HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:38:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <1992Aug22.031705.3690@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.190659.27803@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> The President submitting a balanced budget?
>
>	How naive.
>
>	And congress will just roll over and play dead while you slash their
>reelection-errr pork barrel-- err local investment projects?

Who cares? At least in that case the President could make a convincing
argument that he isn't part of the problem. George is part of the
problem.





>Brett                                                      
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
>Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
>Disclaimer:								   NOT!


-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39505 talk.abortion:31590 alt.politics.bush:1471
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:34:40 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Aug12.210641.9317@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:

>I read an interesting editorial piece in the paper today.   It asserted
>that 'family values' is a code word for the issue of women's role in
>today's society.

Reminds me of Reagan's campaigns, where I understood that "traditional 
values" was a code word for pre-civil-rights "sensibilities".

Scary, indeed.  
Let's see...   abortion's a no-no, single motherhood (a la Murphy Brown) 
is a no-no"....

Can you say i_n_c_o_n_s_i_s_t_e_n_t ?  I knew you could. 


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: How representative are us Usenetters? (was Re: Religion In America: Hard Numbers)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 06:37:13 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug15.205927.500@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <727m8a_.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In article <11764@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>@     @ ... It will become apparent that there is a large population
>@     @ out there with whom the average USENETer has little or no
>@     @ contact.
>
>@ And I think this is a very large point that is all too often ignored
>@ in these newsgroups.
>
>@ Posters on the net are NOT in any shape or form representative of
>@ the population at large.
>
>@ Soc.motss posters are not in shape or form representative of the population
>@ OR other net groups either.
>
>	I don't see what's the point of that argument.
>
>	I know that I will be accused of elitism, which as we all know
>is _very_ Politically Incorrect, but I must point out that the Usenet
>population tends to be more educated and more knowledgeable than the
>usual run of people.

And, as is true with more intellgentsia, far more susceptible to
propaganda and intellectuloid trends.

In any case, the point was that the homosexual community at large is
not like what soc.motss posters are like -- that soc.motss is not a
representative slice.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: When in Doubt, Throw them Out (was Bush/Congressional Record)
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:17:21 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:

> Vote OUT your incumbants, _all_ of them!  If you insist on voting
> for the "lesser of two evils" rather than for those (regardless of
> party) who best represent your beliefs, at least consider the
> "evil" of the current crowd.  Can a completely new set be any
> worse?

A very few politicians have made a real effort to push the types of
reform that we need to see.  Them we should keep.  But if your
incumbent doesn't fit this description, throw the bum out.

--Scott
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Welcome to the Right-Wing Follies!
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 01:49:56 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <Bstw9u.18A@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>>From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
>>Subject: Re: Bosnia vs Kuwait/American response
>>In article <BsqqML.DI@cs.dal.ca>, kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:

>>|> 	Liberals opposed intervention in the Gulf because they
>>|> 	they opposed sacrificing human lives for a few buckets of oil. 
>>|> 	However, as the evidence mounted that Saddam's "Republican" Guard
>>|> 	was committing atrocities, ie. rape, torture, systematic executions
>>|> 	of innocent civilians, it no longer remained a matter of human
>>|> 	life and oil.  It became a matter of sacrificing armed and trained
>>|> 	military lives in order to stop the butchering of unarmed and
>>|> 	defenseless civilian lives.  At this point, the "Democratic"
>>|> 	Congress threw their full support behind military intervention,
>>|> 	as rightfully they should have done.

>>Bullshit. A majority of Democrats opposed the use of force in the Gulf.
>>Every single member of the Democratic Congressional leadership, whether
>>you are talking of the whips or the majority leaders, opposed the use of 
>>force. They threw their support unanimously behind the war effort only 
>>AFTER the war had begun, by which time they had no option but to do that.
>>Virtually no Liberal, with the possible exceptions of Joe Lieberman and
>>Al Gore, supported the war in the Senate. The people who supported it in
>>the House too, were only the foreign-policy hawks, like Solarz (who, I
>>guess, is best classified as a Cold War Liberal).

>	Bullshit?   Indeed.   But first, compare your paragraph 
>	and mine.   You echo like a broken record, but shriek
>	like a steamed kettle.

I did compare.  You gave us a load of innacurate trash.  Srinivas gave
us the facts and told us, correctly, that what you wrote was bull
shit.  Your response was to complain about his tone while ignoring the
fact that he had demonstrated that your orignal post was a bunch of
tripe.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights was (Clinton's S.S.)
Date: 15 Aug 92 09:48:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: na

crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>Can anyone tell us which party affiliation Mr. Major Owens has?

Representative Major Owens is (surprise!) a Democrat from New York.

                               -- Alane --
   /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
  /   NOBODY shares my opinions,    |    "I am a jelly doughnut"      \
 /    especially not my employer    |    -- President John F Kennedy   \
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT
Reply-To: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Organization: E 4th St Home For The Overeducated Underemployed - Chicago Div.
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:00:50 GMT

In article <2A941FCC.282@orion.oac.uci.edu> assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site) writes:
[lots of useless drivel deleted]
>Bush/Quayle '92!
>
>Kris
>kris@fs2.assist.uci.edu

I wish I could e-mail you a quarter so you could go out and buy a clue!

						reb

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:25:52 GMT

In article <26538@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@femur.ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>In article <BswBy6.ECK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug12.220315.1424@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>|> >
>|> >	They talk about "individual rights" and propose banning
>|> >abortion?
>|> >
>|> >	If that isn't an interference with individual rights, then
>|> >what is???
>|> 
>|> Loren, you miss the point.  It is simple. If one believes that the fetus
>|> is a human then it has ITS individual rights.  If you don't then it is
>|> a violation of the woman's rights.  In the former case (consistent with
>|> a pro-life stance) there is no inconsistency.  In the latter case there
>|> would be.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>|> 
>|> Tim
>
>OK Tim. Go ahead. Open the hornets nest. Let the abortion flame wars begin.
>Since you brought it up, explain to me why I should consider a 1 month old
>lump of cells with no brain and no heart as if it were alive. Also explain
>how, if say, your beliefs about life and my beliefs about life differ, why
>both of us should be ruled by yours. JESUS this debate is *tiresome!*
>							- Lee Campbell

Lee, I think you missed my point.  I am not making any statement about
abortion being right or wrong.  I am simply trying to show how the
argument can be quite consistent.

Tim

P.S.  You may notice that I wasn't the one to bring up the subject.
From: bongo@splash.Princeton.EDU (Ameet A. Ravel)
Subject: Re: faxes and other terror tactics
Followup-To: alt.flame
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:48:12 GMT

In article <vs_nfp_.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>It is interesting that the so called enlightened Democrats
>seem to espouse the same tactics of Hitler: disarm the
>public, create a national police force, and enlist the aid of  
>the media propaganda machine to make all believe that the country
>must take drastic measures to correct the so called sins of the
>prior regime. Those that follow will be as culpable as the 
>brownshirts and Hitler Youth.

Edit kill file
Insert /crisp@netcom.com/h:j
Save & Quit

Ho-hum.  :-)

-- 
Ameet A. Raval                   Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
email: bongo@splash.princeton.edu                Princeton, N.J. 08542
disclaimer: Mine, they're mine, I tell you!        phone: 609-452-6563
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:39:45 GMT


|>	Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman

His ecconomics prize is not from the institute that Nobel set up, it is a
separate, entirely bogus enterprise set up to honour right wing looney tunes.

|>        Does this mean that you're disappointed in Bush?
|>
|>        [Laughs.]  Disappointed is putting it very mildly.  I believe the
|>Bush
|>presidency has been very close to a disaster.

Well he's right there.

|>        Reagan when he came into office had four basic points: one, reduce
|>marginal taxes; two, reduce regulation; three, restrain government spending;
|>four, have a stable and noninfaltionary monetary policy.  And while he did
|>not
|>achieve them to the extent to which I would have liked, he did achieve a
|>great
|>many of them.

Running up the worlds largest budget deficit in the process. Derregulation
caused the S&L disaster. 

It's not unusual for men of 80 to be entirely disconnected from reality and
unable to accept a flaw in their pet theories. Even Einstein spent an entirely
fruitless old age trying to demolish quantum mechanics.

Milton Friedman's solution to everything is "the free market". He even tries to
claim that whaling should be entirely unreguated since "the free market" will
provide the necessary checks and balances, perhaps Friedman has not heard of the
dodo? Senility makes people forget such facts.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40814 talk.politics.theory:3756 alt.politics.elections:11051 alt.politics.marrou:853 alt.politics.bush:2250 misc.education:3172
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,misc.education
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 20 Aug 1992 17:04:44 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com

|> Eric Lee Green) writes:
|> 
|> >Unfortunately, it is an uncomfortable fact of life that federal law
|> >MANDATES bureaucrats. ...
|> 
|> >education bureaucracy, which must carefully scrutinize teaching materials
|> >and teacher activities in order to assure that we won't get sued in Federal
|> >court by a disgruntled parent (which happens several times a year, anyhow).
|> 
It is amazing that pro-voucherers believe that the vouchers would not
come with the restriction that this federal fund voucher would not be limited
to schools that meet the federal bureaucratic requirements.

"Private" schools would need to meet the same reporting requirements, the
same minimum educational requirements, etc.  Costs up, excuses down.  Of
course the "private" schools would probably have to take all comers as
well.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41108 alt.activism:15225 misc.headlines:5815 sci.econ:7017
From: dredish+@cs.cmu.edu (David Redish)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part 2: Seven more years?
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:05:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BtCL0L.LG9.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Aug21.011737.11569@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.221458.7673@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.205057.16540@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>>
>>>  Actually, government revenues increased under Reagan too. It's just that
>>>  spending increased even faster. The Laffer curve is not bogus.
>>
>>You meean , No I am rolling on the floor now you take the PHTTT! chortle
>>chuckle LAFFER CURVE SERIOUSLY!!!!  
>>Supply side economics?
>>Oh dear guess you do
>>sweet dreams in your trickle down fantasy world!
>
>Actually, Laffer curve is does work.  It is common sense, in the same
>way that Rolle's theorem in calculus is (for a curve above the x-axis
>that touches the x-axis at two different points, then there is a max
>between these points).  The supply-siders seem to have a deluded
>notion of where the max point is, and perhaps how high it is.
>
>
>--
>But this is.

Actually it is simple common sense that at 100% taxes nothing gets done 
(thus no revenue) and that at 0% taxes nothing gets taken in (thus no
revenue), but there is NOTHING to imply that the middle is a sensible
curve.  Economics is highly chaotic and as anyone who has seen any
chaos theory will realize, two points very close on one axis could
have very different outcomes.  At the endpoints the Laffer curve could well
be perfectly straight but in the middle I suspect it is much more tangled
than to be able to say that raising taxes or lowering taxes will 
have a simple effect.  

For example what are the new taxes spent on?  Throwing money into the
ocean?  Building monuments?  Building mass transit?  (note these
are examples off the top of my head, no flames on specific choices please)
Each of these will have more effect on the amount of economic growth and 
revenue brought in by taxes than a tax increase or tax decrease.

david redish
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40662 alt.activism:15105 misc.headlines:5752 sci.econ:6939
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:41:18 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Bt8HE2.6GF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>... 
>>        Does this mean that you're disappointed in Bush?
> 
>>        [Laughs.]  Disappointed is putting it very mildly.  I believe the Bush
>>presidency has been very close to a disaster.
> 
> Yes but what did Reagan really do? Under Reagan we went from the
> world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor
> nation. 

	Misleading.  We are still the worlds largets creditor nation.  "From"
implies a change in that status.

> Reagan just put everything on a charge account and now
> he's dying and *we* get to pay. Bush just inherited the mess.

	If we charged our way into prosperity, why aren't we booming now?
                                                
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's S.S. (was National Police Force)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:14:44 GMT

In article <26683@life.ai.mit.edu> elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
>I'm not asking you to give up your gun; just a little license &
>registration...

To what end?  Registration can not be required of folks who can't
legally register (self-incrimination) and can't be imposed on folks
who acquire via illegal channels.  Thus, registration is useless for
crime control purposes.  (That's the "why's"; there's also EXPERIENCE
with registration; it doesn't help with crime.  Processing time/cost
isn't a limitation, so computerization can't help.)  Registration is
good for confiscating guns from law-abiding users; is that what
registration fans are interested in?

We don't have any problems with incompetent users (knowing accident
and ownership rates and something about accidents is useful for these
types of discussions) so competence-based licensing schemes can't
help.  Licensing based on records checks is of limited utility because
of the existence of illegal channels.  (Everyone who thinks a
"cocaine" license would "work" raise your hands.)  Again, all you can
do is keep track of law-abiding gun owners who are willing to be kept
track of.  What good does that do anyone?  What's the point?

If you want to convince law-abiding gun-owners that you're going to
treat them reasonably, so they shouldn't oppose your efforts to keep
track of them, you not only have to show WHY keeping track of them is
socially useful, you have to demonstrate that you're interested in
treating them fairly.  You can't make that argument until you've shown
considerable interest in reforming some of the unreasonable gun laws.

BTW - If you use the word "compromise" and don't offer anything in
trade, they'll figure out that you really mean "appeasement" but
aren't honest enough to admit it.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Re: Listing the good reasons to vote for Bush
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:40:28 GMT

In article <=!9mdbg.michel@netcom.com> michel@netcom.com (Steve Michel) writes:
>Good post.
>
>Reminds me of what a friend said the other day: "George Bush said in 1988 
>that if I voted for Dukakis, the economy would go to hell, crime would go up,
>and the deficit would grow. Bush was right -- I voted for Dukakis and look what
>happened."
>
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Tell your friend he's got a fan in Chicago...

Vickie
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:26:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.221932.1772@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.174653.21783@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.041709.6464@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>
>>>> Are the egg and sperm cell not both alive prior
>>It is really a matter of where you draw the line in order to balance respect
>>for human life with the realities of available resources.  
>
>Do humans become mere economic units rather than special living, loving
>persons? 
>

No.  I am merely drawing the distinction between sentient human beings, who
possess the ability to love and enjoy life by virtue of a central nervous
system, and fertilized ova which differ from their mother's tissue only by
virtue of their DNA structure.  Do we need to have compassion on DNA molecules
because they are unique?  There is, of course, a continuum between the
primitive ovum and a sentient person which is why abortion should be viewed as
the least desirable form of birth control.  If possible, it should also be
restricted to the very early stages of pregnancy.  The ideal platform would
probably be between that of the Democrats and that of the Republicans (IMHO).
It would, however, appear difficult to justify the Republicans position of
opposing abortion while opposing ther implementation of programs which would
make perinatal care universally available.

Peter Lauren.