talk.politics.soviet:7490
From: greenie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Live Electronic Conference On Elections
Date: 29 Aug 92 15:45:12 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

I'm posting this message for the Conference Hosts;

The IDS World Network will be holding a "live", CB-Simulator chat conference
on the 1992 election and the candidates.  Topics currently being considered
include The Economy, Healthcare, Education, Family Values, Abortion, and
"World Leadership Role".

The first discussion will take place on September 4th from 7PM EST until
9:30PM EST.

We invite everyone to participate.  CB Chat discussions on the IDS World
Network are completely free.

To reach the IDS World Network, TELNET to ids.net [155.212.1.2].  If you have
an account already, you're all set, although you can apply for one by signing
on with GUEST as a username.

That's September 4th, 7PM EST on the IDS World Network CB Simulator.
telnet ids.net [155.212.1.2]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43063 talk.bizarre:28291 ba.politics:4933 ca.politics:7297
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:45:31 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug30.191904.10455@waikato.ac.nz>, spt@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia) writes:
> In article <11996@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > 
> > This is what I expect though from liberals -- trying to justify
> > a clearly crazy person with a deadly weapon.
> 
> Which crazy person with the gun do you mean.  The Chancellor, the Activist, or
> yourself?

The crazy person with a deadly weapon had a machete, not a gun.



-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: A Brief History of Discrimination in the Military
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:04:17 -0500
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12776; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:11:30 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA13516; Tue, 25 Aug 92 17:10:36 -0700
X-Received: from sub.its.rpi.edu (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB32);id AA15153; Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:10:28 EDT for alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by sub.its.rpi.edu (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/RPI-ITS-SUB13-AIXV3);id AA13248; Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:04:17 -0400 for bisexu-l@brownvm.brown.edu@rpi.edu
X-To: alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet
X-Cc: talk.politics.misc.usenet


a History of Discrimination in the American Military

1911: Rear Admiral Edward Barry , Commander of the US Pacific Fllet was forced
     to resign after an alleged liaison with a cabin boy.

1943: Military Psychiatrists define homosexuality as a medical condition, rather
       than a criminal act. Homosexuals are discharged.

1948: President Harry Truman allows African-Americans to serve in the military.

1976: Miriam Ben-Shalom is discharged honorably from the U.S. Army for
      acknowledging her lesbian identity.

1986: Army Reserve Captain Dusty Pruitt is discharged after stating that she is
      a lesbian in a newspaper interview.

1987: Miriam Ben-Shalom is re-instated.

1987: The Pruitt case is dismissed; the judge says the courts are required to 
      give ``substantial deference'' to Army regulations.

1987: The U.S. Naval Academy forces Joseph  Steffan to resign.

1991: (August) _The Advocate_ outs Assistant Secretary of Defense Pete 
      Williams, drawing attention to the hypocrisy of the policy.

1991: (November) Rep Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduces a resolution calling 
      upon the president to rescind the ban against lesbians and gays in the
      military.

1991: (December) An 85 year old judge calls Joseph Steffan a ``homo'' and 
      upholds the Navy's decision, citing AIDS.

1992: (May) Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) announces the introduction of the
      Military Freedom Act of 1992, which wuld prohibit discrimination based
      on sexual orientation in the Armed Forces.

1992: (July) Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer, a decorated 23 year Viet Nam nurse,
      is discharged for revealing her lesbian identity during questioning for
      a security clearance.
      
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``D.C. in '93!''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
According to SPY Magazine, George Bush has had extra-marital sex with 6 women.
The one they named is JENNIFER FITZGERALD.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42953 alt.politics.elections:12016 talk.politics.theory:3949
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:20:22 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <1685481A1.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.153530.13845@panix.com>
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> 
>   [...]
>>
>>However, I don't think the present evolution of the term
>>_liberal_ is a Orwellian.  _Liberal_ has always meant several
>>different things.  Modern liberalism was constructed to
>>manage several problems which the bourgeoisie or managing
>>class thought had to be solved or at least mitigated to
>>preserve the capitalist system and their position in it. ...
>>--
>Talk about the absence of historical perspective! "Liberal" originally
>referred to the phlisophy of Locke et al, and had to do with the rights
>of the individual as opposed to those of the state.
> 

Sir, you have clearly not read the original - and lengthy - articles
which Mr. Fitch has posted on this subject. You may not agree with
their conclusions, but you would hardly be able to argue that they
are 'lacking in historical perspective'. Indeed, that is their
foundation.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:35:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug27.083015.42592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>In article <92239.170834DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>> 
>> So who are the 'Cultural Elite' Bush & Quayle are so fond of
>> warning us about anyway?

>The "cultural elite" are roughly those who have a highly
>disproportionate access to influence on educated public opinion: the
>overwhelming majority of academics and a clear majority of media
>people.  Rather obviously, they are predominantly Liberal.  This is
>difficult?

  It's difficult to substantiate.   Despite some of the PC nonsense
  emanating from campuses these days, I have no reason to assume 
  that "the overwhelming majority of academics" are liberal.  Care
  to document this?   

  I have seen other data suggesting that "the overwhelming majority"
  of owners of newspapers and radio and TV stations are *Republicans*
  (this was one of the points used to justify "equal access" laws 
  concerning political advertising).    But on the other hand I've
  also heard of a recent study indicating that TV news broadcasters
  may have an implicitly liberal slant in their reports (some media
  watchdog group counted the number of references to certain words
  etc, reported last week on NPR but I don't recall the details)

  There is also this: let's suppose "the media" ARE overwhelmingly
  liberal.  The "media" market in the US is the finest example of 
  a free market on earth!   People with cable have, perhaps, *60*
  TV channels to choose from.  There are *dozens* of radio stations 
  within the range of most people, and *hundreds* of newspapers,
  magazines, and other printed publications.  So there is astounding
  *choice*.  Moreover the nature of a media market, unlike a durable
  goods market, or even, say, a "market" for political candidates,
  is that this choice can be expressed easily and almost instantaneously;
  again, perfect conditions for a free market to function.   

  So if the media are "liberal" then presumably this is what the
  market prefers!   If liberal _Time_ outsells conservative _National
  Review_ 50:1 (or whatever it is) maybe this should suggest to Dan
  Quayle that his notions of who's "populist" and who's "elite" are
  not quite on target.   Could it be that Dan Quayle's support for free 
  markets is not as enthusiastic as he claims?
  
  
---peter




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany)
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 11:26:44 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:


>	C) taxes...

>	Tax cuts, for example, are not problem.  Despite the cries of 'debt' and
>'deficit' tax cuts enable the economy to grow, providing more revenue.  Only
>cutting spending will get rid of the debt.  You could increase the revenues
>exponentially, but as long as spending is greater than intake, you'll have
>deficits and a debt.  So the problem is not taxes, but spending.

Tax cuts can be a problem. In the mid-80s the UK cut it's income tax rates
and caused a boom. However the economy overheated leading to high
inflation and eventual deep recession. If the extra disposable income caused
by tax cuts is channeled into imports (eg japanese stereos) then the growth
occurs abroad but the inflation occurs at home. This leads to loss of 
competativeness and hence jobs and also puts the squeeze on government
revenue which may require a tax rise. The balance of payments deficits 
deteriorates and companies will pass into foreign ownership (eg  US/Japan
trade gap in 80s and transfer of property &companies to japanese control).
In short a tax cut had better have minimal effect to succeed and the indigenous
industrial base had better be able to pick up on the expansion in consumer
power.

Darragh J Delany
Trinity College, Dublin
-- 
Dj.

ESS students don't have plans, silly 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gross@monarch.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 20:46:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Aug27.072315.1702@meteor.wisc.edu> stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.021557.11240@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <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?
>>
>>Well, let's see if I can get close to the Taxpayer's Union number.
>>
>>Federal Income Tax		33.0%
>>Social Security Tax		 7.5%
>>Ga Income Tax			 6.0%
>>Ga Sales Tax			 5.0%
>>County Sales Tax		 1.0%
>>Subtotal percentage taxes	52.5%
>
>STOP! Let's do the math more reasonably:
>State income tax usually allows you to subtract fed tax so the 6% is more like
>4%.
>Sales tax (5%+1%) is a % of what? Not total income! And not even most
>expenses. Your mortgage or rent isn't sales taxed. Much of your grocery bill
>isn't sales taxed. And that accounts for a large fraction of your 
>after-income-tax income. So this 6% is more like 2%. 
>So far we knocked off 6%, so the subtotal is at 46.5%.

Taxation of groceries depends on the state.  Here in NC, we pay tax on
all groceries!

Further, during the year, you pay both Federal and State income tax.  If
you live in certain states, you may well pay a county and city income
tax in addition to the others.

During the year, a person may well pay out a considerable amount of
money in taxes, much of which is not recoverable under current Federal
income tax laws, and most state tax laws.

I don't know about taxing rent in all states, nor for that matter here
in NC.  I did rent up until two years ago when I bought my own home.  I
simply paid the rent.  But I also pay property tax on my home, plus
interest payments on the amount still owing to the lender.

Something that I've never understood about the '86 tax law, why was the
consumer interest removed as a deduction?  In fact, why the '86 tax law
in the first place!!?  It has really been a bummer.   

Gene
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Are Tax and Spenders in second place
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:19:47 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

During an interview on PBS yesterday, the statement was made that if you
added up all federal welfare programs since the 1930's (the onset of 
federal welfare), the total is a small percentage of the S&L bail-out
cost.  Does anyone have access to data to support or refute this?

_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43253 sci.econ:7309
From: ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ashish Arora)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:41:29 GMT
Organization: Heinz School, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 1-Sep-92 Re: Supply-side economics by
Jim Howe@citi.umich.edu 

> False.  Inflation occurs because of increases in the money supply.
> Money spent on imports will generally be returned in the form of
> increased exports (either goods, services or investments).

I've seen this assertion more than once and am moved to take issue with
it.  Briefly,
i) A british company buying a US company (investments as stated above)
does not constitute exports by the US.
  
ii) The debt crisis in many Latin American countries shows that spending
on imports by a country is no guarantee that that the country in
question will also export.  There may be some second round effects for a
country the size of the US; nonetheless, it is extremely unlikely that
spending on import will be fully compensated by exports.

iii) In the past, US trade deficits (excess of import spending over
exports) were mainly financed by creditors in other countries holding
dollars.  In that limited sense, the above assertion is true.  I
believe, and am willing to be corrected, that that happy state of
affairs no longer persists.  

cheers

Ashish
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:38:49 GMT

In <1992Sep2.175839.27113@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:

>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>: In article <1992Sep1.181045.8108@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>: >pn> Peter Nelson
>: >
>: >pn> As a recent poll posted here on Usenet, and plenty of others have shown,
>: >pn> big government programs are what the voters WANT!  They demand that their
>: >pn> elected officials "bring home the bacon" and this alone is the metric by
>: >pn> which they judge and elect them.
>: >
>: >  You're half-right. Too many voters want the bacon, but without the pork or
>: >  the *associated costs*. That's why people can say "Yes, I want national
>: >  health insurance, and a strong defense, and welfare for the poor, and a
>: >  secure SS program, &c, but go to hell if you expect me to pay more taxes!"
>: 
>:   I wasn't trying to leave that part out of the issue; I just took it for
>:   granted that this was understood (that the nobody wants to pay for these
>:   things).   
>: 
>You should not take it for granted. Many of us think that our taxes are the
>price we should be paying for good government. It's not true that nobody 
>wants to pay; we just don't want to pay more than our fair share.
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh nooooooooooo! Grade A flame bait!

-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
So many newsgroups, so little time...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton