HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Keep the gridlock locked!
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:48:48 CDT

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

|I thought that Bush said somewhere in his acceptance speech that he would
|'never again cooperate with the Democratic Congress', or something to that
|effect. The context was the 1990 budget agreement, which included a tax
|increase, but Bush clearly is saying that he will not sign any such thing
|again.
|
|Some might suggest that compromise is the essence of democratic (small 'd')
|government. Maybe Bush should pay some attention.
|
|- Don Pajerek
|
|Standard disclaimers apply.
|

Maybe voters want government to be in a gridlock.  Just maybe that is
our way of saying that we really don't want more laws.  Maybe that is
how we say that we want less government and not more.  If we keep those
blundering numskils busy fighting each other, they will have less time
to interfere with us.  Maybe the real reason we are so upset with Bush
is that he gave in and compromised with the Democratic congress and
allowed them to get something done, thus burdening our lives.  Maybe
we would really like someone who can do less than he did.  Maybe we
are feeling like it is hopeless to expect them to undo anything they
have done, to take away any taxes, or spending, or projects, or new
agencies, once they got started.  Maybe, just maybe, all we can do is 
prevent them from doing anything else!


Keep the gridlock!  Keep Quale!  ;^)

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

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43275 sci.econ:7311
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:39:24 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <thompson.715376796@kiyotaki.econ.umn.edu>,
thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:
|> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|>  
|> >	Of course not.  But cutting taxes is a start.  As is reducing
|> spending.
|> [remainder of post deleted]
|> 
|> Without more solid evidence that tax cuts actually do what you claim
|> these are simply assertions of belief.  The advise might be good,
|> since there are certainly good theoretical reasons for using economic
|> incentives to achieve economic (and even noneconomic) goals.  But the
|> evidence that other forces are unimportant or counterproductive simply
|> isn't there.  And clearly some disagree with the implicit goal of
|> stable economic growth.  Scientific inquiry can not tell us what our
|> goals should be.

Most, I think, might even agree that stable economic growth was in fact a
desirable goal, and that supply-side system-tuning creates more ways to manage
it, but most definitions of "stable economic growth" are 
certainly more robust than the glib wall chart of ever-increasing GDP
proposed by Brett.  Such a view of the world, to me, seems both superficial and
wrong-headed. It is superficial in that it does not perceive that recessing GDP
may be to economic growth what winter is to spring, and it is wrong-headed to
focus on the wall chart possibly at the expense of the underlying economy.

To interpret the 80's as a "resounding success" simply because GDP climbed
linearly is neither accurate nor complete.  I for one am not sure that it
is worth trying to imitate.

|>  
|> If economics is ever to achieve any kind of scientific respectability
|> then those claiming to be economic experts must resist the temptation
|> to overinterpret the available data.

Politicize the data, to be more precise.  Its not a good idea to "train"
politicians to hide behind increasing GDP growth.  There are a number of
things that they need to concentrate on.  Which ones change constantly.

Paul Collacchi

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42686 ca.politics:7205 ba.politics:4871
From: manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:14:58 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <1992Aug27.170643.27908@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>In article <11846@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
>>In it I find only a few individuals (one is Ray
>>Radow, a self admitted member of NAMBLA) ...

>*ROY* Radow is a member of NAMBLA.  *RAY* Radow is a sports reporter.

I thank you for correcting my typo.  My apologies to Ray Radow.

It was not, and is not, my intent to cloud the NAMBLA issue further
by making mistakes like that.  I have been attempting to clarify
individual positions through rational analysis not obscure them through
emotional rhetoric.

-
dave
manley@optilink.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: QUAYLE: Acceptance speech text
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:36:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.163359.12956@hemlock.cray.com>, dadams@cray.com (David
Adams) writes:

|>In article 3357@hemlock.cray.com, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
|>writes:
|>|
|>|>             Text of Vice President Quayle's Speech
|>|[...]
|>|>     And it is time to change Congress for good.  Almost 16 years ago,
|>|> in my first speech as a member of the House of Representatives, I
|>|> proposed limiting the terms of Congress.  The Democratic Congress
|>|> tells us that it is good for the country to limit Ronald Reagan and
|>|> George Bush to 2 terms as president.  I say to them, if it is good
|>|> for the country to limit Ronald Reagan and George Bush to 2 terms,
|>|> then it would be great for the country to limit the terms of senators
|>|> like George Mitchell and Ted Kennedy, and the rest of that liberal
|>|> Democratic Congress.
|>|
|>|Of course Danny does not mention that it was the *Republican* controlled
|>|Congress that passed the 22nd (Presidental term limit) amendment.
|>
|>
|>Damn right!  The republicans were right to limit Presidential terms, and
|>they are right to seek limits to congressional terms as well!
|>
|>(Danny boy's comments make perfect sense as it is pretty commonly accepted
|>now that limiting Presidential terms was a good idea.  It seems to me
|>that most people accept the idea that limiting congressional terms is
|>a good idea too--as long as they get their own share of pork!)

The original Greek Democracies had their own form of term limitations. At the
end of his four year (50 lunar month) term, the sacred King was ritualy
sacrificed by his Tanist. This sounds quite a good idea, the idea of Clinton
chopping Bush's head off sounds quite appealing. However there was also a
downside since the Tanist upon becoming King married the previous king's wife.
Somehow I don't think that Bill and Barbara would get on... What would be even
worse is that Gore would have to shack up with Marylyn... AGGHHH!!

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:00:54 GMT
Organization: The Gizmonic Institute

miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>> 
>> So who are the 'Cultural Elite' Bush & Quayle are so fond of
>> warning us about anyway?  I *hear* about them all the time,
>> yet I know so little about them.  I *hear* Vice President
>> McCarthy...er, uh, I mean Quayle, saying that "I know who they
>> are, and they know who they are, and the American people know
>> who they are.", but somehow I never catch the part where he
>> actually says *who* they are!  Has anyone ever caught this
>> or am I the only  American who doesn't know "who they are"?
>
>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 may be the relative cultural "backwater" that I live in, but I've
never thought of the campuses I've attended as being predominantly
Liberal. Outspoken. Crabbed. Pampered. Out-of-touch. Mockingly Ironic. 
But I've never been able to ascribe Liberal/Conservative labels
reliably to the individuals I've met. I suspect that talking about
things like "Cultural Elites" "Liberal Bias in the Media" etc. is
all gas and dither. Take PBS, for example. Michael Kinsley is the
only Liberal who has a regular forum and "Crossfire" has all the
substance of a Trained Seal act. I would assume that newspaper publishers
and television network owners to be rich, Conservative-types: in
fact, back in the 60s and 70s (I'm remembering an ancient statistic)
newspapers backed Republican candidates for the Presidency 80% of the
time. Newspaper cooing attention to Ronald Reagan was what led to the
label of the "Teflon President." Some Big Name newspapers have a reputation
for liberal editorial pages, but since there has been a general 
disintegration over the last 12 years of what constitutes Liberal 
positions, I suspect that these allegations are the equivalent of
"waving the bloody flag of rebellion" during the Gilded Age.

-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Using misinformation
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:49:31 GMT

In article <27492@life.ai.mit.edu>
elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
 
[...tremendous amount of previously hashed argument deleted...]
 
>Gee, you've lost me here. Congress buys agricultural products at a
>fixed price, thus increasing the incentive to the supplier; it taxed
>oil windfalls, thus decreasing the incentive to the producer. Also,
>the majority of our oil is imported. Finally, you may want to look
>at European or Japanese oil taxes, prices, and economies when you
>make these claims.
>
>-
>- >                                - Lee Campbell
 
Well, now I see the root of your misunderstanding. In both cases
the end effect is the setting of prices far higher than would be
established by a free market. The dynamics are different, though.
In the case of oil what happened was that the producers decided
to raise prices. There was no real embargo in the sense that the
oil producers never stopped shipping oil altogether. Congress
responded by passing rationing laws- which created artificial
shortages which drove prices even higher.
 
The "second shock" came when the Carter Administration instituted
its own foolish policies. Again, I strongly recommend William
Simons' short book for a detailed discussion of the Congressional
response to the oil price increases and the baroque systems of
oil classifications that resulted as congress tried to continue
to tax domestic oil even though they had supposedly lowered the
tax to encourage new production.
 
Once oil was decontrolled, prices began to fall, and fell
continuously until gasoline had dropped to about 1/3rd of its
"oil crisis" price.
>
>                                        - Lee Campbell
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
From: matthew_c_zank@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: On-Line Copy of REPUBLICAN PLATFORM desired!
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 92 20:34:58 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Who needs a text? I can tell you what it is in a few
lines. Bush and his creeps say this "We are the gift
from from god, if you do not think the why we think
then you are bad you are anti-god, and anti-american.
The goverment sould come and control womens bodys, snice
they sould not work and have any rights, and they sould
go home and cook and have babys. Be nice to the rich
let them overwork you, rip you off, and pay for
thier tax cuts, if you don't they will export
your job to mexico" 
I hope this helps you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: more predictions
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:35:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.191128.22600@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <37285@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>
>|> Prediction - If slick willy wins, runaway deficit spending will
>|> crush growth, unemployment will skyrocket, and inflation will
>|> rise to double digits. The reasons: the deficit will push up
>|> interest rates, eliminating funds needed for REAL (not pork
>|> barrel) investment in industry. His health care policy will
>|> require employers to cut back on workers in order to pay the
>|> increased per employee costs. [and more, and more ... deleted]
>
>	In 1988, people said that if I voted for Dukakis, deficit spending
>would crush growth, unemployement would rise, the economy would stagnate,
>the national debt would skyrocket, etc.
>
>	Well, what do you know, I voted for Dukakis, and look what happened.

	And I suppose you are also one of the people who voted for the
congress.

>
>-- 
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
>                                        Alex Crain
>                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 06:48:23 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Aug31.235013.26456@midway.uchicago.edu>
Martin Guerrero <martyg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
> >Oh, a z/e/f is an entity other than the pregnant woman.  Not really a
> >separate entity, but siamese twins are two different but not separate
> >entities, and certainly not just extentions of each other.  But the
> >question is just what is the entity that is the z/e/f.  Human, yes.  A
> >person?  IMO, not until its brain is fairly well developed.
>
> At least we agree that a human can exist within the womb.
                         ^
Nope.

> How can you be a human and not a person?

You're confusing the adjective and the noun.  It's a human fetus, but it's
not a human (i.e., not a person).

> Earlier, you said that even the z/e/f is human.

It's human, but not *a* human.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bee@ms.uky.edu (Elizabeth Gilliam)
Subject: quotes by conservatives
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 08:43:48 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

I am doing some research, and I need speeches and quotes from
the following conservatives:
Bush
Quayle
Buchanan
David Duke
(and any others you can think of)


please let me know if you have these on file, know where someone
does, or maybe know some magazines that have devoted large portions
to these politicians.  (Apart from Newsweek)

thanks

-- 
elizabeth a. gilliam: bee@ms.uky.edu
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.desert-storm
From: gerard@caliban.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Gerard Fryer)
Subject: Re: Bush giving up? (Colin Powell)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:11:57 GMT

In article <183sd4INNdr3@agate.berkeley.edu>, tedrick@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
|> Bush looks so sad, tired, and defeated-looking that I feel sorry
|> for him. After all, he really meant well and tried hard, but he
|> was misled by his advisors (particularly Colin Powell, the Rasputin
|> of American politics, who screwed up Desert Storm by ending it
|> before the pursuit phase was properly exploited).
|> 
[stuff deleted]

There are a zillion reasons not to vote for Bush, and his choice of
advisors is certainly a major one.  But you can't fault them on the
conduct of the Iraq conflict (unless you object to the fact that the
war started at all, but that's a different issue).  The risks of
following the war to its logical conclusion far outweighed the
potential benefits.  Before pouring scorn on the apparently too-rapid
halt to the advance, read something about the recent history of Iraq,
Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and try to get a feel for the prevailing
sentiments in those countries.  Had the U.S. destroyed Hussein Iraq
would probably have fractured into pieces (unless the U.S. were to
maintain a puppet government to hold it all together).  While
fragmentation of the country might not have been bad in itself, you
have to think about the neighbors.  The Turks have already said that an
independent Kurdistan, even if it is entirely within Iraq's present
borders, is completely unacceptable.  The Saudis, meanwhile, are scared
that turbulence near their borders might expand into their country,
changing "Saudi Arabia" simply to "Arabia." The situation called for
prudence.
-- 
Gerard Fryer  (g.fryer@soest.hawaii.edu)      |  Ignorance is impregnable.
School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology  |   - Keith Mather (1970)
University of Hawaii at Manoa                 |
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41929 talk.politics.theory:3862 soc.culture.usa:6876 alt.conspiracy:10294
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:21:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

| >andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
| >> So, it's okay to force culture as long as you don't ask for much money
| >> from each person you're forcing it on?  Come on now.  Even "the NEA
| >> doesn't have much effect" is a more respectable position, but BOTH are
| >> inconsistent with the principle that Fitch suggested the reason
| >> Buchanan was "wrong".  Taken as a whole, Fitch's real complaint
| >> appears to be that he doesn't like the culture Buchanan would
| >> force, but has no real objection to forcing culture.

| In article <1992Aug25.041343.14754@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >You're seriously equating taxation of one dollar a year upon a
| >middle-class income with, say, the violent repression of homosexuality
| >involving the jailing of harmless persons on behalf of "family
| >values"?
| 
| Notice that "say".  It's where Fitch's strawman starts.  He invents a
| serious bogeyman and downplays the NEA, and suggests that that
| requires that he abandon the principle that he's been arguing for.
| 
| In this USA, that dollar is extracted under threat of JAIL.  Even if
| we accept Fitch's strawman, the two are the SAME.  Jail is jail.

No, it isn't.  You won't go to jail for owing the IRS one
dollar.  You will go to jail, if the family-values folks
have their say, for having sex with a man if you're a man,
and they can find out about it, even by breaking into your
house.  As everyone knows.

| >Fine.  Those are _your_ values.  If others would be as
| >open, I think it would become clear who was threatened by whom.

| Yup, pointing out that Fitch's principles are "don't mess with mine as
| we're messing with yours" is a threatening thing for me to do.

The NEA as fascist oppressor?  You're throwing them over the
plate, Andy.  Actually, I could use a little more speed on the
ball.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Cultural Elite?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:18:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug27.153228.6119@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>  Did anyone besides me see the special report on CNN this last weekend about
>  politics and Hollywood? One little stat they mentioned was that 76% of do-
>  nations from Hollywood persons goes to Democrats. It's pretty much uncon-
>  tested that the majority of movie/TV actors, producers, directors, and so
>  on are liberal, and I believe it's these people that Dan Quayle is talking
>  about.
...

    Yes, but what does it have to do with presidential politics?
    Are we going to:

        legislate popular culture?  

        do away with the First Amendment?

        "take our culture back" by "force, rooted in justice"?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43691 ca.politics:7423 ba.politics:5029
From: root@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:42:08 GMT
Reply-To: root@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Distribution: na
Organization: SGI TechPubs

<WARNING>: There is no ideological consistency in my response, so if you're
                     expecting all-liberal or all-conservative below, forget it. -JZ

In article <183397@pyramid.pyramid.com>, Rex Tener writes:
In article <12106@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>Liberal: someone that believes that the government should raise taxes,
>Nope, someone who believes that all citizens should be taxed fairly.

Fairly outrageously, in my experience. 

>>engage in income redistribution
>Actually, they want to stop income redistribution.  Stop taking from 
>the middle class and giving to the rich.

And start taking from the middle-class and giving it to the poor. Whether or
not this is a bad thing is a subject of debate. But the "take from the middle class"
is the only part that never changes from Administration to Administration. The
Rich have way of protecting themselves, and they really don't have enough money
between all of them to pay for everything, and the poor don't have much of anything. 
That leaves you and me, Bro., to pay the bills.  

>> increase regulation on businesses
>Name a regulation.

Play or Pay. (which I support, btw, but it *is* a regulation.) My dad, a dyed in the
wool Republican told me the other day that he considers the de-regulation orgy 
of the Reagan-Bush administrations to be a dismal failure. I tend to agree.  

>> and actively use state power to discourage religious belief.
>Name a state power that is discouraging religious belief.

Hey, doncha know, they're not forcing us to say a Generic Blue-Stripe
Protestant Prayer(tm) in the public schools. Since the "majority" would
like to mandate such a prayer, (to get all those wierdos on the right track
and ostracize those who don't choose to participate) clearly the force of
government is working against religious belief. It's stopping Pat Robertson
from cramming it down our collective throat. So far, they've only managed
to infect the Republican party with Fundies....they're gunning for the rest
of us. Remember, the Bible says "he who is not with us is against us." So you've
got two choices: have the government give the Protestant Church the force of
law, or have the government keep religion out of our legal life, which then, by
biblical definition, is discouragement. It's all so simple when you look at it from
the fundamentalist perspective. 

> >Clear enough?
>Not at all.

Clear as mud, just like all politics.

JZ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc