HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 12:08:59 GMT

In article <4062@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.143749.7999@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>
>>Of course. All Nazi scumbags are "vociferous critics of Israel".
>>
>>To avoid an uproar, I am NOT saying that all critics of Israel
>>are Nazis and/or antisemites.
>
>Thank God for your saying this Danny.
>
>Let you be the first and not the last.
	
I'll add my voice to Danny's.

>Anisa

	-Nora


-- 
"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 16:30:10 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1b4kf5INNn84@news.aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
|> In article <9531@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> >In <=+4-zv_@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> >
|> >>I agree completely.  Raising taxes will not fix the deficit, it won't
|> >>even reduce it.  Government consistenly spends $1.50 for every additional
|> >>$1 it receives in revenue.
|> >
|> >The members of our house of lords was quite upset when this study came out.
|> >(I believe the actual numbers for that study were $1.58.)  They ordered the
|> >CBO to do a study of their own, specifically to debunk the findings.
|> >The CBO study found that the resulting numbers were quite sensitive to the
|> >time frames selected.  (The article I saw did not go any further in discussing
|> >just how the time frames were selected.)  After much labor the CBO was able
|> >to demonstrate that by carefully selecting the time frame and other factors
|> >that new spending only goes up by $1.05 for each dollar of new spending.
|> ...
|> 
|> If increasing taxes by $1.00 raises the deficit by $1.05 to $1.58 the answer
|> is obvious.
|> 
|> Deacrease taxes to $0.00. The deficit will go down by a tremendous amount.
|> If it isn't enough to bring the deficit to $.00 then decrease taxes to some
|> large negatiave number. The negative number can be made arbitraily large.
|> Thus the deficit can be reduced enough so that it goes through zero and
|> becomes a surplus.
|> 

N.S. (but I'm sure you knew that)  Saying that for every additional dollar
in revenue spending increases by a greater amount says absolutely
nothing about what happens if tax revenues are decreased.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50777 alt.politics.perot:1953 alt.politics.elections:16029
From: jej20@ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:13:29 GMT
Reply-To: jej20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Jerry E Joplin)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1b4jv4INNn6i@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>I see statements like this all of the time. But it is not very helpful.
>It makes me wonder what are the entitlements. Which ones are big and which
>ones are growing the most. Does any one have data that breaks down the
>entitlements into 5 or 10 subsets of the overall entitlements, showing 
>their percentage of the budget and their rate of growth? Or can anyone
>point me to such a summary.
>
>The statement about entitlements as an overall package is not very 
>helpfull in trying to understand an approach to solve the problem.
>
>Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer

What, you mean actually try to understand and solve the problem???
Wow, what a concept.  :-)

I can fill in part of the puzzle using Perot's numbers from 
_United_We_Stand_.  Any Concord Coalition folks out there willing
to help out with the rest?

                                    Amount        % of    rate of 
  1992 Federal Entitlement Outlays  (Billions)    Budget  Growth(91-92)
  --------------------------------  ----------   -------  -----------

  Social Security Payments [a]      $293         19.53%         ?
  Health Care Benefits              $200         13.33%      12.0%
  Pension & Veteran Benefits         $84          5.60%         ?
  Unemployment & Family Support      $71          4.73%         ?
  Food & Housing Benefits            $52          3.47%         ?
  Other Nonretirement (includes      $28          1.87%         ?
    Farm Price Supports a
    Student Loans)
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  1992 Total Entitlement Outlays    $728          48.53%     11.88%    

  [a] Extremely important category is Social Security Payments.
      When the baby boomers start retiring around the year 2020, 
      this figure is going to skyrocket.

Jerry Joplin   Sunnyvale,CA | I do not speak for Amdahl Corporation.
joplin@mcode.amdahl.com     |  
Compu$erve: 70441,2627      | All these worlds are yours, except California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Future of Republican Party after Clinton wins (was Sixteen more years)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:05:39 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <CB.92Oct12152604@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
]What's happening to them is the mirror image of the Democrats 20 years
]ago.  As Matt says, it derives from having won some elections; factions
]within the party start to put more priority on their particular beliefs
]than on making the whole messy coalition win an election.  Clinton's

I think this is an excellent analysis.

]talent, so far, is in understanding what's possible and what isn't, and
]getting enough people to agree on a few beliefs while letting others
]ride.  If this historical cycle plays out the way the last one did, wait
]16 or 20 years to see victory-hungry Republicans forging a more
]legitimate consensus, and defeating spoiled Democrats who have again
]broken into factions.

I think it will happen sooner than that. I think this cycle will look more
like that Carter situation - the Republican party was torn up then also,
but we recovered in four years and elected Reagan over an incumbent. Unless
Clinton is very careful, the radicals in the Democratic party will
emerge very quickly after the election, and will cause him a lot of trouble.
Carter was personally quite a bit more moderate than his administration was,
because there were then, and are now, a lot of very liberal beltway policy 
wonks just waiting for a democratic administration.

The question is whether the Republican party can cool down the religious
right. We certainly can't cool down all of them because some are true
fanatics, but we might convince them that republicans are the best that
they can hope for. As a libertarian conservative, I believe that we
need to get out of the government-enforced morals business, but get
into the idea that individuals need to have their own morals, and that
government should not excuse criminal or slothful behavior.

On the other hand, here in Arizona we have a possible example disaster for the
republican party, and it isn't pretty. A radical conservative/religious
right (mostly Mormon) minority of the Republican party split the party
and cost us a number of elections. This minority is headed by Evan Mecham,
a man whose conservative policies many of us agree with, but who is
personally a despicable character and who is a religious nut. The Arizona
Republican party is just now recovering from him. He is currently running
as an independent against Republican Senator John McCain and is polling
so low that it looks like he is no longer a factor. If this sort of nasty
factional fight breaks out at the national level, we will indeed be
in a lot of trouble.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:59:30
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Oct8.184153.8840@nntpserver.chevron.com>
	<JASON.92Oct9135511@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:55:11 GMT

In article <JASON.92Oct9135511@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:

> 	The point Bush was making is not that Clinton was involved in
> war protests, but that he was supporting the other side.  He
> apparently went to Russia to protest against America.

No reason to suppose anything of the sort.  He went to Russia during
his Christmas vacation as part of a tour group which stopped in (among
other places) Finland and Russia.

Why concoct bizarre explanations for something that is perfectly
natural?  Clinton was a minor participant in the anti-war movement; he
was also a 23-year old who felt like travelling around Europe during
his Christmas vacation since he was already there.  Where on Earth is
the connection?
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Russians Release '69 KGB Blackmail Film of Clinton in Drug Orgy...
Date: 9 Oct 1992 23:36:58 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Since Brave-Bill isn't telling one way or the other, why 
shouldn't I believe he's been compromised??

I wouldn't trust him in a fire-fight, why should I believe 
the best of him or give him the benefit of the doubt?

Bill Clinton's background and personality fits a pattern
that foreign intelligence agencies would have tried to 
exploit. Why should I believe they didn't -- if he won't
tell us about his "vacation" from Oxford to Moscow and
other parts of the Soviet Union?? Especially, when it was
known he had a problem with US policy which he had
protested at Oxford, and that he had future political aspira-
tions? 

IF IT WAS JUST A VACATION -- THEN WHY NOT TELL US ABOUT IT?

Was Clinton particularly susceptible due to his idealism,
and the notoriety of being a Rhodes Scholar and an anti-war
activist? How about his ego? With the way he's tried to 
appeal to everyone now, isn't he particularly vulnerable to
exploitation, even without considering his desire to be 
president? How can I know? If he wouldn't stand beside his
countrymen and fight with them, and instead would criticize
them from abroad -- why should I give him the benefit of the
doubt??? 

Right now I don't know what to believe; so be brave BILL 
-- tell us about your excellent vacation. That's all it 
was, right?


-- Stephen Tice     Arlington Texas    10-09-92
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: PEROT'S 1ST "INFOMERCIAL"
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:12:01 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <ld68adINNr8u@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
> Thomas Hill) writes:
> |> 
> |>    You didn't see any fixes because that will come in part II this Friday. To
> |> fix a problem you must first understand it. Perot took an entire half hour to
> |> show you all the problems. Think about that for a second. As to your remark
> |> about it being "nothing new". Yes, the problems have always been there. The
> |> problem is that our two candidates won't even pay lip service to them. Why?
> 
> You are about to answer a statement that isn't even true.  It is reasonable
> to say you don't agree with their solutions or their priorities, but it is
> not a fact they they do not address these problems.
> 
> Bush:	If we reduce the taxes on the rich enough, they will create an
> 	economy that will solve the problem for us.

	His (current) position is to reduce taxes.  His opponents claim that
only the rich will benefit.

> Clinton: We can redirect the money we are already spending, along with a
> 	an incresed tax on the rich, to create an economy with targed
> 	government programs that will solve the problem for us.
> Libertarians: Governement is the problem.  If we eliminate it everything will
> 	be solved for us.

	Not elminate, and not by magic will the economy improve.  Reduce
government intervention, let people allocate their own resources.

> Perot:	If we pay enough taxes, all our problems will be soved for us.

	He also wants to reduce spending.  He has the classic myopia about tax
revenues, though.  He thinks the only way revenues will increase by increasing
the rate, despite evidence supporting the Laffer Curve.

> My choice is clear.  Others feel the same way (though they may
> not come up with the same answer).  I am still open to hear Perot (or
> others I don't plan today to vote for) come up with something
> that will change my mind about the best way to undo the damage of
> the last many (OK, more than 12) years.  Perot didn't do it
> last night.

	No, he only presented the problem.  He did do it very well though.  My
wife reports that at the GM plant where she works, the hourly people are 90% in
favor of Perot.
	Back to the July level, and up from about 50% when he returned.  "Ross
for Boss" is everywhere.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: KKKaldis Alert
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:57:47 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <nyikos.719178053@milo.math.scarolina.edu>,
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
> 
> By South Carolina law, [Lot's] daughters were guilty of Third Degree 
> Criminal Sexual Conduct, punishable by up to ten (10) years in prison.

I don't believe they happened to be in that particular jurisdiction; in any
event, I'm sure the statute of limitations on this offense is somewhat less
than 4,000 years.

Your capacity for looking silly is literally unfathomable.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51355 ba.politics:6065
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 7 Oct 1992 20:47:19 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

john@anasazi.com writes:
> To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
> Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
> "willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
> and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
> least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
> reprehensible and offensive.

1.  Russia was not the enemy in the vietnam war.  North Vietnam and
    China were the "main enemies."

2.  Russia was our enemy during the cold war, but Bush, Reagan, thier
    staffs, and our ambassadors all spent more time in Russia when
    they were the "main enemy" than Clinton did.

3.  When on vacation or going to school in England, your ideas go
    with you.  If they didn't, that would be suspect.

4.  If Clinton was a member of the KGB, he is out of a job.

5.  If Clinton, as a KGB agent, led Arkansas to the improvements
    seen over the last 12 years, maybe we should recruit more.

6.  If Bush supporters actually think this is an issue, then
    Clinton, Perot, and Marrou (sp?) supporters are sure glad their 
    candidates have real issues to campaign on.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
In-reply-to: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:55:11 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<1992Oct8.184153.8840@nntpserver.chevron.com>
	<JASON.92Oct9135511@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:39:57 CDT

Jason Austin writes:

      The point Bush was making is not that Clinton was involved in
   war protests, but that he was supporting the other side.  He
   apparently went to Russia to protest against America.  

WRONG.  He participated in, and organized, some war protests in the US
and UK.  He was a tourist in the USSR; there's no connection.

	   One thing I wonder is why Clinton is avoiding this issue
   completely.  Instead of coming clean, ...
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
THERE'S NOTHING TO COME CLEAN ABOUT!!!!  What is there to say but that
he spent a few days in Moscow?  

While we're at it, when will you come clean about what you did last
June?  We're waiting for an explanation!

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 08:08:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.033321.19865@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.101316.25454@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>    >Let me see if I follow the way you're thinking. You don't
>    >think there is a conspiracy or a way of thinking that
>    >discounts (perhaps even hides) the work women do, yet you do
>    >think that women scientists have "gotten the shitty end of
>    >the stick a lot"? So, when women scientists get the shitty
>    >end of the stick a lot, it isn't because of sexism or
>    >misogyny, it's just that shit happens?
>
>From observation, the objective qualities that seem to make things happen
>the best, in both business and science, are qualities that are often thought
>of as masculine and as such, for whatever reasons, not as readily
>adopted by women.

Ah, perhaps, but what does that have to do with my question?  Are you
implying female scientists get the shitty end of the stick because
they don't readily adopt these objective qualities?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52369 alt.politics.clinton:10920 alt.activism:17566
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.activism
Subject: Deja Vu all over again
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:26:14 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Will you Clinton people get a clue and stop posting everything to
Usenet 3-4-5 times?

	And the people following up a 200 line message, including all text and
saying "yeah!", well, please stop.

	We don't need a preview of Clinton inefficiency

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Weeping Hayek
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:35:39 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct15.182210.27540@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) writes:
>s students at the University of Rochester discussed the inevitability of a 
>Clinton/Gore victory in November, a picture of F.A. Hayak actually cried.
>This miraculous event, witnessed by dozens, is taken as sure sign that elect-
>ing Clinton in November will send us down "The Road to Serfdom".

There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general
level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security
[security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a
given minimum of sustenance for all] should not be guaranteed to
all without endangering general freedom.... An incautious handling
of these questions might well cause serious and perhaps even
dangerous political problems; but there can be no doubt that some
minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve
health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody....

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the
individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against
which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make
adequate provision....  Where, in short, we deal with genuinely
insurable risk -- the case for the state's helping to organize a
comprehensive insurance is very strong....  But there is no
incompatibility in principle between the stateUs providing greater
security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom....
Wherever communal action can mitigate diasters against which the
individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision
for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be
taken.

F.A. Hayek, _The Road to Serfdom_, pp.120ff.


	Everywhere was boundless divinity
	containing all astonishing things,
	wearing divine garlands and garments,
	annoited with divine perfume.		-- Bhagavad-Gita 11
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: saarinen@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Sirpa Saarinen)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:24:58 GMT

kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:

[here someone else that I have accidentally erased]
>> independent of who is President and what he does.  A Clinton/Gore win
>> in 1992 will lead to
>> 
>>      Clinton/Gore in 1996
>> 
>>      Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)
>> 
>>      Gore/Braun in 2004
>> 
>Wrong, Bush will get it this year, VERY, VERY close and then Kemp in '96.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please post the data that you base your prediction on [of a close Bush 
victory]! Does this mean that all those polls are wrong? Do all of those
who are polled lie (actually, do both rep's and dem's lie)? I can understand
a 4 % difference but in many states the difference is 10 % (very much
above a sample error).

I and many others are waiting to hear from you!

Sirpa Saarinen
saarinen@csrd.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics